sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alistair Darling, Clerk (legislature), Elliot Morley, French Parliament, Humfrey Malins, Iain Macleod

1

Monday 2 March 2009

THE WESTMINSTER

Speakers: Professor the Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative; Professor of , University of Hull) Mr Robert Rogers, of Legislation,

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 of Government. Westminster was often described as the mother of all , but this was a mis-quotation. The original quote stated that was the mother of all parliaments. A had existed at Westminster long before it began to use what was known as the Westminster parliamentary system. The Westminster system was of three main systems of Government. There were also presidential systems and continental parliamentary systems. A presidential/ 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 of the and the . It was majoritarian. The executive dominated and operated in the legislature, as well as leading it. Parliament was crucial to the legitimisation of the . 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 . This phrase was first used in . 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 . 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 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. 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, had a system of mixed member proportional .

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 .

The 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 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 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 .

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 . The select 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 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 . 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 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.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (, Canada) asked what would happen if the Government lost the confidence of the House and about the relationship between the and Parliament.

4

Senator Kamran Murtaza () asked how Committees were formed and how Members could take leave from the House, and if they did, whether they retained their salary.

Professor Lord Norton explained that there was a difference between the relationship between the Head of State and Parliament in the UK and the General and Parliament in Canada. The Governor-General had reserved powers and could act independently whereas the Head of State in the UK was more constrained. The Governor General could be dismissed on the recommendation of the Government but could also sack the Prime Minister as happened in Canada. The advantage therefore lay with whoever acted first.

The House of Lords fulfilled functions where the time or political will was lacking in the House of Commons, thereby providing complementarity. House of Lords select committees were composed of those Members most suitably qualified to be a member of the committee based on expertise and experience. The attendance of the House of Lords was easily measured because there was an attendance allowance paid for each day and therefore statistics were collected. The constituency role was a feature of the Westminster system and in there was often no concept of the constituent. The House of Lords did not hold ballots and was self-regulating.

Mr Rogers said that in the House of Commons the composition of select committees mirrored that of the House and membership was agreed by the House. Numbers of MPs in the House of Commons was determined by legislation which determined the number of constituencies. There were currently 646 down from 659 before Scottish devolution. The next Parliament would be composed of 649 MPs. There was no ceiling in the House of Lords since appointments could continue to be made by the Government and the Appointments Commission. The role of select committees in the two Houses was different. In the House of Commons they focussed on Government structures whilst in the House of Lords they focussed on a particular subject. In the House of Lords Members were able to take formal leave of absence but could claim no allowance for this. In the House of Commons Members were paid unless suspended. The Whips were likely to take a keen interest in the attendance of Members in the House of Commons.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) asked what the meaning of Westminster was.

Hon. Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP () asked how balloting worked.

Mr Pierre Lauofo Fonotoe MP () asked about situations in which the executive dominated and Parliament was merely a formality.

Mr Rogers said that Westminster referred to the religious building, the Minster, which had been on the site long before the Parliament existed. The ballot for Prime Minster’s Questions worked by allocating questions a number and then using a random number generator to carry out the ballot.

Professor Lord Norton said that where executives dominated it was often the case that the parliament was unwilling to use powers that it possessed rather than lacking powers. New structures were often helpful, as were increases in resources, such as providing research staff. Change required political will.

5

Mr Askok Bhatt MLA (Gujarat, ) asked about the use of technology in Parliament.

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) asked what further changes were planned in procedures.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern , ) asked about budgeting.

Mr Rogers said that the provision of services electronically was a business priority of the House of Commons. Notice had been shortened for Question Time and Topical Questions had been introduced. Written Questions were being looked at by the Procedure Committee. Many questions had lost their interrogative nature and were often not actually questions. In the House of Commons the Chair regulated the speed of Question Time. The House of Commons was financially independent with an estimate agreed by the House of Commons Commission but compiled by the House staff. The House still strove for economy, efficiency and effectiveness and the National Audit Office examined expenditure. The funding of the House of Lords was directly negotiated with the Treasury

Professor Lord Norton said that the House of Lords was pushing boundaries in terms of technology. E-consultations were carried out. Question time in the House of Lords was different. The House of Lords concentrated on depth rather than breadth and only four questions were answered during question time giving seven or eight per question.

6

Monday 2 March 2009

POLITICAL UPDATE

Speakers: Mr Nigel Evans MP (Conservative) Miss Kate Hoey MP (Labour)

Chairman: Mr Paul Keetch MP (Liberal Democrat)

The Chairman welcomed delegates and introduced the speakers. Both speakers had been MPs for nearly twenty years and were known for their willingness to speak their mind.

Mr Nigel Evans MP said that the attention of all the political parties was fixed on the date of the next . The Prime Minister, Rt Hon. MP, had been tempted to call an election in October 2007. It was likely that the Labour Party would have won an election then. However, the Prime Minister had chosen not to go the polls after the Conservatives had announced at their annual conference a popular to abolish inheritance tax on estates valued over £1 million. Since the announcement of that policy, the Conservatives had been ahead in every opinion poll.

The Government had recently announced that the 2009 budget would be held on 22 April. Governments usually viewed budgets as an opportunity to boost their popularity. However, the current was constrained in what he could do by a lack of money. Vast sums of money had been spent to support the banking system. Now the Treasury was empty. The number of unemployed had risen to two million. That total would increase sharply over the next few months and would cause misery to many individuals and their families. Not only was unemployment a personal tragedy, on a wider scale it placed financial pressure on the economy because tax receipts would fall and welfare benefit payments would increase.

Mr Evans said that bankers were currently very unpopular. Sir , former Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of (RBS), had become particularly unpopular since it had been announced that he would receive an annual pension in the region of £700,000 despite the fact that RBS had recorded a record deficit of £24 billion in 2008 whilst he had been in charge. Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension would be funded by the taxpayer because the RBS had been nationalised in the autumn. The financial package would give him an income in the region of 10 times larger than an MP’s annual salary. There were suggestions that Ministers could have negotiated a smaller pension for Sir Fred, but that they had been distracted by other problems. Whoever was to blame, the public was outraged by what many perceived to be a reward for failure.

The issue of constitutional reform remained unresolved. There was no likelihood that the final composition of the would be determined before the next election. The Conservative Party favoured a House of Lords that was largely elected.

The Government had recently announced plans to privatise the Royal Mail. The decision had made some Labour MPs very angry but the Conservative opposition thought that it was policy and would support the Government when the time came to vote on the proposals.

7

In June there would be to the . The results of those elections would provide a snapshot of the parties’ electoral prospects. In the autumn it was likely that the Irish people would be asked to vote on the Lisbon . The Conservatives had promised the a referendum on the Treaty.

Mr Evans said that the war in remained an important political issue in the UK. He had voted for the war but now wished he had not. However a welcome development was that the UK was likely to withdraw its forces from Iraq during the summer of 2009. The UK’s military focus should now be on efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan.

Miss Kate Hoey MP agreed that the economy was the dominant political issue. The causes of the downturn, which had affected the whole world, were incredibly complex. It was very difficult to explain how the UK had got into such a mess and also how it would get out of it.

The electorate and the media viewed politicians as out of touch and untrustworthy. That was largely because politicians were criticised for not implementing manifesto commitments and because they introduced that the electorate had not voted for.

In the UK, the Prime Minister alone chose the date of the next General election. Understandably, Prime Ministers wanted to choose an election date that gave them the best chance of success. Most Governments went to the polls before the required them to. If that pattern was followed it meant that the election would be held in June. However it was unlikely that a General election would be held in 2009.

The proposed privatisation of the Royal Mail was extremely unpopular among Labour MPs and the general public. The Government had handled the issue badly and 130 Labour MPs had pledged to resist the Government’s plans. Lord Mandelson, for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, had never been popular within the Labour Party and the proposed changes to the Royal Mail had made him less popular. His current position was made more difficult because he was a member of the House of Lords and so was not accountable to MPs in the House of Commons. The Royal Mail required some modernisation but the Government had gone about it in the wrong way. At a time when the Government had nationalised private banks, it was wrong to privatise a much-loved public service.

Another political issue was terrorism and security. It was the first duty of a government to protect its people. However, it must not do that at the expense of individual liberty. The House of Lords, although not elected, had been more effective than the House of Commons at protecting the public’s liberty.

The Chairman agreed that terrorism, constitutional reform, and the economy were the current dominant political issues. The next year which led up the next general election was likely to be an exciting time in UK .

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP () said that politicians had many roles but that their primary responsibility should be to hold the executive to account. However, her constituents seemed to

8

regard her role more as a social worker which made it difficult for her to do her job as effectively as she would want.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin MNA (Quebec, Canada) wondered how the British public had reacted to the massive growth in public debt which had followed the rescue of the banking sector.

Miss Hoey explained that the role of UK MPs had changed a great deal in the twenty years that she had been an MP. The development of instant communications through the Internet, as well as the televising of parliamentary proceedings, had made MPs more accessible to the media and their constituents. Although there were some regrettable consequences of both, including the loss of some privacy, in general it was a good .

It was important that politicians did not lose sight of the important local issues that concerned their constituents. Lambeth Council, where she lived, was not very efficient and over the years many people had asked for her help to resolve a problem that had been the responsibility of the Council to resolve. However, sometimes it was more important to solve a constituent’s problem than to engage in ideological debates.

Mr Evans said that MPs were easily lampooned. It was easier for the media to criticise MPs unfairly about their expenses than for it to explain the good work that MPs of all parties carried out.

The figures on public debt were so large that they were difficult to comprehend. However, the state of the economy had begun to have an effect on those people who had lost money in foreign banks or who had experienced negative in their houses.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP () asked whether the UK Government should apologise for invading Iraq.

Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP () wondered what new measures would be proposed in the forthcoming budget and whether they would address the UK’s current economic problems.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) questioned why the media criticised UK politicians so harshly.

Mr Evans reiterated his regret that he had backed the war in Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein had been a brutal tyrant who had deserved to be removed from power, but the British people had been misled about the reasons for the war.

The budget in April presented the Government with a dilemma. Businesses, banks, and individuals all required money, but the Treasury had no money to give away. It was difficult to predict what the Chancellor had planned. However his room for manoeuvre was limited.

As regarded the reputation of MPs, many did not help their reputation. The recent controversy about Members’ allowances had damaged the reputation of all politicians. However, the media did not give equivalent coverage to the good work that MPs did. Most journalists were not subject to the same stringent rules on expenses as politicians.

9

Miss Hoey said that there was a general disillusionment with politicians. Turnout at general elections had been poor. The reasons for that were complex and varied, but it would help if politicians acted with greater integrity.

Miss Hoey had voted against the Iraq war. The biggest and most costly mistake had been the insufficient focus on what to do after the invasion.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked whether, given the economic downturn in the UK, the UK’s aid budget to less developed countries would be slashed.

Hon. Sandy John Arissol MNA (Seychelles) said that he was often pestered by his constituents to give them presents for birthdays and other notable occasions. He wondered where politicians should draw the line when they gave help to their constituents.

Mrs Beverley Isles (Clerk, Canada) asked whether there were any plans to reform the UK Parliament’s procedures.

Miss Hoey said that the UK had been a generous overseas donor over recent years. The Prime Minister was personally committed to the issue. The British people demanded that money was spent effectively and was not directed at corrupt regimes. The UK would not give money for development to while it was led by President Mugabe.

It was not advisable for politicians to give presents to constituents.

A ’s Conference had been convened to consider possible changes to parliamentary proceedings and the way that it worked more generally.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (, Australia) asked whether the party whips were strict when they enforced discipline and what sanctions they could apply to MPs if they rebelled against the party line.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked to what extent back bench MPs could influence Government policy.

Miss Hoey said that experienced backbenchers could wield significant influence on Governments if they chose the right issue at the right time.

The party whips recognised that MPs did not vote against their party lightly. A great deal of forethought always accompanied such a decision. Although it was a ’s job to try to persuade MPs to vote with the party, the use of over-bearing tactics would prove counter-productive.

The Chairman thanked everyone for their contribution to a very interesting session.

10

Tuesday 3 March 2009

THE SPEAKER

Speaker: Rt Hon. Michael Martin MP (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Chair: Sir DL MP (Conservative)

No notes are available for this session.

11

Tuesday 3 March 2009

BICAMERALISM: THE WORK OF A SECOND CHAMBER

Speaker: Rt Hon. Baroness Hayman (Lord Speaker)

Chairman: Rt Hon. the Lord Anderson of Swansea DL (Labour)

The Chairman welcomed the delegates. He said that, although in itself was not unusual, the system could seem puzzling because the second chamber was not elected, other than the closed elections held among the hereditary element of the membership. Lord Anderson said that the House of Lords had defeated the Government far more times than the House of Commons. Since 1997 the House of Commons had defeated the Government four times; the House of Lords had defeated the Government over five hundred times in that same period. Lord Anderson also noted that many ministers sat in the Lords, including a number with high profile portfolios due to the financial crisis, such as Lord Mandelson and Lord Myners.

Lord Anderson introduced Baroness Hayman to the delegates. He said that Baroness Hayman’s role as Lord Speaker proved that there could be radical change within continuity. Baroness Hayman had specialised in health and education in her early career, before serving as an MP in the House of Commons. She had been appointed to the House of Lords in 1990 and had held various positions in the Government. In 2006 she had been elected as the very first Lord Speaker, and had used the role to embark on a number of , most notably that of engaging young people with the political process. As the first Lord Speaker, Baroness Hayman had the opportunity to set the tone for others to follow.

Baroness Hayman thanked Lord Anderson for his introduction. She said that although she would not recommend directly transposing the House of Lords model to any other parliament, she had noted that people were always very generous in their respect for the Westminster system.

The 1911 Parliament Act had set in train a process of reform that had brought about the modern House of Lords. It was interesting to look at the evolution of the second chamber. Internationally, there were many variants of parliamentary models. Many Commonwealth parliaments managed well with unicameral systems. One of the advantages of the unicameral model was its clarity of democratic responsibility. This issue also emerged in debates on the ideal membership of the House of Lords.

Baroness Hayman noted that, internationally, there was much more consistency in characteristics of lower chambers, such as direct representation and representation by population. In contrast, upper houses were often the result of and geography, and sometimes represented different social structures and attitudes. Some countries had constitutional courts that did some of the work that may otherwise have been undertaken by second chambers. In many countries second chambers followed a historical model (such as in the UK), but there could also be more modern motivations. For example, Rwanda had set up a second chamber with the aim of entrenching the

12

representation of different ethnic groups and the promotion of human rights within a stable environment.

The Lord Speaker’s role was very different to that of the Commons Speaker. Baroness Hayman said that the House of Lords was generally much better behaved (not only because of the higher average age of the Members, but also because there was less interest in tribal politics) and valued self- regulation. Before the post of Lord Speaker had been established, the had ‘moonlighted’ as Speaker. This had been one small part of his role, which had also included appointing most senior judges and holding a post. Baroness Hayman believed the historical role of the Lord Chancellor had not contributed to the effective , and had welcomed the changes brought by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The judicial capacity of the House of Lords would soon pass to the new Supreme Court. The Lord Chancellor had ceased to act as Speaker.

Baroness Hayman was pleased to have won the opportunity to be the first ever Lord Speaker, but there was a great responsibility to make things work. The House of Lords did not want someone to direct the chamber. A key part of the Lord Speaker’s role was connecting with the public, especially young people. Many young people viewed political structures as a barrier rather than an opportunity. The Lord Speaker needed to beat the drum for the role of Parliament as a place for debating the issues that were close to people’s hearts.

The role of the House of Lords had changed enormously in recent decades. Fifty years ago only hereditary peers had sat in the Lords, and even then female hereditary peers were excluded. The members of the House were mostly aristocratic, nearly all privately educated, and the vast majority belonged to the . The first four women were admitted in 1958, as part of the first group of life peers. This set in motion a series of changes in membership, which culminated with the 1999 changes which removed all but a small group of hereditary peers. Fifty per cent of current members had joined the House in the last ten years. In addition, the House of Lords had twice as many ethnic minority members as the House of Commons. There was also wide religious representation. A third of frontbenchers in the Lords were women, as had been four out of the last five Leaders of the House. The House of Lords also had a good record for allowing those with disabilities to perform as . As a chamber where many members were subject experts who had already achieved in their fields, the average age was naturally higher than that of the Commons, but the youngest member of the House of Lords was only 34. There was a wide diversity of experience and expertise in the Lords and, perhaps most importantly, more members of the Lords had significant experience of life outside politics.

The House of Lords operated on the basis that no party should have an inbuilt majority. This meant that the Government could not rely on numbers only to win a vote; instead, it had to win the argument. The House of Commons often focused on the big issues when considering a Bill, while the House of Lords was able to undertake vital line by line scrutiny. The House of Lords had caused hundreds of amendments to be made to government Bills, and in the majority of cases these amendments were accepted by the Government as an improvement. The House of Lords functioned extremely well as a revising chamber.

13

The House of Lords also functioned well in conducting scrutiny and holding the Government to account. This was especially the case given the importance of the some of the ministers in the Lords. In particular, the House of Lords Select Committee system was widely respected for its in depth scrutiny work.

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) said that his assembly was exploring the idea of elections to the , and asked for any comments or advice from the speakers.

Mr Bernard Dalinting (Clerk, Sabah, ) asked how people were chosen for admission to the Lords, and whether anyone could apply.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether Members of the House of Lords received a salary. She also asked the Lord Speaker to share her experiences as a female speaker, and on the progress of women in Parliament.

Baroness Hayman explained that Members of the House of Lords were not salaried. The House operated on a deliberate part-time arrangement, with Members receiving expenses only when they attended the House. Many Members of the House continued their professional career on the ‘outside’. This was seen as an advantage because they brought added expertise to the House’s work.

Baroness Hayman said that the House of Lords was a very good place for women to operate. The appointments system had made it easier to ensure a diverse composition of Members. 40 per cent of those appointed to the Lords in the last ten years had been women. Many women who had achieved a high position in the Lords had benefitted from the experiences they had gained outside politics. Experience of the wider world (even that of motherhood and raising a family) was seen as important in the House of Lords. Women did not have to have been career politicians since the age of 25 in order to succeed. However, there remained deep systemic obstacles to be overcome, not only in Parliament but also in society more widely.

Baroness Hayman explained that Members of the House of Lords were appointed rather than elected. There was a two-pronged system of appointments. Those who were not members of a could apply to the Appointments Commission and, if successful, would join the ranks of the Crossbench Peers. Political peers were nominated by their parties, and then vetted by the Appointments Commission.

There was an ongoing debate over whether there should be elections for appointment to the Lords. Baroness Hayman said this would be very difficult to achieve. No one wanted a second chamber that was a pale replica of the , a consolation prize for those who could not get into the House of Commons. If the second chamber was to have real value, it needed to offer something different to the House of Commons. The second chamber should be neither a replica nor a rival.

At the moment the House of Lords had significantly less power than the House of Commons. For instance, it had no powers in relation to finance or taxation, and ultimately it could only delay legislation rather than overturning it. The public valued the fact that the House of Lords was not composed solely of career politicians, and that the membership included a range of expertise and

14

values. It was necessary to ask what was most important in a second chamber: expertise, values and independence, or accountability and legitimacy. It was difficult to reconcile these two aspects. Baroness Hayman said that it was possible for a chamber to achieve legitimacy without being elected.

Hon. Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) explained that the Kenyan Upper House had been abolished. He asked whether the House of Lords was incompatible with , for example if it rejected legislation approved by the elected chamber.

Mr Brian Ntundo MP () asked whether political parties were able to put forward MPs for appointment to the House of Lords.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked Baroness Hayman if she felt more at home in the Lords or the Commons.

Baroness Hayman said that the House of Commons had been a very different experience. A Member of the House of Commons was at the centre of political debate, while the House of Lords was calmer and more deliberative.

Baroness Hayman said that Members of the House of Commons often ended up as Members of the House of Lords, but before making the move they had to cease being an MP and then be recommended by their parties.

On the subject of Kenya, Baroness Hayman said that every country must find its own destiny. In the United Kingdom conflict had been resolved by establishing differentiated powers between the elected House and the appointed House. In a system with two elected chambers there would still be a need to find a way of resolving conflict, to ensure the two Houses complemented each other rather than acting as rivals.

The Chairman thanked Baroness Hayman for addressing the conference.

15

Tuesday 3 March 2009

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

Speakers: Sir Robert Smith Bt MP (Liberal Democrats) Ms Jacqy Sharpe (Principal Clerk, Table Office, House of Commons)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman welcomed the speakers.

Sir Robert Smith Bt MP introduced himself as a member of the Procedure Committee, which was conducting an inquiry into parliamentary questions in the House of Commons. Questions were one form of holding the Government to account in Parliament: the procedure had evolved into a key method whereby Members could extract information from the Government. Procedures were evolving: the present Procedure Committee inquiry was examining practices relating to questions for written answer, and a report in 2002, in which Sir Robert had also participated, had led to a significant reform to the handling of questions for oral answer.

Prime Minister’s Questions was the aspect of parliamentary questions with the highest profile, but it was the least informative aspect of questions: Sir Robert regarded it as the tip of the iceberg. Prime Minister’s Questions allowed Members on all sides of the House to highlight topical issues: as a consequence the Prime Minister needed extensive briefing beforehand and a substantial briefing folder. Several hundred questions for written answer were tabled each day, and in addition Ministers from each Department answered questions orally in the House at the start of business from Monday to Thursday according to a five-week rota.

All questions had to be tabled by Members: they could table questions either in person in the Table Office (where they could seek advice on drafting), by post or via an electronic tabling system on the Parliamentary network introduced in 2002.

Questions for oral answer had to be tabled no later than three sitting days before the time designated for answer. Members wishing to ask a question in the Chamber had their names entered into a ballot and names were drawn at random. At Question Time the Speaker would call each Member in turn to put the question printed on the Order Paper: the Member was then entitled to ask a supplementary question without notice. Other Members rising in their places could then be called by the Speaker to ask further supplementaries. In calling such supplementaries, the Speaker had to gauge the level of interest in the subject and its relevance.

The three-day notice period was a relatively recent innovation, recommended by the Procedure Committee in its 2002 report: prior to that Members had had to give 14 days’ notice. A further and more recent innovation had been to allocate the last ten or fifteen minutes of each question slot to so-called topical questions, where Members drawn by ballot could ask questions with no notice at all.

16

Sir Robert noted that Members adopted many different approaches to tabling written Questions to seek information or to press for action. Some eschewed Questions completely, opting to correspond directly with Ministers; others asked Questions to elicit Government statistics, to provoke responses to constituency concerns, or to highlight weaknesses in Government policy. There was no limit on the number of questions which could be tabled for “ordinary written answer”, but Members had a daily limit of five “named day written answer” questions (questions for which they could name the day on which the response should be given).

The volume of questions for written answer had grown substantially in the last ten years, not least because of pressure from outside organisations monitoring the activities of Members: the tabling of Questions was one of the few quantifiable measures of a Member’s activity. Sir Robert noted the effect of the increase on the timeliness of answers received to questions and on the resources available to answer them: Members were in general now receiving answers which were less full and more delayed.

One remedy for Members seeking information was to use the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request information from the Government. This was not a , though it had the benefit of allowing an against a failure to respond to the request once 20 days had elapsed. The Procedure Committee was examining whether a similar system of appeals could be put in place in relation to parliamentary questions.

Questions had two purposes: to seek information or to press for action. The process was a dynamic one: every time a new method was found to open the Government to scrutiny through Parliamentary questions, it seemed that the Government managed to come up with a means of avoiding it. Despite this, the process was still a vital means of holding the Government to account.

Ms Jacqy Sharpe remarked that in the 2006-07 Session almost 58,000 questions for written answer and almost 4,000 for oral answer had been tabled. The Table Office had the authority, delegated by the Speaker, to edit questions submitted for tabling for compliance with House style and to examine them for compliance with the rules of the House governing Questions. Questions which appeared to breach the rules were referred to the Principal Clerk for a ruling and subsequently referred back to the tabling Member for discussion. A Member who was unhappy with a Table Office ruling could make representations to the Speaker. The Table Office’s practice was to try to find a means for a question to be tabled within the rules wherever possible.

The Government’s most recent estimate of the average cost of answering a question was £410 for a question for oral answer and £149 for a question for written answer. The Government applied a discretionary cost limit above which the cost of answering a question was considered disproportionate, though this could be waived if it was considered in the to provide an answer: the so-called disproportionate cost limit was currently £750.

Ms Sharpe noted some further categories of questions. It had recently been agreed that Members ought to be able to table questions during the Summer and to receive answers. Members were now permitted to submit questions for written answer on three designated days in September when the House was not sitting. She also noted the urgent question procedure (formerly known as “private notice questions”), where a Member could apply to the Speaker for the right to ask a

17

question on a matter of urgent public importance. If the Speaker granted the request, the Minister responsible would be required to come to the House to give an oral answer to the Question at the end of Question Time that day and to be further questioned.

The was opened to questions.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked whether television broadcasts of Question Time showed the subject of the question as it was being broadcast.

Hon. Dr Joseph Sammut MP () asked what account the Government took in providing the answer of the effort which was required.

Mr Brian Ntundu MP (Zambia) asked whether a Member who was not present at Question Time to put his question still received an answer.

Sir Robert answered that the BBC Parliament channel, when broadcasting Question Time, broadcast an edited text of each question as it was being asked and answered. It was frustrating to all concerned when Members were not present to ask the questions in their name at Question Time, not least because Opposition front-benchers might have planned a series of supplementary questions on the issue to be raised, and if the question was not called they would not be able to pursue them. A question which had not been called did not receive any answer.

Ms Sharpe noted that the cost limit for questions was calculated on the cost incurred in answering the question, including the staff time and effort involved: it had last been updated in December 2008. Members who had not received answers to Questions owing to the disproportionate cost involved might consider tabling further questions asking for information over a shorter period, for example.

The Chairman noted that he had had to deal with some bizarre questions when he had worked at the Ministry of Defence, including one on the number of pairs of socks provided to the Armed Forces.

Hon. Mary Salifu Bofero MP (Ghana) asked whether party whips had any influence over the way in which questions were asked.

Mrs Beverley Isles (Clerk, Canada) noted that in the Canadian House of Commons a Member dissatisfied with an answer could raise the issue on the adjournment of the House that day if notice was given within one hour of Question Time and asked if there was a similar procedure at Westminster.

Mr Glen Hart MLA (, Canada) asked what the procedure was for departmental Ministers answering questions orally; how long the questions usually lasted, and how many Ministers participated.

Sir Robert did not think his party whips tried to exert any influence over the questions he might ask in the Chamber, though it was well-known that whips of all parties routinely circulated texts of questions for oral answer which Members might consider tabling. It was conceivable that Members

18

could be influenced to withdraw questions, though he was not aware of that sort of negative pressure. A Member dissatisfied with an oral answer to a question could give notice immediately that he or she planned to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House, but this did not give a right to raise the subject that day: the Member would have to enter the Speaker’s ballot for end-of- day adjournment debates. Indicating that a matter would be raised on the Adjournment had the effect of stemming any further questions on the matter at the Question Time in question. There was a strong case to be made for some formal challenge to inadequate answers, and the matter was under active consideration in the Procedure Committee’s inquiry.

Expanding on the arrangements for departmental Question Time, Sir Robert noted that most Departments had up to one hour to answer questions, though questions to territorial Departments (the Scotland, and Northern Offices) lasted just 30 minutes. Ministers answered questions without the aid of officials, and could not pass questions over to them as they could in a select committee, though officials sitting in the official “box” adjacent to the Government benches could pass briefing notes to the Ministerial team.

Ms Sharpe elaborated on the arrangements for departmental Questions: a rota was issued by the Table Office, with the Government’s approval, setting out the time and date of each Question Time in advance and also indicating the last date and time for tabling of Questions for the random “shuffle” for each slot. Members could follow up unsatisfactory answers to Questions for written answer by tabling “pursuant” Questions.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) noted that there was a clause in the Sierra Leone Constitution which prohibited party whips from taking action against their MPs.

Mr P. K. Grover (Clerk, India) asked whether there were any limits on the topical questions which could be asked without notice at the end of Question Time, and how many questions could be asked.

Mr Bernard Dalinting (Clerk, Sabah, Malaysia) asked whether questions to the Prime Minister took precedence over departmental Question Times.

Sir Robert answered the latter question by noting that Prime Minister’s Questions was on a weekly rota separate from that of departmental Questions. Ministers had no formal notice of the matters to be raised as topical questions. His experience had been that the Speaker tried to get in as many as possible of the Members selected to ask topical questions (between eight and ten) while preserving the overall balance of Question Time. He was not aware that any Member had had the party whip withdrawn merely for asking awkward questions of the Government.

Hon. Jane Aagard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) noted that all questions in the Australian Federal Parliament were asked without notice, though Government backbenchers would often give informal notice to the Government of the subject of their question. She wondered whether the practice of asking questions enabling Ministers to trumpet the Government’s achievements—known in Australia as “Dorothy Dix questions”—was prevalent at Westminster.

19

Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) asked how many supplementaries to a Question for oral answer could be asked.

Hon. Maser Kujat MP (Malaysia) asked whether any priority was given at Question Time to issues identified as the responsibility of regional administrations.

Sir Robert observed that so-called “Dorothy Dixers” were often asked by Government back- benchers, sometimes inspired by their whips: some Members were better than others at concealing this stratagem. Back-benchers were entitled to ask one supplementary question following the initial answer to their question, but party front-benchers could ask a number of supplementary questions at any time during the question slot: the Official Opposition was entitled to ask up to six supplementaries and the Liberal Democrats two. Members were expected to use their discretion as to whether to give a national or local focus to their questions, though a question on a very local issue would reduce the scope of the answer and the scope for subsequent supplementary questions.

Dr Seh Hong Ong MP () asked what action the Speaker took where more than one question was being asked as a supplementary.

Sir Robert noted that Members and Ministers who asked long-winded questions and gave long- winded answers during a time-limited Question Time were never popular: some Members were more skilful than others in getting a good deal of information into a question. The Speaker generally had the support of all back-benchers in his efforts to limit the length of questions and answers.

Sir Robert closed his remarks by praising the work of the Table Office and its clerks: it was widely recognised that Table Office clerks were there to help Members achieve their objectives through questions, and they acted as facilitators to Members rather than gatekeepers for the system.

The Chairman thanked Sir Robert and Ms Sharpe and closed the session.

20

Tuesday 3 March 2009

DEBATES

Speakers: Rt Hon. Greg Knight MP (Conservative; Chairman, Procedure Committee) Mr MP (Labour; Member, Procedure Committee)

Chairman: Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative; Member, Procedure Committee)

The Chairman introduced Mr Greg Knight MP, Chairman of the Procedure Committee and a former Minister and under ’s Government; and Mr Eric Illsley MP, a member of the Procedure Committee who had been a for 22 years, during which time he had been a front bench spokesman and a whip for the Labour party. Both panel members had constituencies in Yorkshire and were experienced speakers.

Rt Hon. Greg Knight MP said that he would talk about the purpose of debates and the rules of behaviour that applied.

Debates had a number of purposes. Foremost was the deployment of political argument: debates were opportunities to challenge, criticise and explain subjects. On a bill, debates preceded an attempt to change the law and were therefore of paramount importance.

Debates also provided speakers with exposure and visible representation in front of colleagues, the media and, through them, the wider public. Frequently Members of Parliament used debates not to change the law, but to raise local issues or draw attention to particular causes.

Mr Knight questioned whether debates changed minds. In the short term he did not believe this to be the case because most politicians went into debates with a fixed viewpoint, concerned only to put their views across. However, debates could plant the seeds for change. Even when the vote was lost on a particular issue, speakers in a debate would have started the process which would eventually change views and perhaps alter Government policy. In his experience, a speaker had only succeeded in changing the outcome of a debate twice.

Mr Knight observed that debates revealed levels of support or opposition for a particular policy or . The opposition could use debates for political point-scoring. Some junior Members of Parliament had been promoted to Ministerial posts on the basis of their performance in a debate. He gave the example of , an unknown Conservative backbencher under Churchill, who answered , an unrivalled Labour orator, in a debate. Churchill had stayed late in the House of Commons and heard Macleod’s speech. He was so impressed that he promoted Macleod to a Ministerial role.

Sometimes it was better to remain silent in a debate. Mr Knight quoted , who had said that, in politics, it was better to be remembered for what you had not said than for what you had said. A good politician knew when to keep quiet as well as when to speak up. “Rent a quote” politicians always elicited a groan in the House of Commons when they stood up to speak.

21

Similarly, effective debating was not proportionate to the length of a speech. Mr Knight gave the example of a friend who had spent two hours preparing one 30-minute speech against the smoking ban in private clubs. Mr Knight had not had the time to prepare a speech on the subject but had made a one-sentence intervention in the debate. The following day, his friend’s speech was not reported, but his own intervention made the headlines. The media liked soundbites. A politician had multiple audiences and needed to think about how best to communicate with all of them.

Mr Knight noted that, whilst the public liked speakers to show some emotion, losing one’s temper whilst speaking tended to render speeches ineffective. Politicians needed to remember that when they were on the television they were in someone’s front room. Nobody liked to have ranting and raving in their home. Lord Hailsham was an expert in the use of controlled emotion in speeches. He would make an emotional statement at the start of a speech but then go on to make his arguments calmly and rationally.

Members of the House of Commons observed rules of behaviour in debates. Members had to speak in their place. Mr Knight recalled one occasion on which Lord Janner, then an MP, was told by the Speaker not to perambulate whilst addressing the House. Members were also not permitted to address one another directly, but had to address each other through the Chair, using terms of address such as “the Honourable Lady”. This rule helped to depersonalise the debate.

By convention, Members wishing to speak in a debate notified the Speaker in advance of their intention. As a courtesy they were expected to be in their seat for the opening speeches of the debate; for the speech preceding their own speech; for the subsequent speech; and again for the winding up. This convention reminded Members that they were participating in a debate, not a monologue.

There were also rules about the use of “unparliamentary” language. For example, a Member who called another Member a “liar” would be asked to withdraw the remark or leave the Chamber. Some Members were able to find a way round this rule: famously Churchill had accused another Member of “terminological inexactitude” and a Labour Member had recently described a Member on the opposition benches as being “like Janus” in order to avoid using the term “two-faced”.

Mr Knight believed that a speech needed a strong start and a strong finish. Humour should be used judiciously and could be devastating. He gave the example of Ronald Reagan who, when he was seeking election for a second term as President, faced questions about whether or not he was too old to do the job. Rather than releasing his medical records, Reagan opted to answer a question posed to him in a debate by saying that he was not prepared to comment on the youth and inexperience of his opponent. He faced no further such questions.

Mr Eric Illsley MP said that it was always a pleasure to follow Mr Knight when making a speech, although he did not always relish debating with him because he was the author of two books on the use of honourable insults and had a devastating wit.

Mr Illsley wanted to explain the opportunities for debate open to Members of the House of Commons. The Chamber had been built, and indeed rebuilt, as a debating chamber, with benches facing each other. It was not big enough for all Members of Parliament to have a seat at once, but it

22

was rarely full because only those with an interest in a particular debate tended to attend. Members were able to intervene on each other, so the Chamber was not a place for set piece speeches.

Legislation was debated in the Chamber. Bills received a formal first there. Approximately two weeks later there would be a second reading debate. A further debate would take place once a bill had been through committee, at report stage. Finally, a short debate would take place for third reading. Thus Members had three opportunities to speak in the Chamber on pieces of legislation that were before Parliament.

Mr Illsley noted that the Speaker would sometimes place a time limit on speeches on a bill because of the number of Members wishing to speak. A notable annual exception to this was the Finance Bill. Debate on this piece of legislation could not be curtailed, so the House could debate throughout the night if Members wished.

The Government could schedule “Government debates”. The most famous example of this was the debate on the Queen’s speech which took place every year over a period of several days. A further example was the annual budget debate on the Chancellor’s proposed budget. This year the budget debate was likely to attract more interest than usual because of the global financial slowdown. There was also a St David’s Day debate on Welsh affairs each year; and a debate on defence matters.

20 days each year were set aside for debates on subjects chosen by the opposition. The UK parliament was the first parliament to adopt this practice. The opposition used these debates to discuss topical issues. For example, the previous week there had been a debate on the proposed sale by the Government of the Royal Mail.

Mr Illsley noted that one of the most effective means for a Member to secure a debate was to put their name down for an “adjournment debate”. These took place every day at the end of the main business of the House and lasted for a maximum of 30 minutes. Members were guaranteed a response from a Minister in these debates. The last day before each recess was also given over to adjournment debates.

The previous year had seen the introduction of “topical debates”. Backbenchers could apply to the Leader of the House to have a debate on a topical issue the following Thursday.

Pressure on speaking time in the House had resulted in the creation of a secondary Chamber, called Westminster Hall, where adjournment debates could take place. This presented opportunities for select committees to debate their reports.

The Chairman thanked both speakers and opened the floor to questions.

Hon. Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) asked at what stage Members became involved in the Finance Bill.

Mr Illsley said that the Finance Bill was the legislation needed to implement the budget. It was a Government Bill.

23

Senator Ilyas Ahmed Bilour (Pakistan) asked whether a Member could speak in a debate on an amendment to a Bill, even if he had not moved that amendment.

Mr Knight said that a Member could choose not to move an amendment that he had tabled. However, once an amendment had been moved, it became the property of the House and anyone could speak in the debate on it. Thus one person could do the work of many.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) observed that shorter speeches tended to generate greater headlines but asked about the rules on .

Mr Illsley said that the Speaker had discretion to impose a time-limit on speeches if many Members wanted to speak in a debate. Front-bench spokespeople were not time-limited, however, and this tended to squeeze the time available to backbenchers.

Mr Knight said that the Speaker’s time limit was imposed on the basis of interest expressed to him before a debate took place. On Private Members’ business there were no time limits. If a Member had the stamina, he could talk on a single amendment for hours.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked if there was a Standing Order providing for the motion “That the Member no longer be heard”.

Mr Knight said that there was a motion “That the question be now put”. The Speaker had discretion on whether or not to accept this. For the motion to be passed, 100 people had to vote for it. The motion could not be moved during the speech of the mover of the amendment, who could therefore talk out a bill in this way.

Mr Brian Ntundu MP (Zambia) asked whether there was a handbook citing all the expressions deemed to be unparliamentary.

Mr Knight said that it was felt that the existence of such a handbook would unduly fetter the Speaker. The decision on was vested in the Chair, but there were and context was a helpful guide.

Mr Kevin Shiels (Clerk, ) said that twice recently in the Northern Ireland Assembly a Member had been asked to withdraw their unparliamentary remarks. They had refused, were obliged to leave and had been clapped out. He asked what sanctions could be imposed by the Speaker when clapping occurred.

Mr Illsley said that the Speaker had no sanctions but was able to impose his authority by “naming” the Member in question, which meant that the Member would be excluded for a certain period of time afterwards. When resigned as Prime Minister, the Chamber broke into spontaneous applause, but this had been accepted by the Speaker.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked when a debate ended.

24

Mr Knight said that debates ended at “the moment of interruption” unless a special business motion was in place to vary the finishing time. When the clock struck, the debate ended and the question had to be put immediately. It was possible for the Minister to talk his own bill out, so Ministers were careful to sit down slightly in advance of the moment of interruption.

The Chairman thanked both the Speakers.

25

Tuesday 3 March 2009

TAXATION AND PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: PARLIAMENT’S ROLE

Speakers: Mr MP (Conservative; Member, Finance Bill 2008 Committee)

Chairman: Lord Wakeham (Conservative; Member, Economic Affairs Sub-Committee on the Finance Bill)

The Chairman introduced himself to the delegation and explained that he was a former Leader of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. He had been a shadow Treasury Minister, Chief Whip (the official of which is the to the Treasury), and Chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee in the House of Lords.

Lord Wakeham emphasised that the control of expenditure was an essential part of a parliamentary democracy.

Mr Greg Hands MP introduced himself and reported that he was a member of the Finance Bill Committee in the House of Commons. Before becoming a Member of Parliament in 2005 he had worked as a banker and was the only MP in the House who had worked on the banking trading floor. Despite wishing to become more involved in foreign affairs, after attending a debate on the Floor of the House about (a British Bank) he found himself engrossed in the subject of financial scrutiny within Parliament. He found that he had a great deal of knowledge and was therefore put to work on the Finance Bill: he had recently become Shadow Treasury Minister.

Parliament was about “supply”. Annually £650 billion of public expenditure and taxation was approved by Parliament and there was a disequilibrium between spending and the public deficit.

Historically in medieval times the King would summon Parliament to seek to raise additional funds for going to war. In 1640 the challenged Charles I and the existing system. A Resolution in 1671 cited “that in all aids given to the king by the Commons, the rate or tax ought not to be altered by the Lords”. 1860 saw the introduction of the Paper Duties Bill, which was rejected by the House of Lords. 1909, saw a confrontation between the Liberal Party (in Government) and the House of Lords, when the Lords vetoed Lloyd George’s “People’s Budget”. Following two general elections in 1910 this led to the which curbed the fiscal powers of the Lords.

1979 saw the introduction of the Planning cycle and the Budget cycle. There were four main strands to Parliament’s financial role but it could be difficult to know which stage of the cycle Parliament was in as it was a very complicated system. He outlined the various different processes that Parliament undertook regarding financial scrutiny.

Firstly, the Comprehensive Spending Review. This had been as a result of the Government’s desire to forward plan in 1998. The Comprehensive Spending Review was a method by which Government departments agreed proposed expenditure and performance targets: the last CSR had been in 2007 and the next would be in 2010.

26

Secondly the Budget, an annual event for the management of revenue.

Thirdly, Estimates. These provided an opportunity for Parliament to authorise public expenditure. Each year three days of debate were held before Parliament approved the proposed expenditure of each Government department.

Fourthly, the Report cycle, a review process whereby Parliament looked back on performance of departments and reviewed how the money had been spent.

He noted that there were other aspects of financial scrutiny. Every five weeks each government department answered questions in the House. The Minister answered questions about the performance of his or her Department. . Members could also submit written questions and the answers received contributed towards the process of financial scrutiny.

The House of Commons also had a Public Accounts Committee, a select committee comprising of Members from all main parties. Its role was to examine reports from the National Audit Office, which was responsible for the auditing of performance of most government departments and examining how money was spent. The National Audit Office was headed by the Comptroller and Auditor General (who was an officer of the House of Commons).

Departmental select committees, had the power to examine expenditure of government departments but often focused to a greater extent on policy issues.

He introduced the Budget cycle. The first Budget had been held in 1733 under Walpole who was both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The next Budget was to be on 22nd April 2009. The Budget was always a media event; and Members placed bets on the length of time for which the Chancellor would speak, and the number of proposals he would make (normally about 50 or 60) The Leader of the Opposition had to respond immediately to the proposals put forward by the Government with no knowledge of the exact text of the Budget. Some indication might be gauged by the state of the economy and any leaks that might have occurred. The previous year’s Budget saw the Government attempt the removal of the basic rate of at 10p, which would have affected the low-paid. This led to a Labour rebellion and the Government dropped the proposal.

The information about the budget was published in “the budget pack”. The Finance Bill was usually presented the same day and set down for a Second Reading. Following the Second Reading the Bill was sent to Public Bill Committee where it was debated, clause by clause. This process normally took about 2 months; outside help was brought in to aid Members, for example the Conservative Party used PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Attending this Committee was a good training for an MP to understand how scrutiny worked in the House. The amended Bill then had its Third Reading on the Floor of the House.

The Pre-Budget Report was produced by HM Treasury in the preceding November in advance of Budget. It was a lengthy document of about 225 pages of text and tables.

27

Estimates Cycle: Main Estimates were published within 3 weeks of the Budget. Last year, the Cabinet Office’s anticipated expenditure was £235 million, and the Department of Health between £75-85 billion. The selection of Estimates to be debated was made by the Liaison Committee (a Committee of Chairmen of all House of Commons Select Committees). Amendments could be proposed to the Main Estimates but only if they reduced expenditure. The House of Commons could vote against such estimates but this would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the Government of the day.

The Alignment Project was published by the Treasury in November 2008 with the aim of modernising the public expenditure system. The aim was to align the spending and budget cycles. There was £650 billion forecast expenditure in the next financial year and £550 billion in taxation, so there will be a £100 billion deficit. was the current Shadow Chancellor and if the Conservatives won the next election he would inherit a 12% deficit.

The Chairman noted that it was interesting to hear the changes that had occurred since he sat in the House of Commons. In days gone by there was no timetabling of government business and it was common to be sitting from 4pm to 4am. He reported that the House of Lords could not or reject a Finance Bill, but the House of Lords Finance Sub-Committee (which Lord Wakeham Chaired) produced a Report on the Budget as soon as the Finance Bill was published, which informed the debates in the House of Commons.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked about scrutiny outside the debating chamber.

Mr Hands responded that the main form of scrutiny was through the media. The Treasury Select Committee (which had a Labour majority) also produced a report on its views of the Budget proposals in time for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House. It was worth noting that a 5 day debate on the Budget on the floor of the House was held.

Mr Roy told the meeting that in New Zealand the select committee can call for a report in advance of the Budget, e.g. from the Auditor General’s Office.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A.C.T., Australia) asked whether a Parliament could have a parliamentary budgetary office to advise parliamentarians on matters financial, as Australia was planning to look into such a proposal.

Mr Hands said that the UK was in the position of awaiting the final budget of this parliament. The Conservative Party were calling for restraint. Within the Committee Office there was a “Scrutiny Unit” which provided financial advice to select committees. General advice for Members could be obtained from the House of Lords and Commons Libraries which had excellent research facilities. He recently requested information on the impact of the strength of the on people who held second homes in Europe. Information had been compiled and provided extremely quickly.

The Chairman noted that Select Committees also had the power to appoint Special Advisers.

Hon. Mohammed Haji Mohamoud Omar MP () said that Somaliland was aspiring to be a Commonwealth Member. He asked whether the Budget had ever been refused and further asked

28

who formulated the Budget for the House of Commons, or whether it was part of the Budget as a whole?

Mr Hands responded that as the government had a majority in the House of Commons, the budget had never been refused, and if that was to happen it would be viewed as a vote of no confidence in the government of the day.

The Chairman noted that the terms of the Budget could be changed by moving an amendment to the Finance Bill. In order to succeed Members would need to talk to the government ‘behind the scenes’. Regarding the budget for the running of the House of Commons, technically responsibility lay with the House of Commons Commission.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) said that the Pakistan Senate had recently passed a Money Bill and asked if there was there a similar system in the UK.

The Chairman said that for any law to be passed which required additional expenditure then normal parliamentary procedure would apply: a money resolution. A money resolution could only be moved by the Government and it was through this instrument that permission was given for expenditure.

Hon. Julienne Uwacu MP (Rwanda) asked whether financial records’ auditing was performed at the same time every year.

The Chairman replied that the process of auditing government expenditure took place throughout the year, and that separate audit reports were produced on various aspects of government policy e.g. waste in the ambulance service. This incremental approach to auditing worked well.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) informed the conference that Australia had State Parliaments whose budgets were scrutinised by the Speaker. She asked whether this happened in the UK.

The Chairman said that this did not happen in the UK. Budget debates were never presided over by the Speaker but by the Chairman of Ways and Means (the Speaker’s “No. 2”).

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) noted that in her country, in the interests of transparency, the Chairmen of Committees tended to be drawn from the opposition.

The Chairman reported that the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee was always held by a member of the opposition. The chairmanship of select committees was divided by agreement between the parties and this worked well as the role of the Chairman was widely understood.

Mr Hands noted that the Chairman of Ways and Means was a Member of the Opposition. When the Finance Bill was in Committee then two Chairmen were selected from the Chairmens’ Panel, one Government Member and one Opposition Member. There were never any complaints as both always acted impartially.

29

Hon. Sandy John Arrisol MNA (Seychelles) told the conference that the Seychelles was a member of the CPA, and he asked whether the UK had a Deputy Speaker in respect of the Opposition Party.

The Chairman answered that there was no need for this as the Speaker was politically impartial. He added that any Speaker who was not politically impartial would not last long in the job! Impartiality was key and it was a system which worked well.

Hon. Kiramatullah Khan MPA (NWFP, Pakistan) told the conference that Pakistan had four Provinces and each Assembly passed a budget which was approved by a finance committee. He asked who approved the budget in the House of Commons.

Mr Hands responded that the budget had always been passed as the Government held a majority, but that the Opposition always voted against it.

The Chairman informed the conference that each year following the Budget statement the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act came into force, which allowed for immediate effect of some proposals. The Government had to get approval of the Finance Bill within the period set by the Act

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) asked how often the Public Accounts Committee met?

Mr Hands responded that the Public Accounts Committee met twice a week and produced about 50 reports per year which received a great deal of publicity. The National Audit Office provided expertise to the Committee, which had a Government majority but an Opposition Chairman. It had produced some controversial reports and had a very strong influence on public opinion.

The Chairman thanked the conference and concluded by stating that it was the responsibility of parliamentarians to be effective in controlling budgets.

30

Tuesday 3 March 2009

THE ROLE OF THE OPPOSITION

Speakers: Mr MP (Conservative) Mr John Barrett MP (Liberal Democrats; Spokesperson for Work and Pensions)

Chairman: Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP (Plaid Cymru)

The Chairman opened by emphasising that strong opposition parties were fundamental in any democracy.

Mr Stephen Crabb MP said that he had been a Member of Parliament for almost four years. On becoming an MP in 2005, he had been surprised at the level of co-operation between political parties. Most people based their perception on Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), which was extremely gladiatorial and combative. However, PMQs was fairly unrepresentative, so people outside Parliament often had a misplaced view. Much positive co-operation existed between political parties in order to achieve good governance, good , and good administration.

The Conservative Party was the largest opposition party. Its aim was to win the political arguments of the day, and to form the new Government. The challenge for the party in meeting these aims was determining how to use existing political processes to their advantage. The party was attempting to win an ongoing battle for public opinion.

At a more detailed level, the Conservative Party was interested in ensuring legislative bills were drafted properly. Relationships between ministers, Government MPs and opposition MPs working on bills was far more cordial than people assumed. Select committees were another good example of MPs from all parties working together effectively. Mr Crabb had served on three different select committees. Although the committees had Labour , Members dropped their party politics altogether when working for the committee. The focus was on scrutinising the Government department that the committee shadowed. Select committees showed MPs at their most collaborative and least partisan.

The atmosphere in the House of Commons Chamber was very different to that on committees. MPs therefore had to be, in a sense, schizophrenic. It was not uncommon to see, say, a Labour MP and Conservative MP drinking together in the bar; however, they would very rarely have dinner together.

Mr John Barrett MP said that opposition parties received the majority of the votes cast in the last election, although they were clearly in the minority in Parliament. Governments were normally formed in the UK with about 40% of the vote. The current electoral system meant that the opposition parties remained in the minority despite 60% of the vote. Under a proportional representation system, there would be 130 Liberal Democrat MPs in the House of Commons compared to the current 63.

Mr Barrett was not preparing for a life in opposition. Liberal Democrats had experience in administration and government in many other areas of government, including the Scottish

31

Parliament, but not at Westminster. Not all the best ideas lay with one single party. For example, one party did not have all the solutions to the economic crisis. , the Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman, had been very outspoken about the crisis and his views were well respected, partly due to his background as an economist.

The opposition had had a key role during the Iraq war. A government with only 35–40% support of the electorate was on particularly shaky ground if it sent the country to war. Select committee membership was often a key role for opposition MPs. Mr Barrett had spent many years on the International Development Committee. The committee had hardly ever divided on party lines; committee members were focussed on whether the Government was spending its resources in the most effective way. Members could gain much expertise on select committees, but committees could be time-consuming and it was known for Members to sometimes ‘disappear’ in committee work.

Some opposition MPs were spokespeople, a job which had risks and rewards. Although spokespeople had higher roles, they were also quite often sacked.

Some MPs preferred to concentrate on constituency issues. Mr Barrett had used the expertise gained on the International Development Committee to speak to his constituents about related issues. MPs wanted to be effective both at Westminster and in their constituency. Mr Barrett spent much time assisting constituents who wanted a strong voice at Westminster. He kept with constituents by various means: e-mail, telephone, regular visits to schools and hospitals, local TV/radio appearances, attending local events and fundraisers, and embarking on regular campaigns.

Hon. Sandy John Arrisol MNA (Seychelles) asked how opposition MPs protested; for example did they ever walk-out of the Chamber.

Mr Barrett said the Liberal Democrats had stormed out of the Chamber recently on an European issue. They had been unhappy because the Speaker chose the official opposition party amendment to a bill, rather than the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats considered this unfair. Upsetting the Speaker, however, was not seen as a top priority because of his power. MPs could also take direct action if they wished to protest, for example taking to the streets with lobby groups.

Mr Crabb said that the Conservatives were very careful about when and how they criticised the Speaker. Accepting the Speaker’s decision was a little like accepting the rules of a referee at a sports match. It would be quite corrosive to constantly criticise the Speaker. Some Conservative backbenchers, however, had decided on previous occasions to criticise the Speaker in the media. Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether there was a formal process of giving notice if one disagreed with the Speaker’s proposal.

The Chairman said that such a process did not exist; the Speaker made the final decisions. However, the current Speaker was always willing to listen to Members’ concerns in private. One of the Speaker’s important roles was to ensure the views of backbenchers were heard, although there was no formal procedure about this in the rules.

32

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that Jamaica had a problem with political tribalism. She asked what effort had been made to communicate to the public the fact that the different parties worked together.

Mr Crabb said that there were more opportunities than ever for the public to understand what MPs did and how they worked. The recent, much-publicised, inquiry by the Treasury Select Committee into the banking crisis was a very good example of Members being shown to work together. Further opportunities existed through developments in the broadcasting of Parliament. At election time, all the major party leaders would sign a declaration refusing to give any space or credence to racist views.

Hon. Headley asked where opposition parties should strike the balance between politicking and contributing positively to the development of the country. For example, opposition MPs who refused to support or contribute in a positive way, or add value to the process, because they did not want the Government to gain support. Mr Crabb gave the example of the Northern Ireland Bill—a very significant piece of legislation being discussed by the House tomorrow—whereby the Conservatives had decided to refrain from political point-scoring because they were interested in the overall peace process.

Mr Barrett said that there were certain policies he strongly disagreed with and would always oppose. In terms of politicking, he never took the view that he would get re-elected by arguing for something he did not believe in. However, they were now approaching the final year of Parliament and motivations slightly changed closer to election time. Opposition MPs were not going to assist their opponents win the election.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked what had been the reaction of the opposition parties to the banking crisis.

The Chairman said that the banking crisis affected everybody, so all parties needed to work together. It was important to try to pool ideas—for example, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Vince Cable, often suggested very good political ideas. It was a two-way process because sometimes the Chancellor, , asked MPs for contributions. It was necessary to work together, not shout at each other.

Mr Crabb said that the public perception of MPs was not currently as high as it had been in the past. It was therefore important that opposition MPs were not seen to make narrow party points in a time of economic crisis. People were turned off politics by such behaviour.

Mr Barrett said that the public believed that it was important that politicians could work together at a time of crisis, as they did during the war-time period.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP () asked about the consequences when opposition MPs did not follow the party line.

Mr Barrett said that there would always be “rogue” Members, or loose cannons, who diverged from

33

the party line.

Mr Crabb said that rogue MPs were important because Parliament was supposed to be a safe forum for the expression of multiple views. A supposed “rogue” could one day be proved right.

Hon. Best asked where the line should be drawn when the opposition repeatedly castigated the Government of the day.

Mr Barrett said that there were many examples where it would be easier for opposition parties to simply blame the Government, for example for the current economic crisis. Part of the role of the opposition was to identify where mistakes had been made and, if necessary, criticise, for example the lack of regulation on banks. However, opposition parties were often at a disadvantage in debates because they lacked the resources and information available to the Government.

Mr Crabb said that politicians should come together at times and be constructive, but real debate should not be closed down.

Mr Muhammed Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) asked about some of the privileges and opportunities available to opposition parties.

Mr Crabb said that it was very hard work being an opposition MP. However, various opportunities did exist for opposition MPs—they could table written or oral parliamentary questions which the Government was obliged to answer. Opposition MPs could also raise their own parliamentary debates.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said that Mr Crabb seemed to be implying the Conservatives would win the next general election. This would be considered political suicide in Australia because the public liked an underdog.

Mr Crabb said that he had not intended to imply the Conservatives would definitely win the next general election. Most observers would agree, however, that the political climate was different compared to that of the last few years.

Mr Barrett pointed out that only 40% of the vote was needed to form a Government, and there were several marginal seats where the three parties were contesting hard. If the media perceived a party as potential winners, it could be a key factor in terms of votes.

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) said that the speakers had been far too modest about the role of the opposition. The role of the opposition should be to take the Government to task. Otherwise, you were left with a dynasty or a .

Mr Crabb said that he had been attempting to demonstrate the levels of subtlety below the usual adversarial image that the public were already aware of and accustomed to.

Mr Barrett said that the Government had far more resources to criticise opposition parties’ proposals; so, on occasions, it was more constructive to simply criticise the Government.

34

35

Wednesday 4 March 2009

TRANSPARENCY OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Speakers: Mr Tim Burr (Comptroller and Auditor General) Rt Hon. MP (Labour; Member, Public Accounts Committee)

Chairman: Mr James Paice MP (Conservative)

The Chairman welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates.

Mr Tim Burr said that the work of the National Audit Office (NAO) would be familiar to many of the delegates, as the NAO’s programme of international work had helped many countries develop processes for holding their government departments to account in spending public money.

He explained that in the UK the Comptroller and Auditor General was an Officer of the House of Commons, who had powers to compile reports on Government Departments which were laid before the House of Commons and the power to report directly to the House of Commons. He said that his work scrutinising departments was done in collaboration with select committees, in particular the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which considered the NAO’s reports.

Mr Burr explained that it was the role of Parliament to vote the money that government departments were able to spend. Assurance was therefore required that this money was well spent and accounted for. It was the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG)’s job to make sure that this was the case and to ensure that money was only used for the purposes which Parliament had specified.

The NAO had 800 – 900 members of staff, many of whom were professional accountants and other specialists. They had responsibility for auditing the accounts of all Government Departments and bodies – over 500 accounts altogether. He said that the reports that the NAO compiled investigated value for money (VFM), examining the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which money was spent. These reports dealt with diverse subjects, and included analysis of the quality of public services, project management, procurement, private finance and the raising of revenue.

Rt Hon. Keith Hill MP told the delegates that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was the oldest and possibly most influential select committee in the UK Parliament. A Government response to a PAC Report in 2005 had said that it acted on the great majority of the recommendations of the committee. Mr Hill said that this was something which few other select committees could claim.

Mr Hill explained that Parliament’s primary responsibility of raising revenue, or taxation, was established over the course of the 16th and 17th centuries, secured by the of 1688 in particular. Scrutiny of the way government spent the money was weak until the beginning of the 19th century, which saw high levels of in the wars against the French. This was also the period which saw the introduction of income tax. The accounts of the Admiralty were first examined by Parliament in the 1830s, and military expenditure remained a key stimulus to financial scrutiny by the House of Commons today.

36

Mr Hill said that the PAC had been established in 1861 with the support of . All government departments were required to produce annual accounts for examination by the PAC. The position of the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) was established in 1866 and the first complete appropriation accounts were laid before Parliament in 1869. He explained that the early work of the PAC and the C&AG had focussed on ensuring that the money was spent on what had been authorised and improving the accuracy of the accounts. After the 1880s the C&AG also began to look at the economy and efficiency of government expenditure, or the value for money concern (VFM), which now dominated the work of the PAC. This was prompted by a Royal Commission of Inquiry in 1904 that revealed evidence of massive waste and mismanagement in the South African wars. Reflecting this new approach, the requirement for the automatic audit checking of all transactions ended with the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921.

Since then, Mr Hill explained, parliamentary scrutiny had extended into non-departmental public bodies, although the Committee retained a continuing concern with military procurement and there remained debate over whether the Committee had a responsibility to scrutinise non-departmental agencies such as the BBC.

The PAC comprised 16 members, with party proportions that reflected the membership of the House, although the Committee very rarely divided. The Chairman was by convention an Opposition member and the Committee was joined in its public deliberations by the C&AG himself, usually with the National Audit Office colleagues who had written the report under consideration, and also by a representative of the Treasury Office of Accounts, the body that was responsible for the issuing of rules, guidelines and advice to the Accounting Officers that were being interviewed.

The PAC held about 60 public hearings every year and also published about 60 reports a year. Mr Hill said that this probably made PAC the most prolific of all the select committees, and that keeping up with the work of the PAC was quite a commitment.

The Committee never interviewed politicians; and only civil servants and most frequently departmental permanent secretaries, who were the accounting officers of their government departments. As a “value for money” Committee, they dealt with the officials who knew where the money had gone. In principle, and in law, the C&AG had complete discretion in the choice of VFM inquiries, but he was also statutorily required to consult the PAC when planning his programme. Mr Hill believed that they generally met a happy compromise on the topics.

Mr Hill asked if it could be a fair fight, between up to 15 Members of Parliament and two or three civil servants. He said that numbers might have been unequal, but that the expertise lay with the officials. MPs were aided by the analysis of the National Audit Office reports and by advisory notes supplied by the C&AG, which enabled MPs to engage in rigorous questioning. Mr Hill explained that the PAC had a unique system of questioning, with members allowed ten minutes to pursue any line of enquiry they chose. However, he said that if he had to identify a weakness in the system, it would have been the inevitable lack of expertise. Nonetheless, the issue would have been ventilated in the public arena, which Mr Hill believed to be the true strength and effectiveness of the PAC.

The purpose of the PAC was, therefore, to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which departments had used the financial resources allocated to them. In its reports the PAC tried to

37

draw lessons from past successes and failures. It was not their job, however, to make judgements about policy: only the way in which the policies had been implemented.

Mr Hill asked how important this activity was. He said that it went to heart of representative and . It was not possible to have good governance if the delivery of public goods was being impeded by dishonesty. Furthermore, what would be the point of democracy or representative government if the purposes for which governments were elected were being subverted by incompetence? Efficiency in government was, therefore, also fundamental. The public needed to know that public money was being spent in the most effective way.

He said that this approach to VFM was probably the greatest strength of the scrutiny and control of public expenditure in Britain. Although the VFM approach had developed over many years, it was only in 1983 that the National Audit Act (which also set up the National Audit Office) gave the C&AG the statutory power to produce value for money reports to Parliament on a regular basis and on a variety of subjects. Mr Hill said that this was an Act that gave a new lease of life to the PAC and really dominated the British approach to public spending. Parliament was good at debating and voting on the raising of revenue, but it was not very good at appropriations. However, it was good at scrutinising the way money was spent, and that was down to the PAC and the work of a strong NAO.

Mr Hill said that over seven years as a minister in different capacities he had always been extremely conscious of the PAC. He recalled that a department became highly charged in the days before civil servants were due to appear, that the transcripts of the proceedings were leapt upon with glee by less senior officials. He also said that as the parliamentary to the former Prime Minister, preparations for Prime Ministers Questions had often been interrupted by uncomfortable news of a PAC report.

Although the reports of the National Audit Office were agreed with the government departments before they were published, they still made uncomfortable reading for government. He said that considering the huge sums of money being spent on highly complex projects, it would have been amazing if there had been no extravagance, waste or mis-spending, but that the public had a right to know. Therefore, the PAC had been right to look at some of the biggest projects facing the British people, including the 2012 Olympic Games in , nuclear decommissioning and the new 14 to 19 years education reform. He said that these reports attracted huge and consistent publicity, often both when first published by the NAO, and when commented on by the PAC

Mr Hill said that the PAC could not have done its job without the NAO, which reached into every nook and cranny of government and was headed by the C&AG whose position was unique in the British system as an Officer of the House of Commons, appointed by the Queen, following an address by the Prime Minister. The NAO was indispensable to the PAC. However, he suggested that the NAO was also dependent on the PAC and wondered whether it would have enjoyed the same access to government and responsiveness from civil servants without their awareness that failure to co-operate would be exposed in the public domain via the PAC. He suggested that a little bit of menace was a useful thing and that the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office operated a perfectly symbiotic relationship.

38

The Chairman thanked the speakers and asked for questions from the delegates, in groups of three.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how often Value for Money reports were submitted and how the subject of these reports were chosen.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP () asked how Local Authorities’ accounts were scrutinised.

Hon. Gibson Hlophe MP (Swaziland) asked what happened when the PAC discovered that money had been misappropriated or mis-spent.

Mr Hill replied in response to Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid that the NAO only dealt with national government departments and non-departmental public bodies such as the BBC. Local Authorities were within the remit of the Audit Commission, rather than the NAO.

In response to Mr Hlophe, he said was not aware of the PAC ever finding a true case of corruption in the spending of public money by public bodies in the UK and that because of this pursuit of misappropriation was not now as aggressive in the UK as elsewhere in the world, or as it had been historically. However, if such a case were to be identified, this would lead to a criminal prosecution.

Mr Burr agreed with Mr Hill on this matter and said that the proper authorities, such as the police would be notified and prosecutions pursued. The NAO would also investigate any weakness or failures that had allowed such a case to occur, and examine where controls could be strengthened.

In response to the question from Mr Kayinamura, Mr Burr said that around 60 VFM reports were compiled each year and that the subjects were determined partly by the work programme of the PAC, and partly by a variety of factors, including the importance and size of an account; public interest; any significant changes that had occurred in a department; any risks involved in a project; the topicality of an issue; or whether the subject had been suggested by an MP or member of the Committee.

The Chairman asked Mr Burr if he could explain the concept of a “whistleblower” and what a public servant could do if they believed that wrong-doing was occurring. He also asked what protection existed for employees who wish to disclose such information.

Mr Burr replied that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 offered protection for employees and explained that the C &AG also had a role in investigating any information received regarding public expenditure, even if such information was submitted anonymously. If this was the case, such inquiries would be undertaken in a circumspect way in order to protect the identity of individuals disclosing information.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether the PAC held departments accountable for occasions where things were not being done in time, due to lengthy processes of procurement or similar causes of stagnation.

39

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked which features of the system made sure that the NAO remained independent.

Hon. Mohamed Haji Mohamoud Omar MP (Somaliland) asked who appointed the C&AG and how they could be removed from this position.

Mr Tim Burr replied to the last question that he was appointed by the Queen on a motion of the House of Commons, moved by the Prime Minister. He was selected for the position jointly by the Prime Minister and the chairman of the PAC, who was always a member of the opposition, which would have therefore ensured political consensus for the appointment. He explained that he could only be removed from this position by an address to the Queen from both Houses of Parliament. Such an event had never yet occurred.

Rt Hon. Keith Hill MP explained that the C&AG was essentially the most powerful official in the country, as a figure appointed by the head of state and requiring the agreement of both Houses to be removed.

Mr Hill said that holding departments to account for the slow implementation of projects and ensuring that Government were meeting targets for delivery was absolutely their main concern. He said that the pressure placed on departments by the NAO and the PAC was very important and in his experience welcomed by ministers, who were often frustrated by slow implementation.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked whether transcripts of PAC evidence sessions were made public.

Mr Brian Ntundu MP (Zambia) asked how the C&AG, PAC and law enforcement authorities interacted where mismanagement of public money was discovered

Ms Lisa Baker MLA (Western Australia, Australia) asked how far the NAO would go in terms of auditing Non Governmental Public Bodies.

Mr Burr replied to Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA that all PAC meetings were public.

In response to the question from Ms Lisa Baker, he said that they would follow wherever public money went in terms of auditing public bodies. They would not audit charities as a matter of course, for example, but they would look at a charity’s effectiveness at managing public expenditure if they were spending public money in some way, perhaps in partnership with a government department.

Mr Burr said that the police would always be involved in any case of misappropriation, generally by the Government department involved itself, although the C&AG would ensure that this was the case. He said that there was a constitutional distinction between the courts and and Parliament and this that facilitated effective monitoring of expenditure.

Mr Hill agreed that all meetings of the PAC were public and explained that an inquiry would have started with a report from the NAO and ended with a report from the PAC to the House of Commons, which would include recommendations and transcripts.

40

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked how the independence of the C&AG could be guaranteed, given their appointment by the Head of State, and how long they would serve in that position.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) asked how expenditure in the form of transfer payments was scrutinised.

Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda (Clerk, ) said that in Sri Lanka PAC meetings were held in private to keep proceedings confidential and asked what the benefits were of having public meetings.

Mr Hill told Mr Gautrin that they had no direct relationship with hospitals or schools and so did not scrutinise these kinds of expenditure; they only looked at departments and national non- governmental public bodies.

He explained that while the PAC had to hold private sessions occasionally to protect commercial confidentiality, the Committee were on the whole reluctant to do so.. He believed that the principle that public money should be scrutinised in public was fundamental to accountability.

Mr Burr replied to Mr Roy that the need for the Chairman of the PAC and the Prime Minister to agree on the appointment of the C&AG ensured independence and explained that he held the position indefinitely and believed that a period of at least 10 years was necessary to be effective.

41

Wednesday 4 March 2009

THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Speakers: Rt Hon. Sir George Young MP (Conservative; Chairman, Standards and Privileges Committee) Mr Eric Illsley MP (Labour; Member, Foreign Affairs Committee and Procedure Committee) Mr David Natzler (Clerk of Committees, House of Commons)

Chairman: Lord Shutt of Greetland OBE (Liberal Democrats; Chief Whip in the House of Lords)

The Chairman welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates.

Sir George Young MP explained that the Committee existed to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and to hold Members of the House of Commons to account for any breaches of the Code of Conduct. The Committee had 10 Members, five from the Government party and 5 from Opposition parties. Parity between parties on a Committee was unusual as the Government party normally had a majority. He had chaired the Committee for eight years. By convention the Committee was chaired by an Opposition Member.

Sir George made five points about the Committee system: first that the membership of Committees should not be too large. Most Committees had seen their membership increase from 11 to 14 Members. Following recent elections where the Government had been returned with large majorities there had been pressure to do this in order to provide an alternative career path for Members.

Second, there should be a continuity of membership. He said that this aided the congeniality of a Committee’s work as Members had a good knowledge of each others’ starting points on issues. Third, Members’ attendance should be good. This assisted the congeniality point made previously and also provided for continuity when a Committee returned to issues it had previously examined.

Fourth, Members should respect each others’ confidences which enabled views to be shared openly without fear of them being repeated outside the committee room. This had been particularly valuable in the work of the Standards and Privileges Committee and gave Members of the House confidence that cases would be dealt with fairly and not on party-lines. Finally, consensus should be achieved wherever possible as it enabled the Committee to command more respect outside the House.

Sir George concluded by setting out his thoughts on the role of chairmen of committees. He said that chairmen should set the tone of the committee and steer its work, for example by keeping an eye on the clock. Chairmen should also identify the key objectives that a committee should achieve and ensure that they were incorporated into the committee’s programme. They should also seek to include all members in a committee’s work by a process of consultation.

Mr Eric Illsley MP talked about the different types of Committees in the House of Commons: Select Committees, Public Bill Committees and ad hoc committees.

42

Most select committees were established to examine the policy, administration and expenditure of a Government department. Other ad hoc select committees existed on a range of issues such as the administration of the House of Commons. The membership of most committees reflected the party balance in the House of Commons. At present most committees had 14 members: 8 from the Government party, 6 from the main opposition party and 2 from the smaller parties.

The current select committee system was established in 1979. Committees were given the power to send for persons, papers and records. These powers were very important in enabling committees to carry out their work. If anyone refused to appear before a committee, the committee could report this to the House of Commons which might pass a motion compelling the person to attend. Although committees could not compel Government ministers to appear before them, it was highly unusual for a minister to refuse to do so. Select committees were usually granted access to all classifications of documents, and although the Government may not release the most sensitive documents, it would normally try and accommodate a Committee. For example, a Committee might be able to view the documents in a closed room.

Select committees reported to the House of Commons not the Government. Select committee reports covered a wide range of topics. Committees held the government department they monitor to account by reporting on particular issues. The Government was expected to reply to reports within two months of publication.

Committees were also able to react quickly to topical issues. For example, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s recent inquiry into the situation in Gaza. Visits were important to a committee’s work as they provided an opportunity to see things on the ground and to meet interested parties which the committee would not normally be able to.

The other type of committee was Public Bill Committees. These committees considered legislation after a Bill had received its second reading in the House of Commons. He explained that this was a two stage process. Under a recent innovation Public Bill Committees also took evidence on the Bill from interested parties. This had led to members being more informed when considering the Bill line-by-line and any proposed amendments.

Mr Illsley concluded by explaining that several ad hoc committees existed in the House, including the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees, All Party Groups on a particular subject or country, and Parliamentary Party Groups.

Mr David Natzler outlined the structure of the committee system. The House of Commons had 19 departmental select committees plus a number of ad hoc committees. There were approximately 500 membership slots to fill on committees, but there were insufficient members to fill them especially once the government ministers were taken off those eligible to serve. This meant that several members had to serve on more than one committee. He explained that the House of Lords had a smaller committee structure and that joint committees of members from both Houses were sometimes established to examine a particular topic or issue.

43

The cost of the House of Commons committee system was approximately £15 million. Committees employed approximately 200 staff and produced 350 reports and held 1,200 meetings in a parliamentary session.

However, measuring the impact and success of committees was difficult. Committees would have examples of where they had been successful in holding the Government to account. While the Government would not attempt to abolish committees, there was always the possibility of reform or a reduction in the number of committees.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and invited questions from the delegates.

Mr Amjed Pervez Malik (Clerk, Pakistan) asked what formal rules and procedures existed in relation to committees and about committees relationships with government departments.

Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP () asked about the criteria for the selection of the chairmen of committees. He also asked about overlap between committees, whether Bills were considered by select committees rather than public bill committees and what disciplinary powers existed in respect of committee members.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) asked about the powers of the House in disciplining members. He also asked what would happen if two committees decided to look at the same issue.

Sir George said that the Speaker of the House of Commons dealt with bad behaviour in the House. The Standards and Privileges Committee would deal with misconduct outside the House. The membership of committees and proportion of chairmen from each party reflected the number of members from each party in the House. The Government would normally retain the chairmanship of committees monitoring the major government departments. Committees operated informally although there were formal rules of procedure for the consideration of reports and in relation to matters before the courts.

Mr Illsley explained the Labour Party’s procedure for nominating members of select committees. Although any member could request to sit on a particular committee, the final decision would be taken by the party’s whips. In respect of Public Bill Committees the whips would nominate members according to a rota although individual members could request to serve.

Mr Natzler said that committees’ procedures followed the House’s Standing Orders. Select committees deliberated in private and tended to be less formal. Committees reported to the House of Commons not government departments and committee decisions would only be relayed to government in this way.

Mr Natzler said that overlap between committees did happen on some subjects. There was no formal way of stopping it as committees had complete autonomy on choosing their inquiries and interpreting their terms of reference.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked about how to resolve the problem of getting members to serve on committees.

44

Mr Richard Ssendege (Clerk, ) asked whether consultation on legislation should take place when it was in draft or as it went through Parliament.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked if it would be preferable for the House to refer issues to a particular committee rather than individual committees taking the decision so as to avoid overlap in committees’ work.

Mr Natzler said that it could in theory be helpful if the House referred issues to a particular committee, although he thought influential chairmen would get their committees added and therefore, there might still be more than one committee looking at an issue.

Sir George said that on occasions a Joint Committee of members of both Houses would be appointed to look at an issue. In cases of dispute between committees, clerks of committees would seek informally to find a resolution or as a last resort a chairman might raise the issue in the Liaison Committee, whose membership consisted of all select committee chairmen.

Mr Illsley stated that it was his experience that huge overlap existed between committees. He cited the example of different Committees’ inquiries on the Iraq war. He said that consideration of legislation would usually be most effective when it was in draft form. He said that the House of Commons also had the problem of finding sufficient members to serve on committees.

Mr Blaine Pedersen Hart MLA (Manitoba, Canada) asked whether it would be desirable for there to be a year’s consultation on controversial Bills.

Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda (Clerk, Sri Lanka) asked what effect prorogation had on select committees.

Hon. Samwel Kambi MP (Kenya) asked how a committee decided whether to meet in private or public.

Mr Illsley said the Government would attempt to achieve consensus on a controversial draft Bill but it would be unlikely to consult for as long as a year.

Mr Natzler explained that most select committees were appointed for a Parliament and although they could not meet when the House was prorogued their work continued as soon as the new Parliamentary session commenced.

Sir George said that select committees took evidence in public and deliberated in private. The Standards and Privileges Committee was an exception to this as it held all its proceedings, including evidence taking, in private.

Mr Bernard Joseph Dalinting (Clerk, Sabah, Malaysia) asked what powers committees had to discipline their members.

45

Sir George said that anybody could complain about a member to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Commissioner would investigate the complaint and if necessary would report his findings to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Committee would then make a report to the House.

Mr Natzler explained that individual committees had no disciplinary powers in respect of their members.

The Chairman thanked the speakers on behalf of the delegates.

46

Wednesday 4 March

SCRUTINY OF THE PRIME MINISTER

Speaker: Mr Liam Laurence Smyth (Clerk of Bills, House of Commons)

Chair: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

Mr Liam Laurence Smyth gave a short overview of the process for Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs). He explained that Westminster had a large number of MPs and a relatively small Chamber which meant that there was not enough room for everyone to have their own seat, nor enough time for everyone to talk. Most of the time the Chamber was fairly empty, with only those planning to contribute to a Debate attending, but PMQs was different. The Chamber was always very full and noisy and the Speaker had to manage a large crowd.

PMQs was effectively a session of questions without notice. The leaders of the opposition parties received an allocation of questions; the Speaker could also select from a list of Members successful in the ballot for questions and from other Members in the Chamber. It was a very political event. Many questions came from the Government side and gave a helpful opportunity for the Prime Minister to talk about the Government’s achievements. The Prime Minister was currently on a visit to the USA and the Leader of the Opposition was absent due to family reasons. Rt Hon. MP and Rt Hon. were standing in for them.

After the delegates had viewed the day’s PMQ session on monitors, Mr Laurence Smyth made some follow up comments. He pointed out that on this occasion, the Speaker had selected relatively few questions from the ballot list, partly perhaps to achieve party balance after the opposition questions but also because the questions and answers had been longer than usual. He said that rather than being a session to hold the Prime Minister to account, it had been more of a contest between two sides. The Speaker had a difficult job ensuring that the session did not turn into an opposition question time or a Labour party question time, and this session had illustrated well both of these tendencies.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) suggested that in reality PMQs was more about media sound-bites than accountability.

Mr Kevin Shiels (Clerk, Northern Ireland) and Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (Australia) asked for more information about how the Speaker had chosen Members to ask questions.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) asked whether the Prime Minister received advanced notice of the questions.

Mr Laurence Smyth explained that the Speaker had to balance a number of factors in selecting questions. The leaders of the two main opposition parties were each automatically allocated questions. The Speaker could then select a Member to achieve some party balance (such as a Government backbencher immediately after the Leader of the Opposition) or he could select the

47

next question from the ballot list. It was rare in practice for advance notice to be given about the substance of a question.

The Chairman added that when Rt Hon. MP had attended his first PMQs as Leader of the Opposition, it had appeared to unsettle the Prime Minister that he had only asked five questions instead the expected six.

Hon. Kenneth Best (Barbados) pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition had appeared to make political points and had not been required to answer questions or explain how his party would have acted differently from the Government. Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP (Hong Kong) asked whether the Speaker was able to refer to a list showing which Members had asked PMQs on previous occasions. Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked whether it was usual for the Speaker to refer to Members by name, rather than constituency.

Mr Laurence Smyth explained that only the Prime Minister had an obligation to answer questions. There was no responsibility for the other parties to answer questions, which gave them a small advantage. Meticulous records were kept as to which Members had asked PMQs on which dates; while this might help achieve a more even allocation of questions, it did not take account of the fact that some Members had more to say than others. The ‘naming’ of a Member was a significant rebuke, which the Speaker used to good effect to control a noisy Chamber. However, it was just normal practice for the Speaker to call out the Member’s name when it was their turn for a question so as to identify clearly who was being called.

48

Wednesday 5 March 2009

THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

Speakers: Mr Liam Laurence Smyth (Clerk of Bills, House of Commons) Ms Madeleine Moon MP (Labour) Mr David Beamish (Clerk Assistant, House of Lords)

Chairman: Lord Dholakia OBE (Liberal Democrats; Deputy Leader in the House of Lords)

The Chairman welcomed the group and commented that there had been some very interesting sessions so far. He noted that the is the most important ingredient in democracy. However law simply imposed would have little effect without ownership. The essence of Parliament is about law and law making, although there are other important ingredients, including accountability.

The Chairman discussed his recent participation in the CPA Delegation to Kenya and noted that in the discussions had with their Kenyan colleagues they would still come back to the main ingredient – the legislative process. Lord Dholakia described the Commonwealth as a family of different nations – with the CPA as a hub to ensure that members do not deviate from democratic principles. The system is not perfect, it is not static and it continues to evolve. It is necessary not to forget that Parliamentarians are custodians of the people’s trust and that trust is enshrined in the processes that parliaments follow.

The Chairman then introduced the speakers for the session.

Mr Liam Laurence Smyth described the variety of legislative business before the House in just the two weeks of the current Seminar. Business included:

• Remaining stages of Political Parties and Elections Bill

• Remaining stages of the Corporation Tax Bill (an extremely long tax law rewrite bill, certified as a money Bill)

• Formal proceedings with no votes on the Consolidated Fund Bill, authorising the Government’s expenditure

• “Ten-minute Rule" Bills for backbenchers to draw attention to legislative initiatives

• Two Private Members’ Fridays for backbench bills to be considered

• All stages of the Northern Ireland Bill being taken in one day

• Possible Lords Amendments to the Northern Ireland Bill, after Lords consideration of the bill

49

• Public hearings in the Public Bill Committees on the Apprenticeships, Skills, Learning and Children Bill

• Conclusion of clause-by-clause consideration in the Public Bill Committee on the Coroners and Justice Bill

Mr Laurence Smyth said that well over a thousand laws were made each year, but the very great majority were orders or regulations made by Ministers using powers given to them by statute. Only a couple of hundred such statutory instruments over a year required parliamentary approval, on a simple yes/no decision to approve the whole of the statutory instrument. The Government invariably secured the necessary approval.

New Bills were introduced when Ministers needed new powers or when the Government wished to change existing law in ways which they lacked powers to do without a new Act.

The legislative process was adversarial, with challenge and amendment coming mainly from the two Opposition parties, with the Government Ministers defending every word in their Bill. Where Amendments were made, they were almost always made by the Government. In some cases the Government’s own Amendments might have been necessary to avoid defeat, so they made the necessary concessions to ensure the Bill’s passage.

In a Public Bill Committee, the Government backbenchers often said little, as the Opposition and Ministerial frontbenches argued their way through the Bill; but actually it was the Government backbenchers whose power was decisive. It would be only with their support that the Opposition parties could combine enough votes to defeat the Government.

Ms Madeleine Moon MP spoke of her experience as a Government backbencher on the Coroners and Justice Public Bill Committee, where she had particular concerns about the reform of the law on inquests in cases of suspected suicide. In politics, the meeting before the meeting was often the most important. Influence was most effectively brought to bear before the Bill was finally drafted, rather than in the debates after the Bill’s introduction.

In her view, there was too much talk by lawyers and not enough real life experience in the debates on making legislation. Hearings were practically a waste of time if they only heard from the usual interest groups, repeating their well-known views. It would be much more valuable to get out of Westminster and to talk to the people on the ground who would actually be affected by the Bill’s proposals. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee’s examination of legislative competence orders, which gave greater powers to the for Wales to exercise devolved responsibilities, was a better model of legislative activity.>

Mr David Beamish said that legislative procedures and the stages of a bill were broadly similar in the two Houses, and that Government bills could begin in either House (though major controversial bills usually started in the Commons).

But there were some significant differences in the House of Lords. First, the Government does not have a majority and has no formal control over the order paper. Secondly, the Lord Speaker has no

50

role in selecting amendments for debate or Members to speak, and any amendment tabled can be debated and any Member can speak on it – there is no formal timetabling of bills.

In practice programmes for individual bills can usually be agreed, because the House is unpaid and Members welcome a degree of certainty in the planning of business. Committee stages are taken either in the Chamber (for most major bills) or in Grand Committee, held in parallel with a sitting in the Chamber and open to all Members. The House has not followed the Commons in introducing evidence-taking by the committee at the start of a committee stage.

The Government’s lack of majority in the Lords means that, while rejection of a Government bill is rare (and unheard of for any bill for which the Government has an electoral mandate), Government defeats on amendments to bills are quite frequent. Such defeats lead to “ping-pong”, the process of seeking agreement when amendments made in the second House are not accepted in the first. Sometimes the Commons give way, but more often a compromise is reached, and occasionally the Lords give way when the Commons stand firm.

Delegated legislation cannot be amended, but only approved or rejected, and rejection is quite exceptional. Nevertheless Parliament can have some real influence, usually when draft instruments are withdrawn in the light of criticism by committees. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments conducts technical scrutiny of instruments (e.g. ensuring that they are not ultra vires). In recent years the Lords have appointed a Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, which draws attention to instruments worthy of special scrutiny and has become influential. Another influential committee is the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which examines draft instruments introducing regulatory reform (formerly “deregulation”) and also scrutinises delegated powers contained in bills.

No notes are available for the Q&A session. However, the discussion included questions about:

• Royal Recommendations, Private Members Bills and Money

• Effect of death of sponsoring member on Private Member’s Bill

• Conference meetings to resolve differences between the Houses

• Parliamentary counsel a government resource of trained draftsmen

• Emergency passage of legislation through all stages without notice

51

Wednesday 4 March

OPEN FORUM: SCRUTINY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Hon. Jane Aagard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) was appointed to the Chair for the open forum.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) noted that New Zealand was an interesting hybrid in the Commonwealth with a unicameral legislature and mixed member proportional as its electoral system. It had a population of 4.2 million people and 122 Members of Parliament. The New Zealand electoral system was a two-tiered system, with voters having two votes: the main vote was the party vote, which determined the proportionality of the House; the second vote was the electorate vote, which determined the local representative within the House. There were seven political parties represented in Parliament and it therefore could not rely on an adversarial system to develop the scrutiny levels that were in Westminster.

There were 14 subject-area select committees, plus any number of ad hoc committees set up from time to time for particular purposes. Select committees often asked the public for input when they were considering a bill or inquiry.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee provided a high level of public accounts scrutiny. Following the introduction of the budget into the the Estimates were referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which could conduct an examination of the Estimates or refer them to the relevant committee. Committees were able to hold hearings and invite Ministers to attend to explain their spending plans and priorities. The committee could be supported in its Estimates enquiry role by the Office of the Auditor General.

In addition to the select committees, New Zealand had offices such as the Office of the Auditor General, the New Zealand Ombudsman, the Commissioner for the Environment and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, which had the power and ability to do the work of an upper house. These gave the public a great deal of confidence in the scrutiny process.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A.C.T, Australia) said that the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly had recently gone through a process of change. The ACT Greens, of which he was a member, had had a successful election in 2008, giving them the balance of power in a 17-member unicameral Legislative Assembly. The Greens chose to support a Labour , entering into a contract with them to ensure that a number of changes were implemented.

Firstly, the Legislative Assembly endorsed the Latimer House principles (principles which set out the ideal circumstances for open and accountable government); secondly, the parties agreed changes to the standing orders; thirdly, changes were made to reflect the new shape of the Legislative Assembly and each of the three parties received equal speaking time and opportunity to ask questions; changes were also made to Freedom of Information legislation. In addition an independent Arbitrator was appointed, whose role was to mediate between the Legislature and Executive in the event of a disagreement over the public release of documents. This removed the

52

need for expensive legal cases. In April 2008 an Ethics and Integrity Adviser was appointed to advise Members on ethical issues concerning the exercise of their role.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) stated that scrutiny was not effective in Sierra Leone: the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was a member of the majority All People’s Party; and both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker were also members of the . He felt that the appointment of an Anti-corruption commissioner highlighted the lack of effective scrutiny of Parliament by select committees.

The House of Representatives had 124 members - 112 members elected through proportional representation, while the remaining 12 members of parliament were chosen by traditional chiefs. Sierra Leone had 24 parliamentary oversight committees: of which 16 were chaired by the ruling party; the SLPP which served as the main opposition party in Parliament chaired five committees; the People’s Movement for Democratic Change chaired the Committee; while the Speaker served as chairman of three committees

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) explained that the Legislature in Oman was bicameral, with an elected Consultative Council, and a State Council which acted as the upper chamber. Oman was divided into 61 districts; an area with a population of over 30,000 people had two Members of Parliament, while those with less than 30,000 had one.

The elected Consultative Council was an advisory body and had limited powers to propose legislations. Its main function was to review and comment on draft economic and social legislation prepared by the ministers in accordance with the Five Year Plan. It had the power to request Ministers to appear before it, which enabled public scrutiny of their decisions. The upper house was also an advisory body and its main function was to serve as a liaison between the government and the citizens.

The development of the legislature had occurred gradually, Since 1970 the government had given high priority to education in order to develop a domestic work force, which the government considered a vital factor in the country's economic and social progress. Approximately 48% of those attending school were female. The Oman constitution guaranteed equality between the genders.

Hon. Deependra Singh Shekhawat MLA (Rajasthan, India) said that the office of the Speaker played an important position in their parliamentary democracy. Both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker were elected from amongst the Members of Parliament present and voting in the House.

The parliamentary system replicated that of the UK. There was an emphasis on scrutiny and accountability which was carried out by committees, one of the most important being the Committee on Public Accounts. It consisted of not more than 22 members and its Chairman, since 1967, had been a member of the opposition appointed by the Speaker. The terms of office of members of the Committee did not exceed one year at a time.

Scrutiny and accountability were essential for a strong democracy, and the right to information played a key role. Any person could ask the government or the administration for information, and there was a recognised process by which citizens could gain information.

53

Mr Ashok Bhatt MLA (Gujarat, India) said that India had an inherent culture of democracy. Gujarat was linked closely with India’s history of independence, and the area had provided the first Speaker of India’s Parliament, G.V. Mavalankar, in 1952. It was governed by a Legislative Assembly of 182 members, and a term of office was five years. The state had a two-.

Parliament had worked hard to improve the lives of citizens in Gujarat. It had made the decision to improve its agricultural economy, and in the last seven years its gross annual revenue had increased seven-fold. Unlike the rest of the world, Gujarat was not suffering the downturn in the economy and indeed had increased employment in agriculture, and this was due to Parliament working for the good of the people. Parliament always had to be accountable to the people, and had to improve the economy, health and education opportunities of its citizens.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) said that Ghana’s constitution was fashioned after the Westminster model. Ministers were appointed from members of the Parliament. Parliamentary scrutiny had been undertaken by select and standing committees; select committees were subject matter related committees charged with the responsibility of scrutinizing expenditures, management and polices of the Ministries Departments; standing committees were appointed to deal with subjects of continuing concern to the House. Women took an active part in Parliament.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that following the post-election crisis in 2008, accountability and scrutiny had deteriorated. Two coalitions had agreed in February 2008 to form a government in a power-sharing arrangement which provided for the establishment of a prime minister and two deputy prime ministers, as well as the division of an expanded list of cabinet posts.

The unicameral National Assembly consisted of 210 members elected to a term of 5 years from single-member constituencies, plus 12 members nominated by political parties on a proportional representation basis. There were a large number of cabinet posts, which meant there were not enough backbenchers to perform the role of effective scrutiny.

Parliament had lost credibility amongst the people, and was at its lowest level of support. Traditionally, Kenya’s Parliament passed three bills a year. In the last year, seven bills had been passed, although these had all been about power-sharing arrangements rather than new legislation for the improvement of the country. The parliamentary system needed to be reviewed, and there needed to be clear and strong leadership.

Hon. Samwel Kazunga Kambi MP (Kenya) agreed that the formation of a meant that there was no effective opposition. The Kenyan Parliament had a committee system which had powers to summon Ministers, the Vice-President and the President. A committee’s recommendations could lead to the sacking of a Minister.

Kenya was struggling to be seen as an effective democracy, and Parliament and the government needed to work harder for its citizens. Too often in Africa, individuals had put their needs before that of their country.

54

Hon. Julienne Uwacu MP (Rwanda) explained that the Rwanda Parliament had two chambers: the ; and the Senate. The lower chamber dealt with public appointments, while the higher examined constitutional issues, such as legislation and overseeing government action. Since the 2008 parliamentary election, women controlled the parliament having taken 44 out of 80 seats. Rwanda, whose post-genocide constitution ensured a 30% quota for female MPs, had already held the record for most women in parliament.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) described the power of select committees, which had caused the resignation of the Prime Minster in 2008. A parliamentary select committee on energy had presented a report to parliament of its investigation of an emergency power project, which found corruption at the core of the project. Following that, Prime Minister Lowassa had resigned, accepting political responsibility for the failed enterprise.

There was a daily question and answer session in the House. Every Thursday it held Prime Minister’s question time, although this was not as confrontational as in Westminster.

Hon. Sandy John Arrisol MNA (Seychelles) said that his nation had a population of 83,000 people, with 33 members in its Parliament (22 from the ruling party, and 11 from the opposition). There was no effective scrutiny in Parliament – the Chairman of the Public Accounts was from the ruling party (Seychelles People's Progressive Front) as were all other chairman of committees in the Parliament.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that within the Jamaican Parliament of 60 members, there was a good political balance, with 32 Members of the ruling party, and 28 in opposition. There was a strong scrutiny element in the Parliament, as the opposition party had previously been in power for 18 years. This meant that the Public Accounts Committee was chaired by the former Minster of Finance, one of the most experienced Ministers in the .

The opposition felt strongly that it was extremely important to utilize the media, if they could not be heard in Parliament.

55

Thursday 5 March 2009

PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS

Speakers: Mr John Lyon CB (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) Mr Chris Mullin MP (Labour; Member, Standards and Privileges Committee)

Chairman: Mr Ben Chapman MP (Labour)

The Chairman invited delegates to not only ask questions after the panel’s presentations, but also to contribute examples and observations from their experiences in their own Parliaments.

Mr John Lyon explained that standards in the House of Commons were not a modern invention. Bribery was first forbidden three hundred years ago, and it was thirty years since Members first had to declare any financial interest in the matters they were debating. It was more than ten years since the current system had been established by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

He listed the “Nolan principles” for standards in public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. He noted that, while this list might seem simple and obvious, the challenge of living up to these principles was a difficult one. Based on his own experience as Commissioner, he believed that Members of Parliament generally fulfilled this challenge. The first Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had been appointed in 1995, the same year that these principles were established. He said that he was the fourth Commissioner, and that his role was to provide the independent element in the standards system.

He noted that the system of standards was based on three main principles. The first of these was that the House was self regulatory, a principle that derived from the of Parliament. The principle that Parliament had the right to control its own affairs dated back to 1689 and the Bill of Rights, which stated that “freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.” This was balanced, however, by the independent element of the system. He reminded delegates that the Commissioner was an independent officer of the House of Commons. This was demonstrated by the fact that no one could instruct the Commissioner to investigate a complaint against a Member. Thirdly, the Westminster framework for standards was non-statutory, another reminder of the sovereignty of Parliament. The Commissioner answered to the House and not to the courts.

He then described the office of Commissioner. He said that the Commissioner was appointed for a non-renewable term of five years, and that the Commissioner could be dismissed only on a Resolution of the House. There could therefore be no suspicion that the Commissioner might be influenced by the prospect of a second term. He explained that the Commissioner’s work related only to the House of Commons; he had no responsibilities for the House of Lords or for the Code of Conduct for Ministers. He said that the Commissioner had a small team of staff and a budget of approximately £500k.

He explained the main aspects of the role of the Commissioner. The first of these was the monitoring of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament. He said that the Code itself was only

56

about three pages in length, and that its role was to guide Members and to set expectations. The Code was supported by a set of Rules; the Commissioner noted that it was the way of rules to gain in length and complexity over time. The House had recently agreed a new, shorter set of rules, and the Commissioner welcomed this.

Turning to the registration of financial interests, the Commissioner noted that the purpose of the Registers was to identify financial interests which might be thought by others to influence a Member. He noted that the principle was not that financial interests were inherently wrong, but that all financial interests should be transparent. He listed the four Registers, all of which were updated online while the House was sitting, covering: Members; Members’ staff; accredited journalists and all party groups. The work of maintaining these Registers was undertaken by the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, an official of the House of Commons.

The third function of the Commissioner was to advise Members and help to prevent them from unwittingly breaking the rules. His aim was to keep standards always in the line of sight of Members, and to this end all Members were provided with a binder of information on standards. The Commissioner’s office also provided briefings and confidential advice to Members and their staff.

The fourth function of the Commissioner was to advise the Committee on Standards and Privileges, both on individual cases and on the wider standards framework. In 2008, for example, the Commissioner had advised the Committee on the relationship between the complaints system and the criminal law. The Commissioner advised the Committee on the facts of his investigations but played no role in its decision making.

Mr Lyon then described his role in dealing with complaints, the function that attracted most public attention. The Commissioner had the power to inquire into complaints that a Member had breached the Code of Conduct and its associated rules. These complaints related to a Member’s obligation to declare or register financial interests and to the use of the House’s facilities. The Commissioner did not deal with complaints into how Members carried out their work. The system was also not an audit system: the Commissioner acted only on the basis of a complaint supported by evidence of a breach of the Code. Once the Commissioner had investigated a complaint, he often reported his findings to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. In the last financial year he had reported his findings on 15 complaints against Members.

Mr Lyon explained that he never forgot that a complaint could affect the local reputation, political standing and future career of a Member. The high stakes involved in each inquiry meant that a thorough, fair, evidence-based investigation was required. All the evidence on which the Commissioner relied was published with his memorandum to the Committee, and the process was therefore open and transparent.

Mr Lyon explained that he did not discuss his findings in advance with the Committee. It was for the Committee, and not for the Commissioner, to decide on the appropriate penalty to recommend to the House of Commons. He described the possible penalties, which ranged from a written apology to suspension from the House without pay, or even – in extremely rare cases – expulsion.

57

Mr Lyon concluded by explaining that this system of standards had stood the test of time and evolved and become more demanding over the years. It was a continuing process: standards were adapted to new challenges and to changing public expectations. This process enabled the House of Commons to decide on its own standards and to have its Members’ performance independently tested against those standards. It was an essential foundation to public confidence in the democratic system.

Mr Chris Mullin MP noted that although the UK thought of itself as one of the world’s oldest , it was nevertheless still on a steep learning curve. Its processes continued to evolve over time. There had been a sea change over the last hundred years in the public’s expectations of its elected representatives. There had been huge changes even in the last twenty two years, and these had mostly been for the better. The House of Commons was no longer a gentlemen’s club: the number of female Members of Parliament had increased significantly since 1997. The age of deference had also passed: the visit of an MP to his constituency was no longer a rare event for which the Member was met by the local stationmaster in his top hat. Mr Mullin noted that this deference still existed in younger democracies.

Mr Mullin noted that the nature of a Member’s job had changed over time. It no longer involved only the scrutiny of the Executive, but also providing a local service in the constituency. The House had voted for itself resources that would have been undreamed of in the past; Members now had a budget for staff and constituency offices and allowances for their second homes and for their travel between Westminster and their constituencies. Over the last fifty years, the public demand for scrutiny of the use of resources had increased, and in the last ten years this demand had been accelerated by the presence of 24 hour media coverage.

This had led to a need for Members to change their ways. In the past it had been assumed that all Members were honourable and no in-depth inquiries had taken place. Even ten years ago there had been no hard rules and parties had not been required to declare the sources of their finances. Today a much brighter spotlight fell upon these questions. There were now requirements for Members to register financial interests and donations and for political parties to register donations. Donations to parties from abroad were now forbidden. Details of allowances were published and accounts were published under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Mullin noted, however, that details of Members’ allowances were often misrepresented by the media.

The system had for a long time relied on self regulation, and had been much criticised for this. The employment of an independent Commissioner had represented a dramatic change to a system with robust inquiries and the publication of their findings. On the question of penalties, Mr Mullin said that the Committee on Standards and Privileges had been accused of letting some Members off too lightly. This was misplaced, he argued: three Members had had their careers terminated by the Committee’s Reports, and even the Prime Minister was not immune to the Committee’s scrutiny. The issues investigated by the Committee included failures to declare, alleged misuse of Parliamentary facilities, payments made to relatives who did not in fact do work on the Member’s behalf and the misuse of stationery on an industrial scale.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and invited questions from delegates.

58

Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) noted the size of the budget of the Commissioner’s office and remarked that in Nigeria, because of the strong political opposition, the budget would have to be much larger. He asked whether there was a template for complaints with which all complainants had to comply.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether the complaints were mens rea or related to negligence.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked whether there was a register of interests for journalists.

Mr Lyon said that he did not investigate rumours but only those complaints where evidence was provided. During the financial year 2007-08, he had received 226 complaints against named Members and had begun inquiries into 71 of these.

Turning to the profile of breaches, he noted that the concept of mens rea did not apply because the complaints did not relate to criminal offences. He noted that most complaints did not relate to major events and that he investigated few complaints relating to cash for questions or similar offences. He noted that Members were not elected for their administrative abilities and that many relied on their staff to monitor the rules. Staff were sometimes not properly briefed on the importance of the rules, and many breaches occurred through accident, foolishness or negligence.

Only journalists who held passes to the House of Parliament were obliged to register their interests.

Mr Pierre Laufo Fonotoe MP (Samoa) said that he was interested in the register of Members’ interests since no equivalent existed in Samoa. He asked what was included in the Register, whether Members were truthful in their disclosures, and what consequences there were for a failure to disclose.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked what happened if there was public outcry about the size of Members’ salaries. She noted that the fact that MPs salaries in Kenya were not taxed was a source of public concern.

Mr Mullin said that the fact that the UK Parliament voted on the level of its own salaries was a source of embarrassment. The Government had promised to find a way of having Members’ salaries set by an independent body. He noted that while the system had been abused in the past, in recent years the opposite had occurred: the increase in salary compared unfavourably with the rest of the public sector. Members’ allowances were untaxed; he commented that this was absolutely right, as long as claims made were genuine. He suggested that a system of audit should be put in place.

Mr Lyon said that salaries and allowances were not the responsibility of the Commissioner or of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Ultimately the decisions were taken by the House itself.

The Register of Members’ Interests covered a broad range of interests, including financial or other material benefits such as land, property, overseas visits and shareholdings. The Commissioner said

59

that Members were generally truthful because the consequences were so severe: even forgetting a deadline for registration was a serious matter.

Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP (Hong Kong) asked whether the Commissioner’s office scrutinised allowance claims. He also asked whether gifts had to be registered.

Dr Seh Hong Ong MP (Singapore) asked where the line dividing the Commissioner from the Committee was drawn. On the subject of penalties, he asked whether there was a clear system for determining the penalty recommended by the Committee. He noted that, in Singapore, Cabinet Ministers had no business involvement but other MPs were part-time and continued to exercise professions. He asked whether there was a clear-cut line for MPs with business interests.

Hon. Juhar Mahiruddin MLA (Malaysia, Sabah) asked whether there was a right to appeal, especially for those Members suspended from the House.

Mr Lyon said that allowances were the responsibility of the House’s Department of Resources and were not scrutinised as such. The auditing of allowance claims was not part of his remit.

On the subject of gifts, he said that gifts with a value greater than 1% of a Member’s salary had to be registered.

On the relationship between the Committee and the Commissioner, he said that complaints went to the Commissioner and that he alone decided what to do. He then decided the outcome of a complaint and could dismiss it if it was unfounded. He had the power to resolve minor, inadvertent breaches with the Member in question. In more serious cases, he reported to the Committee and it was his decision to submit a memorandum. This was the element of independence in the system and avoided the risk of political interference. It was not his role to recommend a penalty, but rather to determine whether a breach had occurred and how it had come about. The Committee was free to come to a different conclusion and had the power to recommend a sanction. There were no guidelines for penalties, but the Committee was advised on precedents by its Clerk.

Responding to the question from Dr Seh Hong Ong MP, Mr Lyon noted that the same principle applied to UK Cabinet Ministers. He noted that historically Members of Parliament had not been paid, and that even after salaries were introduced many professional Members continued to work. In theory this was still possible today, but in practice most Members had no significant outside interests.

Mr Mullin said that the Commissioner’s reports were very rigorous and that Members had a right to comment on its findings when giving oral evidence. The facts were rarely disputed. The final decision on sanctions lay with the House itself, especially in the case of suspension. There was no right to appeal the Commissioner’s decision to investigate.

Hon. Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) noted that demonstrations were taking place in Kenya urging MPs to pay tax on their salaries, but said that for Members to do so would be a breach of the law.

60

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked whether the effectiveness and performance of select committees was scrutinised, especially the rates of absenteeism.

Mr Hanuman Ram Kuri (Rajasthan, India) asked whether it was in the spirit of democracy to have an unelected Commissioner.

Mr Mullin advised the Kenyan delegate that the best course of action was to set salaries at acceptable, reasonable levels. He noted that the greater gap between rich and poor in developing countries meant that the lifestyle of those at the top attracted more criticism than in the developed world.

He noted that absenteeism from select committees was not penalised.

Mr Lyon suggested that the appointment of an unelected Commissioner was the price the House had to pay for independent, non-political investigation. He had been appointed through a fair, open, transparent process. His work was generated by the electorate and he did not decide on sanctions.

61

Thursday 5 March 2009

HANSARD

Speakers: Ms Lorraine Sutherland (Editor, ) Mr Jonathan Hoare (Sub-Editor, Hansard)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman introduced the session.

Ms Lorraine Sutherland explained that the purpose of Hansard was to provide an accurate and independent record of proceedings in the Chamber of the House of Commons, including departmental questions and answers. Hansard was also responsible for the House of Commons annunicator and copies of division lists sent to the whips.

Ms Sutherland explained that Hansard was printed and published on the day following the business it covered and that an electronic version was available on the Internet three hours after the business was transacted. Also on the Internet were copies of Hansard for the proceedings in the Chamber going back to 1988 and in committees from 1997. In addition, digitised historical Hansard daily parts from the 19th century onwards were being made available on the Internet.

Ms Sutherland outlined the history of the reporting of proceedings in Parliament. She said that starting in the 17th century unofficial, and often inaccurate, accounts of debates in Parliament had been produced but such publications had been suppressed with the full force of the law. During the 18th century demand for accounts of debates had grown and to circumvent the legal restrictions accounts of debates with a gloss of fiction had been produced such as the reports of the Senate of Magna Lilliputia. Following a legal battle involving John Wilkes MP suppression had ceased in 1771.

In 1803, William Cobbett had started printing records of debates. These were published as a supplement to his Political Register and were the first organised attempt to record proceedings consistently and accurately. Due to insolvency Cobbett had to sell the contract for debates in 1812 to Thomas Curson Hansard, son of Luke Hansard, the Government's printer (although Thomas' business was independent). Hansard put his name on the reports in 1829 and from that time Hansard became a recognised part of the parliamentary procedures.

Ms Sutherland said that in 1897 a committee examined the operation of Hansard and in 1909 its recommendations were implemented when operation of Hansard was taken over by the House of Commons and it was given the title Official Report. Ms Sutherland added that in 1943 the name Hansard had been restored to the front cover of the reports.

Ms Sutherland explained that Hansard was not a verbatim report and that it attempted to turn the spoken word into readable text and to improve clarity without changing the meaning. MPs could not make changes of substance.

62

Mr Jonathan Hoare explained that Hansard had offices at 7 Millbank and in the . It used a working list system with two Hansard reporters always in the Chamber. He explained that nowadays Pitman’s shorthand was hardly used, although for a time Hansard had trained staff in it when shorthand courses had ceased. Instead, most reporters used recording tapes supplemented with notes which the reporter wrote up and the text was checked by an editor before publication.

In committees a sub-editor took a log to reporters based in 7 Millbank which was then written up and checked by a sub-editor before publication. Mr Hoare added that until 2008 Hansard had been a discrete department within the House of Commons service but in 2008 it had been amalgamated with other departments to become part of the Department for Chamber and Committee Services. He concluded that Hansard was the public record of British democracy.

Ms Sutherland showed a copy of a Hansard daily part to the meeting. She said that the main challenges facing Hansard staff were demand for swift publication and maintaining high standards of accuracy. In recruiting reporters Hansard sought to appoint people with a flair for the English language and a good knowledge of politics. New staff were given a four month training course. Sitting hours could fluctuate and the number of parliamentary questions had grown in recent years putting pressure on the production timetable.

Mr Hoare added that part of the process of managing Hansard was to anticipate the demands of MPs. He said that, for example, MPs were becoming more computer literate and that as a result Hansard now sent them copies of their speeches for checking by e-mail. But, if an MP wished to suggest a change, he or she was required to come to the Hansard office in person rather than send a researcher. This ensured that MPs were responsible for their own speeches.

Mr Hoare told the meeting that Hansard had an annual budget of £10 million, £4 million of which was earmarked for printing costs. The rest went on salaries of 100 staff who worked for Hansard, 75 to 80 of whom were employed directly on reporting. To meet pressures freelance staff were sometimes employed. He explained that Hansard required the IT systems that it used to operate without any faults or failures, something that was not always appreciated by those who provided IT services.

Looking to the future Ms Sutherland considered that the demand for paper copies of Hansard was likely to continue, though she noted that this was an area where costs might be reduced—possibly through the outsourcing of printing. She considered that voice recognition software in its current form could not replace existing arrangements as it could not recognise the full range of accents in the Chamber. She noted that it had been used in the in the , where it had speeded up the production of its Hansard.

The Chairman invited questions to Ms Sutherland and Mr Hoare.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A. C. T., Australia) asked if proof copies were made available in advance of the final printed daily parts.

63

Ms Sutherland said that as a copy of Hansard went on the Internet after only three hours there was no opportunity to make proofs available. She added that if proofs were heavily amended privilege might no longer apply to the text in the proof.

Mr Rattenbury also asked if MPs were invited to e-mail their speeches to Hansard.

Ms Sutherland said that it was not used as a matter of course but that instead Hansard asked MPs for a copy of their speaking notes.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked if Hansard corrected syntax.

Ms Sutherland replied that it could be corrected to make the text intelligible. In response to a question from Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Pakistan, Balochistan) Ms Sutherland explained that Hansard gave MPs copies of their speeches on request.

Mr Richard Ssendege (Clerk, Uganda) asked why Hansard reports were necessary when Clerks also kept a record.

Ms Sutherland explained that the Clerks at the Table in the Chamber or in committee did not take a record of what was said, only a record of decisions taken and resolutions made. In contrast the Hansard record set out what was said before a decision was taken or a resolution made. She said that Hansard therefore played an essential role in holding the government and MPs to account. She added that unlike reports written by journalists no slant was put on the Hansard report.

Mr Kevin Shiels (Clerk, Northern Ireland) asked if remarks made by MPs from a sedentary position were recorded in Hansard and if bad language was reported.

Ms Sutherland replied that sedentary remarks were only recorded when the MP who had the floor reacted, in order to make his or her remarks intelligible. She said that similarly, although bad language was unparliamentary, it was published in Hansard to explain the reason for an intervention by the Speaker.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) asked whether Hansard made mistakes.

Ms Sutherland said that mistakes occurred but that Hansard strived for accuracy. Where a mistake occurred it was corrected as soon as possible on the Internet. On the printed version a correction would be published the next day.

Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda (Clerk, Sri Lanka) asked whether the audio versions used by Hansard were made available.

Ms Sutherland explained that a commercial company held a contract to make audio and video recordings of the Chamber and committees available for a set period. Copies made by Hansard were only used for purpose of a producing a transcript and were not kept.

64

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked if there was a correlation between the printed and broadcast version.

Ms Sutherland said there was a correlation and that discrepancies were less serious than they use to be.

The Chairman thanked Ms Sutherland and Mr Hoare.

65

Thursday 5 March

PARTY DISCIPLINE IN PARLIAMENT

Speakers: Mr MP (Labour; Government Pairing Whip) Mr James Duddridge MP (Conservative; Opposition Whip) Lord Shutt of Greetland (Liberal Democrats; Chief Whip in the House of Lords

Chairman: Rt Hon. Lord Morris of Aberavon KC QC (Labour)

The Chairman introduced the speakers.

Mr Tony Cunningham MP began by explaining the UK system of government, particularly in comparison with that of the USA. He explained that unlike most other countries, in the UK governments did not serve for a fixed amount of time, but were dependent on a Parliamentary majority for power; without a Parliamentary majority that government would fall. His job as a Government Whip was to help maintain the necessary Parliamentary support and make sure that the Government’s business was passed. He compared his job to that of a factory manager, ensuring the smooth progress of business.

He said that Whips generally had two roles: 1) They took responsibility for the wellbeing of a regional group of MPs 2) They shadowed a Government department and were responsible for ensuring that all legislation from that department was passed. He illustrated this with a discussion of his work as DEFRA Whip in the passing of the Animal Welfare Bill.

As a “pairing Whip” he was also personally responsible for Members’ movements and grants permission for travel and absences from Parliament.

Mr Cunningham also described how Whips were an important conduit of information between the Government and the Parliamentary Party and acted as “barometers” of Members’ opinion. He concluded his talk by emphasising how important trust and integrity was between opposing Whips’ offices; without this trust the system would not work.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked how much of the job was information gathering of the mood of the Parliamentary Party?

Mr Cunningham said that the parties had an informal network to gather information. Part of a Whips’ job was being aware of potential problems in advance.

Hon. Rachel Wambi Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked if a Party system could survive without trust between Whips’ offices. She asked with particular reference to the coalition government in Kenya which seemed to lack mutual trust.

Mr Cunningham reiterated his earlier statements and said that it was vital that “his word was his bond”.

66

Hon. Juhar Mahiruddin MLA (Malaysia) asked how the right to free expression survived in a situation where, it seemed to him, the Whips had the power to prevent Members voting against their party. He wondered what methods Whips had to prevent Members voting against their party and, what sanctions they could apply if needed.

Mr Cunningham pointed out that governments were dependent on a degree of discipline and in his view stable governments were important enough to justify a degree of power invested in the Whips. He said that the Whips’ main power was one of patronage.

The Chairman then introduced the remaining two speakers.

Lord Shutt of Greetland began by explaining the differences between “whipping” in the Commons and Lords, the main difference being that the Lords’ was generally more relaxed. This meant that, rather than maintaining discipline in his own party, his main role was fostering the relationship between the other parties and negotiating speaking time for his Members. He suggested that his role was therefore more “organisational”; he had regular discussions with the Government Chief Whip over the Forthcoming Business and he encouraged his Members to attend Committee meetings and ask Ministerial questions at every available opportunity. Rather than guiding through policy, he viewed the main aim of his job as expressing the Party’s views at every available opportunity.

Mr James Duddridge MP suggested that in many ways being a Whip could not be taught. Instead in was an “intuitive, organic” role, competency in which could only be gained through experience.

He agreed with Mr Cunningham’s analogy of a Whip as a “floor manager”, allowing business to be conducted and acting as a (two-way) conduit for information. Referring to Mr Mahiruddin’s earlier question he suggested that a distinction could be drawn between “principled opposition” and “opportunistic opposition”; in his view sanctions would only be applied in the case of the latter. He suggested that, at least in the Conservative Party, experience in the Whips’ Office was a good “grounding” for Ministerial office.

Mr Duddridge concluded by re-emphasising the importance of trust and honesty between opposing Whips’ offices.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked how a Whip could gain, and keep, the trust of his peers given that it is an appointed, rather than an elected role.

Mr Duddridge suggested that in his experience this was not a problem as the Whips’ office generally represented all “wings” of the Parliamentary party and therefore Members’ problems with one particular Whip would be minimised.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shebesh (Kenya) asked what would happen if the party lost confidence in the Whip? How could they be removed from the post?

67

Mr Duddridge said that to his knowledge, this had never happened. There was no method to remove the office-holder directly, and since the role placed great importance in personal relationships it was extremely unlikely to happen.

Lord Shutt gave three reasons why his Party Members would want him removed from his position: 1) He was not doing a good job and was making incorrect judgements and decisions; 2) There was a large personality clash; 3) He was incompetent.

He suggested that if this was the case the would be informed discreetly and since his position was dependent on the support of his Members’, once he had lost their confidence it was likely that the party leader would be made aware and he would be removed that way. There is no mechanism to directly remove the Whip from office.

68

Thursday 5 March 2009

THE ROLE OF AN MP IN THE CONSTITUENCY

Speakers: Ms Diane Abbot MP (Labour) Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP (Conservative)

Chairman: Lord Corbett of Castle Vale (Labour)

The Chairman said that he was glad to be with the delegates. He thought that they would enjoy their time in constituencies on Friday, and reminded delegates that the MP’s role in the constituency was of paramount importance to the Westminster system. He then introduced the first speaker, Diane Abbott MP.

Ms Diane Abbott MP introduced herself as the Member of Parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, a position she had held for 22 years. An MP’s role in the constituency was a very large part of the job. The role was particular to the constituency and the individual MP’s circumstances. Her constituency was ethnically very diverse. The role of an MP in Parliament took up a significant proportion of an MP’s time. During the parliamentary terms in Westminster, the House sat every Monday to Thursday, and sometimes on Fridays. All ministers were members of the House of Commons (or Lords) first and foremost. Consequently the pressures brought about by having a constituency were felt by all Members.

Her constituency of Hackney was geographically small. Her role was threefold – as a constituency MP, an MP in Parliament and as an MP promoting her own interests. Ms Abbott had a particular interest in knife crime, which was an important issue in her constituency. Her role in the constituency kept her busy; she would often be approached in the street by constituents. However in the Westminster system, MPs were not approached for direct financial assistance. Rather, constituents would ask for advice and help in relation to housing, immigration, asylum and schooling, for example. The volume of correspondence that an MP received had increased many times since she had become an MP in 1987.

Within Parliament, opportunities arose to advance some of her constituency interests. She could speak with authority on schools and nursing homes, contribute to the development and scrutiny of legislation and the Budget, which was due in the next few weeks. She had recently visited Latin America and Afghanistan. Although MPs at Westminster might not have the same stresses as delegates, they certainly had many calls on their time.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP said that it was a great privilege to be speaking to delegates, and thanked Diane Abbott MP for her excellent presentation. He began by recalling his experiences around the hilly villages of the Cotswolds. He would give delegates a short, pithy summary of his role as a constituency MP. His constituency was very different to Ms Abbott’s. His covered 1000 square miles, and was very rural. His was a wealthy, articulate electorate, with many pet interests. He agreed with Ms Abbott that the job had undoubtedly become more difficult and time-consuming in recent years. Whereas previously constituents would have accepted a delay in replying, the introduction of e-mail meant that nowadays, a response was expected by return. Some of the

69

problems which were brought to him as an MP were desperately difficult. Repossession, access to medicine and miscarriages of justice were a few that stuck in the mind.

In Parliament, MPs were kept equally busy. He was Shadow Minister for International Development, and was engaged with such questions as what the UK’s policy towards Sri Lanka should be. It was essential that an MP enjoyed the job of listening to people, and getting results for people in difficulty. It was hard work, but enormously satisfying.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) asked how individual MPs funded their election to Parliament.

Ms Abbott said that twenty years ago, her campaign cost £4,000. The rules concerning election expenditure were very strictly policed, with any member of the local electorate entitled to view a candidate’s election accounts for a period after the election. She knew of one case in which a newly- elected Member had lost her seat due to having spent too much. Another point worth noting was that in the UK, paid political advertising on television was not allowed. Political parties were given free slots on television around elections (known as ‘party political broadcasts’). At a national level, the rules were not so strict. Both major parties were taking steps towards reform, and whilst there was much agreement, significant obstacles remained.

Mr Clifton-Brown agreed that the difference between local and national rules was marked. The central offices of the major parties spent about £20m at the last election. Fundraising had many different forms: a wine and cheese party in the Cotswolds one week would be just that, however, if Parliament had been dissolved, any funds spent were then counted towards the election fund, for which there was an expenditure limit for each constituency. Individual candidates did not need to pay for any aspect of their campaign themselves.

The Chairman mentioned the Political Parties Bill, which was before Parliament at the moment.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked how much candidates were allowed to spend at each election.

Mr Clifton-Brown said that the figure varied, but was around £15,000 and set by the Electoral Commission. That figure covered all expenditure in the 3-5 weeks between dissolution and election.

Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP (Hong Kong) asked at what point money started being counted as election expenditure. For example, would posters printed before dissolution count, as they would be related to the election but ordered outside of the period.

Ms Abbott explained that such posters would be counted. On a related note, MPs received a communications allowance of about £10,000, the purpose of which was to keep constituents informed about their work as a Member of Parliament. The money could, for instance, be spent on leaflets or the development of a website.

Mr Clifton-Brown added that once Parliament had been dissolved, MPs became candidates – strictly speaking, they were no longer a Member of Parliament.

70

Hon. Harbans Kapoor MLA (, India) asked what problems arose in the speakers’ constituencies.

Mr Clifton-Brown said that his constituents’ problems ranged from parking fines to murder. Whereas he had no power to influence proceedings, as an MP, he had some ability to intervene in a case.

Hon. Kapoor asked if UK MPs had any equivalent of the constituency development fund.

Mr Clifton-Brown explained that the role of an MP in the Westminster system did not include holding any purse strings. His, and others’, role was limited to opening doors and pressuring Ministers, maybe in the course of a Westminster Hall debate.

Ms Abbott noted that in the UK, there was, comparatively speaking considerable support provided by the state.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said that in Australia, a first-time candidate had very few funds. Stringent rules were applied by the tax office, which deducted 5% of an MP’s salary in order to subsidise election expenses.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that in Africa during an election, candidates simply had to feed their electors. Learning about good practice in Westminster was all well and good, but in Africa it was not practical.

Ms Abbott said that although she had been raised in Britain, her family had close ties to Jamaica, and she was aware of the difficulties faced by MPs in developing countries.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked about corruption.

Mr Clifton-Brown said that he was glad that he did not have any money to spend in his constituency, as it meant that he could not be accused of corruption.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A.C.T., Australia) said that as a relatively new Member of Parliament, he had sat across the table from constituents with complaints which he had found fairly trivial. He asked the speakers how they dealt with difficult constituents.

Ms Abbott said that as a younger MP, she had made many efforts to jump through hoops for her constituents. With some of them, it just wasn’t within her power to help. In several immigration and asylum cases, the kindest thing was often just to advise them to buy a new suitcase. When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses, she had been placed under pressure by senior members of her local Muslim community to call for the book to be banned. Despite their threatening to withdraw Muslim support from her, she assisted their calls as she had felt that there was something inherently wrong with banning books with which one did not agree.

71

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) said that some constituents were best helped by being taken to an employment agency and that this was fairly easy to arrange.

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) asked about separating professional and personal lives.

Ms Abbott said that in a small constituency, this was quite difficult. She tried to protect her family from unwanted exposure. A former secretary had been most insistent that as soon as the House rose for the summer, she got on an aeroplane for a foreign holiday.

The Chairman recalled a time when he had been on holiday in with his family and a constituent had approached him. He had told the constituent in no uncertain terms that he was on holiday and that his issue could wait.

72

Thursday 5 March 2009

REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

Speaker: Ms Alda Barry (Registrar of Members’ Interests)

Chairman: Miss Elspeth Macdonald (Assistant Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman opened the session and introduced Alda Barry, Registrar of Interests.

Ms Alda Barry said that register was created in 1974 as a result of then recent scandals over parliamentary interests, and it therefore predated the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The register was intended to

“provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as Member of Parliament.”

In that sense, it was a register not of wealth but of interests. Members were not required to register all interests or all property owned, merely those that might be held to influence the way in which they voted. All such registers had to strike a balance between transparency and privacy, a balance that constantly shifted over time

Members were required to register within three months of their election, though that period was to be shortened to one month to bring it into line with the practice of the Electoral Commission. The register contained entries within 10 categories:

1. Remunerated directorships 2. Remunerated employment, office, profession etc. 3. Clients 4. Sponsorship or financial or material support 5. Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK) 6. Overseas visits 7. Overseas benefits and gifts 8. Land and Property 9. Registrable shareholdings 10. Miscellaneous and unremunerated interests

In the first two categories, Members did not need to reveal how much they earned, unless they earned it in their capacity as Members of Parliament. Declarations were made within bands of £5,000. If paid as a consultant, Members also had to provide information on earnings and give an indication of how much, and what, they were required to do. They were also required to state that they did nothing inconsistent with their status as Members.

73

The ‘Clients’ category, formerly much used, was no longer much required, public opinion being against paid advocacy. The ‘Sponsorship’ category required declarations of donations from associations and so forth, if the donation was specifically linked to the Member. ‘Gifts’ implied gifts to a Member or his/her spouse or partner. ‘Overseas visits’ meant some visits for which expenses had been paid (although it did not include CPA visits, among others).

‘Land and property’ covered property which brought in a substantial income. Members need not declare their own homes, only properties for which they received rental income. ‘Shareholdings’ spoke for itself. ‘Miscellaneous and unremunerated interests’ included entries for non-practising professionals or those who provided unpaid consultancy, the point being transparency. There was, in the UK, no need to register family or domestic partners’ interests, unless they arose simply because a Member was a Member: a pair of tickets to an opera, for example. If a spouse took a Member on a trip, there would be no need to register the fact.

Various thresholds applied to different categories: for remuneration, Members were required to declare anything above 1 per cent of an MP’s salary (over about £630); gifts (or a combination of gifts) worth more than £500 should be registered; properties worth a Member’s salary or more were registered; and rental income of 10 per cent or more of a Member’s salary had to be registered (over about £6,300). Sponsorship of more than £1,000 also had to be registered, this last figure being in line with the requirements of the Electoral Commission: from summer 2009, Members would no longer have to register separately with the Commission and the House, but would have to provide the House with more detail than hitherto.

Changes in registration requirements tended to be driven by events. Following a case the previous year in which a Member had employed a member of his family who may not have done all the work for which he was paid, Members were now required to register any relationship with their staff and their job . Salary scales for jobs were also provided. The balance had in this case tilted from privacy towards transparency.

When the Register of Members’ Interests was introduced, the question arose of benefits for Members’ staff. As a result, a register of staff interests covered two categories: outside employment and employment which benefited from use of a parliamentary pass; and gifts and hospitality. The threshold for registration was half the figure for Members: around £330.

There was a further register for members of all-party groups, regarding their sponsorship or the provision of secretarial assistance. The all-party beer group, for example, received support from brewers.

A register of journalists’ interests had also been created for journalists who were passholders: i.e. the press gallery and the lobby. They were required to register employment advantaged by the holding of a pass, with a threshold of just over £630. The only point of the register was equity with Members; indeed, some, such as Matthew Parris, had effectively used it to advertise that they were ‘available to write for all publications’.

All the registers were published on the internet and regularly updated. Only the Register of Members’ Interests was published in hard copy.

74

The advocacy rule, while not prohibiting the holding of outside interests, limited Members against doing anything to benefit a person or body which paid them. And, in addition to the obligation to register interests, there was a wider obligation to declare an interest, which meant telling the House of an interest relevant to any action in the House, either by saying so in debate or by having [R] placed next to a question, early-day motion or letter to Minister.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) asked how interests should be declared in debate.

Ms Barry said that it should be done by saying “I declare an interest in XXXX”.

Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung (Hong Kong) asked whether only monetary interests had to be registered. Would a non-paid interest in, say, a hospital group have to be registered or declared?

Ms Barry said that it would. The obligation related only to direct or indirect financial interest, though she would generally advise the declaration of non-financial interests for reasons of transparency. No complaint would be entertained for non-declaration of such a hospital interest, but she would advise a Member to declare it if relevant. Apart from anything else, it would show that a Member knew what he was talking about.

Mr Pierre Lauofo Fonotoe MP (Samoa) asked how the register was enforced without statutory backing.

Ms Barry said that the House regulated itself and decided its own penalties, although an alleged crime would be a different matter. In the case of a complaint, the Commissioner would report to the Standards and Privileges Committee, which would report to the House with a recommendation for action. The House would then make a decision and, if required, impose a penalty. Penalties might include requiring an apology or of any monies, or the withholding of salary and suspension from the House for up to one month. The House could, ultimately, expel a Member, and no court could intervene to prevent it from doing so. If such a Member were re-elected, he would again be able to sit.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) asked how often Members had to register. His own country’s register was statutory and registration was required annually.

Ms Barry said that Members had to register initially within three months of election, and then after any change in circumstances that required registration.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) asked who could see the register.

Ms Barry said that anyone could. It was printed annually and was always available on the internet, where it was updated every two weeks. Copies could also be inspected in the House by anyone who wished to do so.

75

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked whether the register could be used, in effect, to cover up holdings in companies owned by the registered company. Was the register merely a PR exercise?

Ms Barry said that the purpose of the register was to make information publicly available. Members had to register holdings of 15 per cent or more of a company or worth more than £63,000. They had also to say what the company did, and anyone could then check the company.

Mr P. K. Grover (India) asked whether candidates had to register.

Ms Barry said that they were required to tell the Electoral Commission about sponsorship, but that the Register of Members’ Interests was only for MPs.

Dr Seh Hong Ong MP (Singapore) asked whether any study had been done into whether registration reduced corruption.

Ms Barry said that outside paid employment had certainly reduced since registers began but she knew of no such study.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said the UK register seemed very gentle in comparison with the one she was used to. She was required to register credit cards, mortgage, her husband’s interests, and every share owned.

Ms Barry said that all Parliaments had to decide for themselves how their registers worked. The House of Commons might be perceived as having been more generous to itself than some other Parliaments had been, or indeed than the House had been to local authorities.

76

9 March 2009 THE INDUSTRY AND PARLIAMENT TRUST Speaker: Mrs Sally Muggeridge FRSA (Chief Executive, Industry and Parliament Trust) Chair: Baroness Harris of Richmond (Liberal Democrat; Trustee, Industry and Parliament Trust) The Chairman welcomed the delegates and introduced the speaker Mrs Muggeridge. Mrs Sally Muggeridge said that Baroness Harris was a fellow of the Industry and Parliament Trust (IPT). Baroness Harris had taken time, under the auspices of the IPT, to visit industry representatives to learn about some of the challenges they faced. Business was the life-blood of the delegates’ own democratic processes in their home countries. Both the Speaker and the Lord Speaker were Presidents of the IPT. Over 60 parliamentarians were involved in the IPT; this meant they were getting out and seeing what was happening in the business world. The IPT was a process by which parliamentarians had the opportunity to engage with business, and vice versa. It was a two-way process—Parliament learnt from business and business from Parliament. The IPT had been operating since 1977. It was a completely non-partisan and independent organisation, as illustrated by the presidency of the Speaker and Lord Speaker. It was a useful body for fostering understanding and its work was very practical. New Zealand had its own equivalent of an IPT and, in the EU, the Spanish and French had similar schemes. They were sometimes called slightly different names in other countries. The IPT was also seeking to foster understanding between business and parliamentarians in many of the “new” economies, such as India. Ms Lisa Baker MLA (Western Australia, Australia) asked about the profile of typical businesses involved in the IPT—for example, were they large, small, or medium businesses. Mrs Muggeridge said that, in the UK as elsewhere, small and medium enterprises were as much the lifeblood of the UK economy as any others. It was therefore vital they had the opportunity to be involved in the IPT, and some were. However, the IPT’s programme lasted 18 days which could sometimes deter some smaller businesses. Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP (Hong Kong) said that small and medium enterprises often found it more difficult than larger businesses to cope with new legislation. He asked what role the IPT played between businesses and MPs when a parliamentary bill affecting business was tabled. Mrs Muggeridge said that the IPT provided a very good forum for industry and Parliament to network together and discuss issues. However, the IPT’s role was of an educator, not an influencer. Policy was not its responsibility, although the IPT always provided opportunities for MPs to learn more about the industry when relevant legislation was going through Parliament. The Chairman said that the IPT provided a very useful forum to understand what new legislation might be coming up in the future.

77

Dr She Hong Ong MP (Singapore) asked about the funding of the IPT, and how it was ensured that the IPT did not show preference for certain lobbyists for financial reasons. Mrs Muggeridge said that the IPT was a charity, and so accepted donations. Businesses that supported the IPT’s ethos—that it was a educator, not a lobbyist—sometimes gave funding. The IPT also earned money through its training programmes which allowed business people to come to Parliament and study the legislative process. This was important because many senior executives in the business world did not understand Parliament. Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked how the IPT related to the relevant business and industry select committee in Parliament. Mrs Muggeridge said that the IPT often invited members of the relevant select committee to learn more about the industrial and business world. Also, business representatives were often called by the committee to answer questions in public, and the IPT sometimes advised the witnesses on the process. Committees were a very valuable resource for businesses to learn more about Parliament. Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said businesses in Jamaica were subject to much “red tape”. She asked how the IPT assisted businesses in dealing with . Mrs Muggeridge said that the IPT undertook a research study last year about “red tape”. The survey showed three out of ten parliamentarians thought red tape was a problem to businesses, compared to ten out of ten businesses who felt the same. There was opportunity for the IPT to see how red tape could be reduced. Pre-legislative scrutiny was important in ensuring there was not going to be an excessive amount of red tape. Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how the IPT chose the businesses that engaged in dialogue with parliamentarians. Mrs Muggeridge said that umbrella trade associations were useful in collecting a voice for the IPT to deal with. For example, the IPT sometimes worked with the Chamber of Commerce, the Confederation of Business Interests and the Energy Retail Association. Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked what co-ordination took place with other organisations outside the House of Commons, such as the House of Lords. Mrs Muggeridge said that Lords were heavily involved in much of the work of the IPT—perhaps because they were under fewer time-pressures than Members of Parliament. Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho MP (Zanzibar) asked how it could be ensured that business and parliamentarians could trust each other, and how the IPT ensured that it did not become politically biased due to the involvement of Members from different political parties. Mrs Muggeridge said that every businessperson was also a voter. Each side respected the other— parliamentarians respected the interests and learning offered by business people, whilst business people respected the time given to them by parliamentarians. Lots of rules existed to guard against . The political speakers did not represent their party, they represented Parliament. Similarly, businesses represented their sector, not their individual interests. Mr P. K. Grover (India) asked about the structure of the IPT.

78

Mrs Muggeridge said that the direction and control of the IPT was determined by the Board of Trustees, on which parliamentarians were in the majority. Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked what was the ethos of the organisation, and whether the IPT took account of the responsibilities of businesses. Mrs Muggeridge said that the IPT’s work was open to everybody. Big business organisations, such as Tesco, sometimes got a bad press but some MPs were surprised to learn that Tesco was the biggest employer in their constituency. The Chairman thanked Mrs Muggeridge and those who had asked questions. She offered to provide further information if delegates required.

79

9 March 2009 THE ARMED FORCES PARLIAMENTARY SCHEME Speaker: Col. Sir Neil Thorne OBE TD DL Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch) Col. Sir Neil Thorne said that he had previously been an MP for 13 years and also had many years experience serving with the armed forces. Whilst an MP, he often attended debates on defence issues involving other MPs with no military experience. The quality of the debates was so poor that he thought he would try to improve Members’ understanding.

He approached the Industry and Parliament Trust to see whether they could initiate a scheme involving parliamentarians and the military. However, the IPT only dealt with private industry, not with Government. So, about 25 years ago he decided to set up his own separate scheme—the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. At first, neither ministers, the Civil Service, nor the military wanted to be involved, although they all eventually warmed to the Scheme.

He decided that the best method was to start at the bottom and work up. When MPs usually went on a military visit, they were treated as ‘two-star’, which meant they learnt very little about the troops on the ground. With his Scheme, he took it down a level so MPs could gain a better understanding about what was happening at the grass roots.

MPs were given combat kit. Originally, the kits were issued as and when required, but this was considered a waste of taxpayer’s money so MPs were instead issued the kit for a year. MPs were given a rank to put on their shoulders in order to gain more respect. The Scheme also managed to obtain Royal Navy uniforms for the MPs. Today, uniforms were always issued to MPs because it helped them feel embedded with the forces. A couple of MPs had visited Basra recently without uniforms, and they had been treated very differently.

When Labour gained power in 1997, he had been asked to expand the Scheme. There were now five MPs assigned to each service. A few years later, MPs were allowed to be assigned to a slightly higher rank to gain experience at that level. Today, MPs could take part in all four levels of the service.

Currently, 53 MPs were under command on the Scheme. Three ministers were currently on the Scheme. Most Members did not want to finish the Scheme until they had graduated. Once a year, they held a black-tie graduation ceremony in the Speaker’s House. Today, the Scheme was taken very seriously. A similar scheme had been established in Australia. However, he had not attempted to sell the Scheme to other countries, because it was their decision if they wanted it. He had also had advantages setting up his Scheme in the UK because he had both a political and a military background. It generated confidence amongst MPs that he was able to help them.

He had been working on the Scheme for the last couple of decades. He had developed very good relationships with all the political parties. However, sometimes problems did occur. For example, the

80

armed forces were sometimes unable to engage because they had to undertake operational activities. Similarly, MPs sometimes had to attend debates. On the whole, however, the Scheme worked well; several MPs had said it was the best thing they had done in Parliament.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether the quality of debates in Parliament had improved since the introduction of the Scheme. He also asked what involvement the Scheme had had with the Iraq conflict.

Sir Neil said that the level of debate in Parliament had improved immeasurably since the introduction of the Scheme. There were now sufficient people knowledgeable enough to want to speak on military issues without having to be pushed into doing so. MPs often began their time in Parliament by being anti-military but, after spending time on the Scheme, became much more supportive of the people serving in the military. Regarding Iraq, it would have been difficult for Tony Blair to have achieved quite the majority he did on the vote on the Iraq War if there had not been a Scheme. Almost 200 Members had taken part in the Scheme, which did have a material effect.

Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) asked what effect the Scheme had had on improving Members’ knowledge of military special operations.

Sir Neil said that very effective integration took place between Members and the military, which improved Members’ understanding substantially.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said that Australia ran a similar scheme on a short-term basis whereby parliamentarians served as ordinary soldiers for two days in a hot part of the Northern Territory. She asked whether the UK Scheme also operated on a short-term basis.

Sir Neil said that he had attended the commencement of Australia’s scheme. Australia was different to the UK because of the vast distances involved. There was now some collaboration in that Australian parliamentarians who had done their scheme three times could be seconded to the UK Scheme.

Ms Lisa Baker MLA (Western Australia, Australia) asked that about the gender mix of the parliamentarians who took part in the Scheme.

Sir Neil said that the Scheme was open to any parliamentarian who wanted to be involved. MPs who undertook the Scheme often discovered that men were better at some things, and women at others.

Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho MP (Zanzibar) asked how any political influence within the army was dealt with.

Sir Neil said that he had been astonished to find there was still a so-called ‘Pepys Effect’ in the Royal Navy, which was a rule that no member of the Navy could have direct contact with politicians unless a civil servant was present. However, army officials did not polarise on particular parties. The armed services were servants of ; they were not employed by the Prime Minister but they still had to treat the Prime Minister and his deputies with respect, and they did.

81

Monday 9 March 2009

YOUNG PEOPLE AND PARLIAMENT: ENGAGING THE NEXT GENERATION

Speakers: Mr Tom O’Leary (Head, Parliamentary Education Service) Ms Beccy Allen (Researcher and Project Manager, Hansard Society) Mr Alex Sergent (Project Co-ordinator, Catch21 Productions)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman welcomed the speakers and said that the 60th anniversary year of the Commonwealth had been deemed a year for youth and indeed a number of young people had been nominated to meet the Head of the Commonwealth that evening. In times when politicians were not held in high esteem it was extraordinarily important to engage young people. The speakers for the session were all actively involved in engaging young people in Parliament.

Mr Tom O’Leary said that the primary objective of the Education Service was to work with schools and Members of both Houses. The Education Unit had been in existence for many years. 10 years ago it had three staff but since then the need to undertake more outreach work was highlighted by the report of the Modernisation Committee on Connecting Parliament and the Public in 2004 and the report of the Puttnam Commission in 2005. Both of these reports contained recommendations about the educational facilities in Parliament and there had been a substantial expansion in those facilities and corresponding efforts to raise standards. Tom O’Leary now led a team of 21 staff and a proposal for an Education Centre had been approved for construction in 2012-13.

The Service had three main objectives: to inform, engage and empower. Most of those who came into contact with the service knew little about Parliament and so embarked on . The main plank of work was a series of workshops and tours in Parliament which took place during the schools year. Each workshop involved a question and answer session with an MP. Recent years had seen a large increase in the number of children who participated in the workshops: 11,000 children in 2005-06 and 38,000 in 2007-08. Parliament could seem an exclusive environment but it did include children in this respect. The projected capacity of the education centre was 100,000 children a year. It was estimated that 45,000 young people a year gained access to Parliament through their MPs.

Quality of learning was central to the Education Service. Training staff, qualitative assessment and reviewing content were afforded high priority. Efforts to embed technology in the provision of the service were also being made: children were digital natives and to engage them it was necessary to provide content in up-to-date formats. A video-conferencing facility had been made available; the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families had recently participated in such a conference. The Education Service also provided training for teachers: whilst it could only scratch the surface in terms of bringing the school population to Westminster, the Service trained up to 2,000 teachers a year to improve children’s political literacy.

82

Recent developments involved the convergence of the resources provided by the Unit: online resources had been enhanced with a new website and the launch of an education channel for Parliament. Bids to produce a 3D visualisation of Parliament with real-time representation of the work of Parliament were being considered. The Service aimed to provide accurate and high quality content in ways which were not too serious to engage children. DVDs were being produced for distribution to schools and the Service was working with partner organisations such as the Youth Parliament (which it sponsored), Aim Higher, BBC Schools Question Time, Future Lab and the Institute for Citizenship. Rebranding work on the Service’s publications was another development, and one which had begun to have an impact. The collective experience of the Service showed that young people wanted knowledge. It was when they were not equipped with this knowledge that they did not engage: the Education Service provided resources to address this.

Ms Beccy Allen said that the Hansard Society was a charity which undertook independent non- partisan political research and educational work to encourage greater engagement with the political system. It had created projects and material for use by students and teachers as part of the citizenship education programme.

The Hansard Society also aimed to encourage dialogue between young people and their representatives, and to ensure that young people’s views were taken into account in the political process of decision-making. The HeadsUp website, for example, was a forum for political debate which connected young people with their peers and with decision-makers. Five forum debates took place in each academic year, supported by the provision of material for use by teachers in conjunction with their students’ participation in the online debate. The latest topic of debate was crime. Teaching resources had been prepared, along with a package for students which included video content and links to other online resources. The next stage was the forum debate among students and teachers and legislators and other decision-makers. For example, Lord Harris, formerly Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, was to take part in the forum.

After the forum debate ended a detailed report on the key themes to have emerged would be prepared. This would go out to forum users, journalists and other stakeholders in the policy-making process.

The forum itself was organised in a series of threads. Young people could create their own avatars which gave a sense of personal attachment to participation in debate. Moderators oversaw the debate to make sure that participants engaged with each other in a reasonable way and that other aspects of the forum ran smoothly. Such debates put young people at the centre of the political process: their ideas were widely circulated (recipients might include parliamentary committees, for example). The involvement of decision-makers in the debates was important: on average 10 decision-makers participated in each forum. The website had 8,000 users: the online facility brought together people whose contact would otherwise have been limited by geography. Whilst decision- makers were at present involved in debates on a one-off basis, as the website developed they were being encouraged to engage with it more regularly.

The challenges associated with running the website and forum debates included explaining to teachers and politicians the technology involved. The format of debates could seem complicated to

83

people unfamiliar with the forum facility which was not a “live chat” but which allowed users to log in whenever they liked. But the Hansard Society’s view was that such methods could be used more widely in the evidence-gathering projects undertaken by Government departments and parliamentary committees. Communication could be a challenge because of the variation in the language with which participants were familiar. The poor reputation of consultations could represent a barrier to participation but the Hansard Society sought to explain the differences between HeadsUp website and standard methods of consultation.

In running the HeadsUp project the Hansard Society had distilled several key lessons to be learned in relation to engaging with young people. It was important to be honest about the process: young people should be told that their views would be fed in to debate with decision-makers but the potential for influencing decisions should not be exaggerated. Content was key but it was vital that the technology which hosted it was not too difficult to navigate. The quality of input from decision- makers was also a significant factor in the success of a forum. Communication with participants before, during and after each debate was vital and an outcome – the report on a forum – was crucial.

Mr Alex Sergent said that Catch21 was a charitable production company which ran workshops and produced shows across the UK. Aimed at 16-25 year-olds, it was run by young people for young people. Catch21 had been set up as a production company with the express aim of engaging young people in the political process when, in 2004, its founders had realised that traditional broadcasting methods were on the wane and Ofcom figures showed that young people were no longer getting their information from the television or radio news. Something was wrong with what the mainstream media were doing in terms of explaining the political system to young people. Traditional broadcasters needed to acknowledge that politics had changed. Catch21 recognised that political awareness now revolved around single issues.

Catch21 had launched a web television channel. It provided cameras and space for interviews, and posted videos. Through social networking sites such as Youtube nearly 40,000 people had watched Catch21’s video on issues relating to sex education. The team behind Catch21 had a sense of the style that was relevant to young people and its reporters knew how to capture this in the way that they presented each show. Catch21’s filming and editing services were available to assist other bodies: it could produce packages, including video content for posting on websites.

More and more young people were turning to the internet for news and on current trends it was to be expected that all young people would get their news in this way in 5-10 years. Catch21’s aim was to produce more content in order to make more decision-makers aware that they needed to engage with the internet to connect with young people.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and said that they had presented examples of ways in which young people could be engaged in the political process but did not say that their methods were the only ones to be used.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that three attempts had been made to establish a youth parliament in Kenya and each one had failed and asked for information about the structure of the UK Youth Parliament. Some of the examples of Catch21’s content seemed to concern issues

84

which should be the subject of education anyway, such as sex education. The real challenge would be to start a continuous conversation on other areas of political life, such as recent events and the political situation in Northern Ireland.

Ms Beverley Isles (Clerk, Canada) said that the efforts of the speakers’ organisations were to be applauded. Canada faced the same challenges in engaging the youth but also had to focus on how to keep people engaged as they go older. Young adults needed a different type of information.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) congratulated the speakers on their work and asked how young people were represented at the House of Commons. Training for teachers and young people advocating for their peers was very important. Several initiatives in Africa involved proposals to establish youth parliaments.

Mr O’Leary said that the UK Youth Parliament was an organisation separate from the Houses of Parliament. It was a very effective organisation with local representation, which was run as a charity. Young people were elected to the Youth Parliament and then came together to discuss and decide on campaign issues. A motion to allow the Youth Parliament to meet in the House of Commons chamber was before the House.

Mr Sergent noted that the Youth Parliament had effective structures for raising awareness of its work. Catch21 helped to provide a platform for it.

The Chairman noted that a Member of the House of Commons, Christopher Chope, sought to amend the motion before the House to prevent the Youth Parliament from meeting in the Commons chamber. The Youth Parliament had previously met in the House of Lords, which had been pro- active in its outreach activities in recent years.

Mr Sergent said that Catch21’s target audience was the 16-25 age group but that it aimed to build on the audience it had and help other organisations to take this audience to the next step. Catch21 did not dictate the content of the broadcasts it put together: the young people it was trying to engage did. Catch21 was a small organisation with limited resources but it had done some work in Belfast and would love to be able to set up operations in a great many locations in order to be able to provide in-depth local coverage.

Ms Allen said that the Hansard Society’s work on citizenship education focused on young people between the ages of 11 and 18. Once young people left education it was more difficult to reach them without extensive, and expensive, advertising campaigns. The strength of the Hansard Society, however, was that it provided building blocks for understanding the political process. It was to be hoped that young people would use what they had learned to engage with the political process as adults. Other Hansard Society projects were for people of all ages – the Lords of the Blog website, for example, which now had high-profile regular contributors, was for everyone. It was possible to create projects that would interest young people even if such projects had not been designed with that target audience in mind.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) noted that Jamaica had a strong youth parliament and asked what recruitment process was used for the UK Youth Parliament. One potential barrier to

85

engaging young people was the ‘body language’ of parliament, which was often combative. Perhaps young people would prefer to conduct themselves in a more harmonious way.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A. C. T., Australia) noted that a great many countries had much lower levels of internet penetration than the UK. Perhaps mobile telephone technology would be more accessible for young people in such countries. Delegates would be interested to hear more about the level of moderation required for internet forum debates.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) asked what the governing party in the UK was doing to engage young people.

Ms Allen said that the way in which politicians conducted themselves in debate was a major barrier to the engagement of young people in the political process. The language of politicians was often formal, and hard to understand. Until political processes could be shown to be composed of people talking as they would in everyday life young people would continue to be discouraged from participating. The Hansard Society through its work on citizenship introduced young people to parliamentary committees, which in general operated on a less argumentative basis than proceedings in the Chamber of the House.

The forum debates did not require extensive moderation, partly because young people often got involved through their citizenship classes, alongside their teachers. Exchanges on the forum could become a bit boisterous but in general they required less intervention than, for example, the political blogs designed for adult use. The moderator’s role was to ensure that debate focused on the chosen topic of the forum and generally to keep things running smoothly.

53% of the users of the HeadsUp website were female. Gender did not seem to be a crucial issue for the target age group, though it was known that ‘personality politics’ was a barrier to women’s engagement in the political process.

Mr Sergent said that Catch21 sought out harmonious ways of explaining the political process. It referred young people to other sources of information and methods of engagement, such as the Lords of the Blog site, and to issue-specific resources but always made sure that it presented a balanced selection of links and tried to enhance its users’ experience of these resources by the information it provided. Lack of funds prevented Catch21 from making use of extensive advertising campaigns and mobile technology. Everyone who contributed content through Catch21 was a volunteer: people got in touch to say that they wanted do produce a piece, meetings were set up and the piece was planned. At Catch21 there was a balance between male and female staff and contributors.

Mr O’Leary said that the Youth Parliament appeared to be representative in terms of gender balance. It operated independently from the Houses of Parliament and had its own ways of recruiting and engaging young people. The Education Service was not involved with the work political parties carried out with young people.

The Chairman noted that each of the main parties in the UK had a youth wing.

86

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) noted the Northern covered huge and remote areas and that parliament made significant investment in a remote programme. Parliamentarians travelled to remote areas to talk to people who might not otherwise engage in the political process at all, owing to language or other barriers.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) said that apathy amongst young people was a problem and asked how organisations in the UK were tackling this.

Senator Wesley George () said that whilst everyone would appreciate efforts to get young people involved in the political process, it was important to ask how the success of these efforts was measured. Such efforts had been made in Trinidad and Tobago but it was difficult to get young people involved in decision-making forums.

Ms Allen said that technological developments had proved useful in reaching people in remote areas with no capacity to travel. The Hansard Society had explored the issue of voter apathy. It surveyed people who became involved in its projects: 60% of those who used the HeadsUp site, for example, said that they were more likely to vote than they had been before using it and a great many of the site’s users made contact with a Member of Parliament for the first time through a forum debate. Students said that after their experiences they were more likely to take part in other political discussions. The Hansard Society had concluded from its research on the obstacles to voter engagement that whilst people tended to say they disliked MPs as a group, their opinion changed in relation to MPs they met face-to-face or online. None of these efforts would solve the problem of voter apathy but engaging young people early and making political discussion seem ‘normal’ could help, even if it was difficult to predict the extent of a young person’s future involvement in the political process.

Mr O’Leary said that the Education Service ran an outreach team of five staff. The team’s work had been very successful but could only scratch the surface in terms of the population of young people it met. The Service made sure that the format of the content it produced was as accessible as possible but was also looking at establishing partnerships in other areas to increase its outreach work and at providing training for teachers. The Service did not have a set approach to tackling language barriers; it followed the lead of the institutions with which it was working. The Service was producing publications in the Welsh language. Voter apathy was an important issue: what constituted voter apathy was the subject of a huge debate.

The Education Service hoped to make Parliament seem relevant to young people as part of a jigsaw of influences on their level of engagement. Success in these efforts was taken to mean the growth of a generation of young people who understood how Parliament worked, not necessarily a generation of young people who aspired to be directly involved as representatives. Education was the key to ongoing engagement: the ultimate aim of the Service was to empower young people by helping them to develop a political literacy that would give them an ability to engage with political processes on which they could build as they grew up.

Mr Sergent said that Catch21 produced shows in different parts of the UK but limits on its resources limited the number of people it could involve in its productions. It had run a project in the , seeking views on e-democracy and the level of politicians’ engagement with new methods

87

of contributing to political debate. Catch21 measured its success by the it received on its shows. On the basis of its first 12 shows, which were based on single issues, 74% of viewer said that they had been encouraged to vote. The shows involved representatives engaging with a presenter and an audience and so young people felt as though their views were being heard and this spurred them on to want to vote.

Voter apathy was one of the reasons Catch21 had been set up but it was a difficult trend to quantify and track. When used properly as a tool the internet was an highly effective method of engaging a large number and wide range of young people.

Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) said that the role of students in public life should be explored and asked what the role of the UK Youth Parliament was.

Hon. Dr Joseph Sammut MP (Malta) said that parliaments had gone down in the public’s estimation in recent years and that it was unrealistic to expect to be able to solve this problem simply through the use of the internet.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked whether the two Houses had a programme of regular meetings with students, and whether the role of Parliament was part of the school curriculum as it was in Oman.

Mr O’Leary said that citizenship was taught as a subject in schools. It had been compulsory since 2002. But as a new subject it was not as embedded in the curriculum as other subjects and studies of its effectiveness had identified political literacy as an area of weakness. This was partly attributable to a lack of confidence on the part of teachers who were worried about the potential for accusations of political bias. They needed a sound basis from which to teach the subject.

Every time a school visited Parliament there was an opportunity to meet MPs. The MPs were drawn from a self-selecting group and sometimes the constituency MP of visiting pupils was not available. However, separately from the work of the Education Service a great many Members visited schools in their own areas.

Mr Sergent said that Catch21 recognised that the internet was not the only method of engaging young people and that there were a great many people who did not have access to it but it did help. Catch21 would continue to produce its shows and involve as many people as possible in their production. Young people needed to know that their voices were being heard and they could gain this acknowledgement from seeing the record of their views in shows which were archived on the website.

Interest in the work of Catch21 was increasing: this in itself was a measure of its success. The commitment of some teachers to citizenship education was not as strong as it could be but projects such as those run by the Hansard Society and the Education Service helped to connect MPs and schools. Catch21 contributed to this process by providing platforms for young people to make their views known and their voices heard in Parliament.

The Chairman thanked the speakers.

88

89

Monday 9 March 2009

THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Speaker: Mr Peter Wardle (Chief Executive, Electoral Commission)

Chairman: Mr Humfrey Malins MP (Conservative; Member, Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission)

The Chairman welcomed Peter Wardle, the Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission. Mr Wardle had previously been a civil servant and had overseen one of the first major Whitehall IT outsourcing projects. He had also been a board member of the Inland Revenue and a director in the Cabinet Office.

Mr Peter Wardle said that he would do four things during his talk. He would give an outline of elections in the United Kingdom, give an overview of the Electoral Commission and its work, talk about the role of the Electoral Commission in regulating political funding and discuss the running of elections in the United Kingdom.

There were diverse electoral systems in the United Kingdom. There was an assumption that all the elections were first past the post but elections for parliaments and assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland used variations on proportional representation. Local elections in were first past the post but local elections in London, Northern Ireland and Scotland used variations on proportional representation.

One role of the Electoral Commission was to make sure electors understood the rules under which elections were being run. One example of this was that in Scotland, young people who had not voted in the 2005 General Election would not have had the opportunity to vote in a first past post system since then, as elections used proportional representation. The Electoral Commission would need to ensure that these voters understood the differences between the electoral systems used for Westminster elections and that used for Scottish elections. The biggest source of frustration for voters was their vote not being counted due to the ballot paper being spoiled by mistake. O ne issue that was of concern was voter turnout. Between the elections in 1997 and 2005 there had been a 10% drop in participation. This was the trend in most Western European democracies and although it had been reversed in the last French Presidential election it was still a worry. Turnout among 18-24 year olds was lower than among other age groups and older voters were more likely to participate.

The Electoral Commission had been founded by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and resulted from recommendations put forward by the cross-party Committee on Standards in Public Life. Other countries, such as Australia, and India had had Electoral Commissions for much longer. There were currently six Electoral Commissioners and the Commission had 150 staff at seven locations across the United Kingdom. The Electoral Commission

90

did not only oversee Westminster elections; they promoted integrity and public confidence in all United Kingdom elections.

The Commission was accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee. The Committee had to approve the forward plan of the Commission as well as the Annual Report and Accounts. The Electoral Commission was politically neutral. Neither Commissioners nor staff of the Commission could have been involved in politics in the past ten years. This had not worked satisfactorily and changes were being made to reduce the time limit to five years for Commissioners and senior staff and one year for all other staff. There would also be four Commissioners appointed directly by political parties and there would be no ban on these Commissioners having been politically active in the five years prior to their appointment.

The Electoral Commission also had a role in regulating the funding of elections. Their main objective was to promote integrity and transparency in election funding by political parties. The Electoral Commission wanted to ensure well run elections where the results were accepted and trusted. There were 372 political parties currently registered. This number included many small, local interest parties. Parties were removed from the register if they did not comply with the requirements. The main requirement was to field candidates at elections. The Electoral Commission also worked with the CPA and the Commonwealth Secretariat on foreign elections. As well as hosting visiting officials they also liaised with other countries, particularly those with Westminster style democracies. A recent example of this was the consultation with the of Ireland. The Electoral Commission also observed elections within OSCE countries.

There were rules about how political parties could fund election campaigns. Each overseas donation was limited to £200 and any donation or loan over £1000 had to be reported to the Electoral Commission. £2 million was available for policy development grants to political parties. These grants were intended to balance the resources of the Government party in developing policy. During an election period parities also had access to free television broadcasts and free postage for election material. Spending by parties was limited to £19 million across all seats in the United Kingdom being contested. At the end of campaigning parties needed to submit an account of their spending which would be published. In 2005 some elements of the spending, such as how much was spent on hair stylists and fizzy drinks, attracted a lot of media attention. The Electoral Commission educated political parties in compliance. This work focused on the 20 most active parties as they were at most risk of breaching the rules. Most sanctions available for breaches of the rules were criminal sanctions and most breaches did not warrant this. There was pressure to introduce more civil sanctions.

There were 45 million people on the electoral register and the most recent estimate was that between 8-9% of people eligible to register were not on the register. The Electoral Commission had spent time raising public awareness of the need to register to vote. Currently registration was by household but there were move to register by individual instead. Elections were run by local officials, the Electoral Commission ensured that Parliament got the framework right and that local officials got the process right.

91

There had been changes to elections and how they were run. The number of people who chose to vote using postal voting had increased. A legal framework for allowing European Union accredited observers had been introduced.

Although they were rare, the Electoral Commission also had responsibility for referendums including regulating funding and raising public awareness.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin MLA (Quebec, Canada) asked whether internet voting was being explored.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked whether there was a possibility of fraud if voters moved from one constituency to another shortly before an election and what the cut-off date for registering at a new address was.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that there had been a problem in Jamaica with boundaries being redrawn to give an electoral advantage. How were boundaries determined in the United Kingdom?

Mr Wardle said that the drop in voter turnout meant that there was an interest in new forms of voting. Between 2003-2006 internet voting was piloted. It was found not to deliver value for money. There were concerns about fraud and there had been technical problems. It was also difficult to verify the results of internet voting and ensure that votes were not tampered with. It was important to be open to new channels of voting but at present internet voting would not allow for robust regulation. Moving towards registering individuals with personal identification details made it more likely that internet voting would be introduced in the future. It would not be possible to use pencil marks and ballot boxes forever as everything else would move on.

In terms of registering to vote a canvas was taken at a particular point in the year. If someone registered to vote at an address in October 2009 and then moved they would remain registered at the first address until the canvas in 2010 unless they themselves asked to be registered at their new address. There had been allegations of people registering at a new address close to an election but there was no evidence that this was deliberate roll-stuffing and it was more likely that they forgot to register at a new address until an election was approaching. There was a danger that someone could create bogus voter registrations and there were a limited number of cases of this happening.

The Boundary Commission decided constituency boundaries and they had similar rules to the Electoral Commission in terms of independence. The Boundary Commission would make recommendations that were then discussed at a local hearing presided over by a judge. On the whole, changes would be accepted.

Hon. Headley asked what determined a decision to change a boundary.

Mr Wardle said that it was based on the number of voters. The Boundary Commission tried to keep the population of constituencies roughly the same, although they also tried not to put boundaries in inappropriate places.

92

Hon. Samuel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) said Kenya had recently had a difficult election and the Electoral Commission there had been disbanded and was now in the process of being reorganised. If the United Kingdom Electoral Commission was to include four Commissioners appointed by political parties in the future would this not politicise the organisation.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked if voters had to register every year even if they did not move and what the minimum voting age was.

Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda (Clerk, Sri Lanka) asked what would happen in the event of a tie.

Mr Wardle said that he was not sure how having direct political appointees as Commissioners would work. It would be beneficial if it stopped politicians of accusing the Electoral Commission of not understanding politics. One potential disadvantage was the Electoral Commission would have to ensure there were no allegations that one political party was being favoured above others. This would be possible due to the United Kingdom having a tradition of senior political figures who were no longer active as politicians being appointed to positions with constitutional responsibilities. However, it would be the first time political figures had been asked to put aside party allegiances on such important electoral issues. The Electoral Commission hoped that the introduction of four Commissioner appointed by political parties would not undermine its impartiality.

Voters had to register every year but this meant they did not have to show identification to vote. There would probably be a move away from this system to a system of personal registration and identification. The minimum voting age was 18. In the event of a tie the vote was decided by flipping a coin or drawing lots. Usually that happened only during local elections.

The Chairman said that when he had stood as a candidate in a local election the result had been a tie and a coin toss had decided the result. His opponent had called tails and lost.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked whether third parties were allowed to campaign on behalf of political parties.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) asked what could be done about the decline in voter numbers.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how many registered political parties there were in the United Kingdom.

Mr Wardle said that there were rules on third party campaigning. The reduction in voter turn-out was a problem and politicians were looking at the issue. Advanced voting was one option being looked at to increase voter turn out. It was cheaper and more secure than internet voting. There were 372 registered political parties in the United Kingdom.

Mr Pierre Lauofo Fonotoe MP (Samoa) asked what was required of political parties in terms of registration.

93

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) asked whether there were concerns about observers passing information about counts to other people and what role party representatives played in registering voters.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked how frequently the register of voters was updated.

Mr Richard Ssendege (Clerk, Uganda) asked how political parties would make direct appointments to the Electoral Commission.

Mr Wardle said that political parties were required to follow the rules of registration. They must name the party leader, the treasurer and a third official and they must provide a scheme showing how they would comply with the rules, for example fielding candidates in elections. There were also rules about the conduct of observers. They must not interfere in any way with the voting or the counting. It would not be possible to observe internet voting whereas parties were able to send observers to a physical count. Party representatives were less involved in voter registration and there were sometimes problems when they got too involved. The register was updated yearly.

The for three of the four politically appointed Commissioners would be made by the three largest parties in the House of Commons. Up to four of the smaller parties in the House could make a and the Speaker’s Committee would decide who the fourth Commissioner would be. It was important to remember that the political appointees would not be there to represent their own political party but political parties in general.

The Chairman said that the United Kingdom had a tradition of unusual political parties such as the Monster Raving Loony Party. There had been some good questions and that was a testament to Mr Wardle’s presentation.

94

Tuesday 10 March 2009

HOW IS PARLIAMENT RUN?

Speakers: Dr Malcolm Jack (Clerk of the House of Commons) Mr David Beamish (Clerk Assistant, House of Lords) Mr Nick Harvey MP (Conservative; Member, House of Commons Commission)

Chairman: Mr Roger Gale MP (Conservative)

The Chairman told delegates that he represented North Thanet, a constituency about 15 miles away from Dover. He was a member of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen and the Procedure Committee, but he was sure that he would also learn a lot from the morning’s session. Explaining that the speakers would leave time for questions at the end, he asked Dr Malcolm Jack to take the floor.

Dr Malcolm Jack thanked Mr Gale and commented that he had heard that the seminar was going well. He explained that one of the paradoxes of the running of the House of Commons was that before 1979 the House had not been in control of its own business at all. The House had been in charge of procedure, but financial administration was then in the hands of the Treasury, which had controlled the Commons’ money.

In the late 1970s the House of Commons had decided that the Executive should no longer be in charge. In 1978, alongside many other reforms, the House of Commons (Administration) Act was passed. The Act set up a House of Commons Commission, chaired by the Speaker. Nick Harvey was currently the spokesman for this body. A Commission had existed before 1978 but had been made up entirely of ministers (with the exception of the Speaker). Peculiarly, the House of Commons Commission was a statutory body rather than a Committee of the House. However, under the terms of the Act by which it was established, the Commission had to be made up of Members. The Act also formally made the Commission the employer of all House of Commons staff except for one or two Crown appointments. Another direct result of the Act was that the House was able to stop using a horrid green paint, also used by the then Department of the Environment, which had made parts of the Commons look like a large lavatory!

The House of Commons (Administration) Act was very short, which was always the best sort of Act. It set out the principles of the new administration of the House, but left the details to be developed. However, there was one important specific phrase in the Act: the complementing, grading, pay, and pensions and similar benefits of staff were to be kept broadly in line with those of the Home civil service. This had become difficult now that terms and conditions in the civil service had evolved into something very diffuse.

The House of Commons Commission considered accommodation, allowances, staff, staff conditions and so on. Underneath the Commission there was a myriad of other bodies. The House’s governance was very complex, which could be seen just by looking at an organogram of senior management. The House of Commons Commission was supported by the Finance and Services Committee. Chaired by Sir Stuart Bell, a member of the Commission, this Committee was

95

responsible for looking at the financial side of Commission decisions. In the last financial year the Commission had spent £150 million in cash terms on administration, and the same again on Members’ allowances. Dr Jack was the accounting officer for both these budgets.

There were two other Committees involved in the running of the House. The first was the Administration Committee, which represented Members’ interests as they saw them. Dr Jack appeared before this Committee every six months for a friendly, or sometimes not-so-friendly, chat. He viewed the Committee as an important one, since it provided a voice for backbenchers. The Commons was after all a House for Members. The second Committee was the Committee Members’ Allowances. This had only just been set up, after a long saga over Members’ expenses.

To one side of these Committees was the Management Board, which was made up of the heads of the four departments of the House of Commons, who were known as Director Generals. These individuals had responsibility for the day to day running of their departments. The Board had made a lot of progress in the last year and half since a review by Sir Kevin Tebbit on the organisation of the House of Commons had made recommendations for how it could better provide services for Members in a modern context, particularly with regard to IT. Members were now demanding a similar level of service in their constituencies to that which they received in Westminster. The IT department, PICT, had now become a joint department with the House of Lords.

Another issue for the Management Board was the enormous challenge of maintaining the parliamentary estate. The Palace was beautiful, but it was not the most practical of buildings and it was very expensive to run. The iron clad roofs needed replacing, but they were a very special type of roofing that hardly existed anywhere any more. The project to strip out and replace the entire mechanical and electrical infrastructure, which was all past its useful life, was going to cost hundreds of millions of pounds. The House had never had to deal with a project on that scale before. The Tebbit review had come just in time, as the House would not have been able to handle such a project without bringing in external expertise.

The Chairman thanked Dr Jack. He explained that Michael Pownall, Clerk of the Parliaments, was unfortunately ill. David Beamish, Clerk Assistant, had agreed to attend in his place to explain how things were run in the House of Lords.

Mr David Beamish said that when he had spoken to delegates last week about the legislative process he had been able to say that the process was basically the same as that in the Commons. He was not able to give the same message today. The House of Lords did not have an equivalent Act to the House of Commons (Administration) Act. Its governance had just sort of grown up. The main Act relating to administration of the House of Lords was the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824 and its main purpose had been to stop the Clerk of the Parliaments from being able to take his salary while getting others to do the work.

Mr Beamish explained that he had joined the House of Lords in 1974. It had been very interesting to see what had changed during his career. A lot more was now run from within the Palace of Westminster. The purchase of additional buildings across the road had made a huge difference. There had also been changes in publishing – previously the Government had published House of

96

Lords papers. Now Her Majesty’s Stationary Office had been privatised and the House of Lords had a contract with The Stationery Office (TSO).

The House of Lords did not have an equivalent provision about terms and conditions needing to stay broadly in line with the civil service. However, the Lords did try to follow the House of Commons and the civil service in this respect although, as Dr Jack had said, this had become more difficult following decentralisation of Government departments. Civil service pay had been set by the Treasury but now Government departments were responsible for setting all but the most senior salaries. This had caused difficulties within the civil service too - for example, there had been problems during the of the then Agriculture and Environment departments because one had been traditionally mean with salaries. The House of Lords now negotiated with the trades unions. Mr Beamish considered this quite a disproportionate effort given the numbers of staff involved - about 500 in the House of Lords.

The Speakership in the House of Lords was also very different. The Lord Speaker had a lot less power than the Speaker in the Commons. The House of Lords did have a House Committee, which was the closest thing it had to the House of Commons Commission, but this was not a statutory body. The Committee was the principal supervisory body for the House of Lords Administration. The House of Lords had a rotation rule according to which Members could not stay on a Committee for more than four or five years. This had the advantage of bringing in fresh blood, but it also meant that Committee Members were often only interested in the short term rather than in long term strategic thinking.

The House of Commons Management Board had just got a non-executive member. However, the House Committee would not let this happen in the House of Lords, as Peers said that they were the administration’s non-executives. However, Peers often did not speak with the same voice.

The House of Lords was more constrained than the House of Commons in spending public money since it was subject to greater control by the Treasury. Often the House of Lords administration joked that the House of Commons had it easy.

The House of Commons and House of Lords were increasingly devising ways for cooperation. Often people were surprised at the extent to which the two organisations were separate. There was now a bicameral group on business continuity planning. The entire building was also now looked after by a body in the House of Commons which also served the House of Lords as customers in a shared services model. The two Houses also shared a contract with the Metropolitan police (they were unable to employ their own security services). The contract with The Stationary Office was also shared, although with separate parts for the Lords and Commons, as was the contract for shorthand writers.

Catering continued to be done separately in the two Houses. There were too many political considerations at stake for this to be done jointly, namely the Lords believed they might lose out. Canada had separate Post Office counters for the two chambers, so Westminster was at least doing better than that. The Canadians had established a joint library and in Australia there was a joint Department of Parliamentary Services. PICT was the first fully joint body of the two Houses in Westminster. An had been required to set up PICT. It had added complexity, for

97

example, there was now a third party to consider in pay negotiations. However, computer support was now far better, particularly for Members.

The Administration Committee in the House of Commons used to be four separate Committees. The House of Lords still had four domestic or user-group committees: the Administration and Works Committee, the Refreshment Committee, the Information Committee, which considered both information services to members, including library and IT, but also the information given to the public, and the Works of Art Committee. The latter Committee’s most difficult challenge was picking a House of Lords Christmas card every year.

The Chairman thanked David Beamish and invited Nick Harvey MP to take the floor.

Mr Nick Harvey MP introduced himself. He was a Liberal Democrat Member for North Devon, a constituency in the South of England, and Defence Spokesperson for his party. He also had a role in the House of Commons administration. As Dr Jack had explained, the administration of the House had changed 30 years ago. As a Member from the second opposition party, he often felt that the House of Commons was not independent enough of Government and looked at other countries’ separation of powers with envy. However, the Commons did have responsibility for its own administration and this was very important. Otherwise it would be reliant on the Government of the day for its pay and rations – a position the Government could manipulate. The system in the House of Commons was not perfect, but it did at least have this quality.

Mr Harvey had shuddered when he heard Dr Jack describe the paint in the corridors. In the 1990s he had had to visit the then Department of the Environment, which was in a hideous 1960s concrete tower block. He was waiting to see who was late, when a party of Eastern Europeans came out. Mr Harvey asked them what they had been talking with the Minister about and they had replied the quality of the built environment. He had reflected that the Department of the Environment was unlikely to be able to offer much advice on moving away from concrete tower blocks.

Mr Harvey explained that having a non-executive member of the Management Board had been a welcome development. However, MPs did provide this function also. Dr Jack and the other Director Generals made up the Management Board. The House of Commons Commission sat alongside this, but was responsible for looking ahead. It was a strategic body rather than a day to day body, and was responsible for setting budgets and strategic plans. Some of these could take 20 to 25 years to complete. It was important that decisions were taken as effectively as possible to ensure that projects went ahead without threatening the democratic work of the House of Commons. Dr Jack attended meetings of the House of Commons Commission and the other Director Generals attended when relevant. The Commission met approximately once a month for two or three hours, or eight to nine times a year. This was not very often when you considered how large a levy Parliament placed on the public purse and the responsibilities of looking after a Grade 1 listed building and World Heritage Site.

The Administration Committee was not well named. It was a Committee of MPs, who formed a user group of the House services. They examined issues and brought recommendations to the Commission, which then decided whether the recommendations were justified, whether the expenditure involved made sense and the wider context. The Audit Committee was made up of

98

Members and outside personnel. It considered audit issues as well as risk management. There were moments when this dispersal of responsibilities could be quite frustrating. Members’ Allowances had been horribly contentious over the last two years.

Members frequently nobbled Mr Harvey to raise micro points with him. Whenever somebody told him that they had an idea, he would shudder, in the same way as he did when constituents told him they had an idea at his surgery. He always urged Members with ideas to go to the Administration Committee first, so that the Committee could act as a filter.

PICT had been a radical breakthrough. In terms of the responsible management of public money, there had to be more scope for this sort of joint working between the two Houses. This would be difficult with catering, though, since certain Peers would be apoplectic if they had to share their services with the Commons. Many still hankered after meals they had eaten in public schools sixty years ago. Yet the general public would be mystified by the extent to which everything was organised separately. PICT should prove that it was perfectly possible to service different needs within one organisation.

In his role as spokesman for the House of Commons Commission, Mr Harvey had two functions. First, he was responsible for responding to Members’ questions. There were a good number of written questions every week and an oral session once every five weeks. He did his best to answer questions in as much detail as possible. Many Members were used to short and dismissive answers from Government departments. He thought of himself as among friends and colleagues and encouraged clerks who drafted initial responses to provide more information. Often he would ask clerks to include information they had put into the background note for him within the actual reply.

The House of Commons could appear to be very introspective to outsiders. Parliamentary sketchwriters were often rude and scathing about Mr Harvey’s replies, as if he had chosen the questions himself. One Member had even asked what happened to the passes worn by visitors when they left. Mr Harvey had had to read out the relevant percentages while trying to keep a straight face. He could see sketchwriters in the gallery at the time.

Mr Harvey was also responsible for answering enquiries from the media. Sometime such queries were not very fair, particularly on money. However, there was a lot of public expenditure involved, and the Commission did have to account for this. There were also questions about the environmental performance of the House, on which Mr Harvey’s response was always that the Commission was trying to do as much as it could within the constraints of being a World Heritage building. Heritage officers from English Heritage and UNESCO were very particular about what the Commons could and could not do. For example, English Heritage had made detailed requirements when a covered walkway was built. The walkway was built in an area in which there had been lots of nasty slips in wet weather. Mr Harvey had initially thought that the project would be very straightforward. However, heritage officers had insisted that the cover could not touch the existing building and had to be self-standing, which had led to enormous costs. There had been a lot of media comment, ridiculing the amount of money spent.

Mr Harvey had also read newspaper articles questioning the amount of expenditure on Mr Speaker’s garden. Such pieces gave the impression that it was a private garden for the Speaker

99

with an arbour and so on, when in fact it was just a small bit of grass right next to Westminster bridge and certainly not a place for sitting out in. The money had in fact been spent on making the area more secure.

However, the biggest controversy in the media had been on Members’ expenses and allowances. The word saga did not even begin to do justice to how dreadful this had been. From 1 April there would be new rules and audit arrangements in place, which should place Members on the same footing as the rest of the public sector. This new system might be uncomfortable for some Members. However, Parliament’s reputation had taken a big knock over expenses and it was hoped that this new expenses structure would help rebuild that reputation.

The Chairman thanked Nick Harvey. He told delegates when he had looked at a series of drawing of the Palace, drawn after the fire in 1834, he had noticed that there was an empty chimney across five floors, the height of Big Ben. This was because a mad leading engineer had decided to duct all coal smoke through one chimney. The chimney was still there – Mr Gale had been inside it. The House had wanted to use this space, but Heritage Officers would not give permission for the chimney to be used, so it had to stand empty.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked about the numbers of staff working in the House of Commons and House of Lords. He also wondered if any of the presenters knew the weight of Big Ben.

Dr Jack replied that there were 1,700 staff working in the House of Commons, plus 2,500 Members’ staff, which amounted to a large amount of people.

Mr Beamish added that the House of Lords had approximately 500 staff. However, the comparison between the Commons and Lords was a bit misleading as the Commons staff ran the building. The only area in which Lords staff took the lead was the archives, but this only employed 20 people. The number he had given delegates also did not include cleaners and contractors.

The Chairman explained that Big Ben was the name of the bell rather than the tower. He did not know the bell’s weight and would have to give the usual ministerial reply: that he would write to the delegate on that.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A.C.T., Australia) asked whether Parliament or the Executive determined funding.

Dr Jack said that the House of Commons Commission determined funding levels. The Management Board drew up requirements and submitted them to the Commission. The figures were also published in the Commission’s annual report. The House was of course affected by political pressures and what was happening in the public sector more widely. It was not a free for all.

Mr Harvey explained that there were two lines of expenditure: the Administration Estimate and the Members Estimate. The latter paid MPs’ salaries, their staff salaries and other expenses. The first was entirely in the control of the House. The second was in the hands of the Government. Only a Minister of the Crown could lay an estimate to incur more expenditure on the Members Estimate.

100

Mr Beamish told delegates that in the Lords there was only one estimate. This was on the same principles as a Government department although on the whole the Treasury did not make very much of it. The only recent occasion in which the Treasury had looked very closely at the estimate was when the Lords bought a new building for £50 million.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked how the members of the House of Commons Commission were selected.

Mr Harvey replied that the Speaker was an automatic member and chair of the Commission. The Leader of the House of Commons, who was a Cabinet Member, was also an automatic member. The Leader of the Opposition could nominate a member. By custom, this was the shadow leader of the House. The other three members came from each of the main parties. The process was the same as that of nominating Members for select committees. Although the details might vary from party to party, ultimately it was the whips who put names forward.

Hon. Brian Ntundu MP (Zambia) asked what the salary of an MP was, including allowances. He explained that in his Parliament the Clerk of the National Assembly received five times as much as Members. He asked whether it was the same in Westminster. He also questioned whether Members’ allowances included car or house loans.

The Chairman jokingly asked Hon. Ntundu which newspaper he worked for.

Mr Harvey replied that an MP’s salary was £63,000. Historically it had been linked to that of a middle ranking civil servant, but it had not really kept its value. Of the 1,700 parliamentary staff, 70 earned more than this salary. It was important to bear in mind that allowances covered real costs, such as travel to and from a constituency, employing three or four staff, running a constituency office and staying overnight in London. They did not form part of a salary package, but covered actual expenses.

The Chairman stressed that the issue of expenses was a hot potato. It was also widely misrepresented. The press, whose own expenses were legendary, tended to lump expenses together with salary and make the false claim that Members were paid £250,000 a year. This might be true of a ministerial salary, (dependent on rank) or that of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker (Committee Chairmen received an additional £10,000 a year). However, it was certainly not the case for other Members. It was important to realise that about five years ago a Member’s salary would have been that of a headteacher of a large secondary school. Now it was likely to be the same as that of a head of department in such a school, so Members’ salaries had fallen back.

Mr. Amjed Pervez Malik (Clerk, Pakistan) asked about the extent to which civil service practices were followed.

Dr Jack replied that the House kept terms and conditions broadly in line with those in the civil service, although with the dispersal of powers to set salaries previously mentioned this could be difficult. However, the House continued to monitor salaries, as well as pensions, in the civil service.

101

The House had also worked to improve training, including for Members. Departments were now less insular and staff were encouraged to move between departments. In order for this to be possible, good quality training was required. The focus was now on an individual’s potential.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie () asked whether budgets were approved by the Treasury and if the House of Commons could raise revenue.

Mr Harvey said that there had never been a total standoff with the Treasury – usually it was possible to negotiate something. On raising revenue, the House did so with catering, banqueting facilities and shops.

Dr Jack added that as the House’s corporate officer he was responsible for signing contracts. The House did spend large sums. It had had to negotiate with the Treasury on the building of Portcullis House. The Treasury had taken a close interest in this project although in the end it had not prevented it.

Mr P. K. Grover (India) asked how parliamentary staff were recruited and who was responsible for security.

Mr Beamish explained that the House of Commons and House of Lords had a joint contract with the Metropolitan police. Parliament did not employ the police but it did have to pay for them. Parliament would welcome operational authority, but hiring anyone else than the Metropolitan police would not be a good thing. There was a Joint Committee on Security which played an advisory role. The Speakers also had a role in oversight of security, as did Black Rod and the Serjeant.

Dr Jack explained that Parliament recruited staff in a number of ways, including through the Civil Service FastStream, specialist recruitment as well as a whole range of other routes. Parliament was also keen to help existing staff progress to more senior roles.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) explained that in Australia superannuation for Members had changed recently. However, this meant that there were now two types of Members – those under the new system and those under the old.

Mr Harvey said that the House of Commons was heading in that direction. Members’ salaries were reviewed by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Its last report had expressed concern about the cost of the Members’ pension fund and had recommended a fundamental review. The review had now taken place so it was possible that a new pensions system or a higher retirement age, of say 68, would be introduced to reduce liabilities. Mr Harvey preferred the latter option.

Concluding the session, the Chairman said that he was aware that keeping delegates from their coffee was almost as bad as keeping Peers from rice pudding. He thanked all the speakers for their interesting presentations.

102

Tuesday 10 March

MARKING INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY: WOMEN IN POLITICS AND PARLIAMENT

Speakers: Baroness Verma (Conservative) Mrs Betty Williams MP (Labour)

Chairman: Mr Peter Bottomley MP (Conservative)

The Chairman told delegates he had been elected in 1975. His father had worked in the Commonwealth Relations Office. Mr Bottomley noted that the editorial in newspaper that day demonstrated that the Commonwealth was still important. Mr Bottomley described himself as a member of the Denis Thatcher club, in that he had been married to a woman more successful than him. His wife had been elected to the House of Commons in 1984 at a time when the House was 5% female. There had been a significant improvement since then, but there was still progress to be made.

Mrs Betty Williams MP welcomed the delegates in Welsh, and then translated her greeting into English. She told delegates she represented a Welsh constituency (Conwy), and came from a once thriving slate-quarrying area, which had since become much diminished as many quarries closed. Her father had worked in the quarries, and died at the age of 58 from silicosis. Mrs Williams believed this was caused by a disregard for health and safety in the workplace, because the quarry owners were only interested in profit. There had been little concern for the welfare of workers. She had seen great poverty in her youth. Her family lived on a smallholding on the quarry’s land, and made ends meet by keeping cows and sheep, and growing potatoes. In her school holidays, the young Betty was expected to spend her days helping on the farm.

When she was asked in interviews what she considered her greatest achievement, Mrs Williams always said her contribution to legislation on health and safety at work and on the national minimum wage. She felt her father would have been proud of her for her involvement in this legislation. Mrs Williams said her work was also affected by her experience of caring for her 35 year old son, who was profoundly handicapped. She believed that the personal experiences of politicians should be used to inform policies.

Mrs Williams had been elected to Conwy Parish Council in 1967, before moving to the District Council, and then in 1977 to the County Council, the peak of the structure. It had been a great honour to be elected a Member of Parliament, but it was also a great responsibility. Mrs Williams was planning to step down from the House of Commons at the next elections, at which point she would have been in politics for over forty years. She would not have been able to achieve this without the help of her mother in caring for her son. Her career had been a constant balancing act to meet the needs of both her family and her constituents.

The use of positive discrimination and all-women shortlists in the 1997 election had transformed the composition of the Labour benches. Some people had opposed the use of all-women shortlists. Mrs Williams had fought the Conwy seat in the 1987 and 1992 elections, and resented the fact that,

103

when she did win the seat under an all-women shortlist in 1997, she was accused of winning only because she was a woman. She had quadrupled her majority by the 2001 election, and thought that was down to hard work rather than being a woman. Mrs Williams believed that women approached politics differently from men.

Mrs Williams gave the delegates some statistics on the composition of the House of Commons. 120 women were elected to the House in the 1997 election. Of these 101 were Labour, 14 Conservative, 3 Liberal Democrat and 2 . became the first female Speaker. After the 1997 election, women still constituted only 18 per cent of the Chamber.

In the 2001 election 118 women were elected to the House of Commons, of whom 94 were Labour, 14 Conservation, 5 Liberal Democrat, and 4 from minority parties. In the 2005 election 127 women were elected to the House, of whom 98 were Labour, 16 Conservative, 10 Liberal Democrat and 3 from minority parties. Of the 16 women MPs in Wales and Scotland, 14 were Labour. Mrs Williams noted that none of this would have been achieved had it not been for the suffragettes. Women needed to salute those who had been brave enough to stand up for their political rights.

Mrs Williams then gave the delegates some statistics relating to the Welsh Assembly. First elected in 1999, 24 of the 60 Assembly Members had been women (of whom 15 were Labour, 6 Plaid Cymru and 3 Liberal Democrat). In the 2003 Assembly elections thirty women were elected, making Wales the first country in the world to achieve 50% female representation.

Baroness Verma greeted the delegates. She had been born in India and her family moved to England when she was nine months old. She said she was proud to have been nominated to the House of Lords having been born in a different country to a middle class family. She had been nominated to the House of Lords in 2005 and first took up her seat in 2006, having delayed the date to coincide with her mother’s birthday. She had realised that her nomination bestowed upon her great responsibilities, especially as a woman from an ethnic minority. She had been fortunate to reach the frontbenches of the House of Lords very quickly, and had been the first woman of Indian origin to sit on the frontbenches in either House. The House of Lords provided an opening for women to achieve such things. For example, Lady Amos had become the first black woman to lead the House, while Lady Scotland had become . Women were much better represented in the House of Lords, but these success stories tended to be undersold because the House of Commons had a higher profile.

Baroness Verma had recently visited as an election monitor. There she had met prominent women in the Government, and noted that some of the leading portfolios in the Government there had gone to women. Many other countries, such as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Rwanda and Uganda, had also made significant advances in the representation of women. In general, there was a tendency to undervalue the fact that women operated in a different way to men. Women had different strengths, and brought a different perspective. Women in senior positions brought different values to government.

There was still much work to be done. Domestic violence, for instance, remained a huge problem. These issues could only be dealt with through engagement and education, on both an academic and social level.

104

Baroness Verma said she had not been involved in public life for as long as Betty Williams. She had started in her career at the age of 22, helping women suffering from domestic violence. Through this experience she had realised that there was much work to be done to ensure women were properly supported. Real structural change was required in order to facilitate women’s representation. Women needed support in balancing family and working lives: women were not superhuman, they had the same frailties and faults as men.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) asked whether the speakers believed there was a need to have quotas for female representation.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked what support mechanisms and resources were in place to help women who could not enter politics without making significant sacrifices.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked whether the speakers supported quota systems and, if so, at what point a quota system could be declared a success and removed.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) said that Rwanda had set a target that 30 per cent of all people in decision-making parts of Government should be women. At the August 2009 election 56 per cent of elected Members were women. Other important roles, such as the Speaker, the Chief of Justice, and the Commissioner General of the Police Force, were held by women. At a local level, 52 per cent of decision-making jobs were held by women.

Baroness Verma congratulated Rwanda on their success. She said that the United Kingdom was still working on support mechanisms for women coming into politics. It was very difficult because politics was so expensive that women had to sacrifice a great deal. There was still a long way to go, and the situation could not be improved with all-women shortlists alone. Instead, it was important to look at the root causes of why women found it difficult to enter politics. Politics was an expensive and often lonely profession. Baroness Verma noted that Rwanda’s success derived mostly from the use of quotas. She said she was not entirely comfortable with this method, and would explore other options before taking this route.

Mrs Williams also congratulated Rwanda. She said that without all-women shortlists there would not have been anywhere near as many female MPs. It was important to persuade more women to try to be selected as candidates. Selection was the most difficult part of the process. Those women who had already been elected to Parliament needed to act as role models for women. They also needed to offer mentoring and support to those trying to make their way into politics.

Each political party needed to devise its own policy on selection. Mrs Williams thought that the Labour party was making the best progress. She noted that many women had had babies and raised families while in office, and said that if a woman applied her mind to her career she would succeed. At the time of the conference, 19.7 per cent of Members of the House of Lords were women, compared to 19.4 per cent of Members of the House of Commons. The House of Commons was expected to overtake the House of Lords at the next general election.

105

Mr Ashok Bhatt MLA (Gujarat, India) asked whether the experiences of improving the representation of women could help to overcome other barriers to representation, such as the caste system in India.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) said she had been elected in 1997 but was also now intending to step down. She said that it was especially hard for African women to balance the demands of personal and professional life. She asked whether there were any female in Parliament.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) said that the Tanzanian constitution specified a quota of at least 30 per cent women in the elected assembly, and a process was underway to raise this to 50 per cent. She asked how political parties in the United Kingdom were encouraging women to compete in elections.

Mrs Williams said it was up to political parties to establish their own systems to encourage women and help them to become elected. She said that whenever she addressed schools in her constituency she tried to persuade girls of the value, experience and enjoyment of politics. She noted that she had needed her family’s support. She said she was impressed by the achievements in Commonwealth countries, and believed that the UK could learn from their experiences.

Baroness Verma said that some sort of mechanism would need to be put in place to help people from India’s lower castes to rise up through the political system. There was still significant discrimination at caste level. However, there were some positive signs. As the largest democracy in the world India should be seen to take a lead. As part of that, India needed to eradicate the caste system itself instead of just creating an artificial system that would allow all castes to participate in the political process.

It was unfortunate that the media were often not interested in positive stories about women in politics. As such, women with successful political careers had a duty to promote their message and act as representatives of women in parliament. Both women MPs and women peers had to work very hard indeed.

The Chairman said he had learned a great deal from the session. He said that any substantial change would derive from a determination to make a difference. He noted that men were five times more likely to apply for seats once they were on an approved list. Women needed to be encouraged to apply in the same way. A strong commitment would be needed if change was to be achieved.

106

Tuesday 10 March 2009

OPEN FORUM: REPRESENTING DIVERSITY

The delegates elected Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) as chairman of the open forum on representing diversity.

Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) introduced the session, which would be an open discussion. The topic of diversity was salient around the world, and covered different cultures, religions and other factors. The issue before the delegates was how members of parliament dealt with such issues.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) said that diversity could be cultural, ethnic or political. Political diversity was required in every democracy and represented a diversity of ideas. It required a tolerance of difference, including different cultures and different political views. Diversity acted to strengthen democracy.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) said that New Zealand had a unicameral parliament that until 1996 was elected by a first past the post electoral system. Following the recommendation of a Royal Commission, in 1996 the electoral system changed to being a mixed-member proportional system. That had resulted in a dramatic change in the composition of the House of Representatives, with a wide range of ethnicities represented. 36 per cent of MPs were women. There were three official languages in New Zealand: English, Maori and sign language. Any citizen could choose Maori as their nationality.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) said that Zanzibar was part of Tanzania but had its own administrative structure. It was represented at the seminar by its parliament’s deputy speaker. There were at least 120 tribes in Tanzania, all of which were represented in its parliament. A number of other groups were also represented. However, in their day-to-day activities parliamentarians put their tribal differences to one side.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) said that diversity was present in the elected Consultative Council. Each of 61 districts was allocated one or two seats, according to the population. There were 84 members in total. To be elected, candidates had to be 30 or older. Voters had to be 21 or older. There was no gender discrimination in the parliament; the civil service recruited on merit, and without discrimination; and labour laws allowed for no discrimination.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked why, despite the measures that had been discussed, so few women were present at the seminar. Australia had strong anti-discrimination laws, which made forms of discrimination a criminal offence. 45 per cent of the members of her parliament were women; it also contained Aboriginal members, Chinese-born members and two lesbians.

Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho MP (Zanzibar) said that his parliament was representative of the different tribes in Zanzibar due to the work of his predecessors. Although there were many different

107

tribes they all spoke a common language: Swahili. Voters did not vote only for members of their ethnic group.

Hon. Juhar Mahiruddin MLA (Malaysia) said that Malaysia had large numbers of people of Chinese and Indian descent. There were almost 150 different dialects. The ruling government was a coalition of parties based on ethnic and religious groups, which had ruled for 50 years, since Malaysia’s independence. Its success had been based on the mutual respect between the groups.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) was interested in the diversity of her own constituents. Within her constituency there was a diversity of educations, occupations, classes and cultures. She sought to meet the needs of all her constituents. On seeking to become an MP she had to win an internal party election. She had subsequently reached out to those in her party who had not voted for her. Similarly, she sought to represent constituents who did not support her party, as the office of an MP should welcome all constituents.

Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP (Hong Kong) said that there was not a great deal of diversity in Hong Kong: over 90 per cent of residents were Chinese. Most members of the Legislative Council were Chinese. The Council had 60 members: 30 directly elected by geographical constituencies and 30 representing functional constituencies. He represented licensed restaurants. In time there would be to all seats, but there was not significant movement towards that at present. Approximately one-sixth of members were women. In Hong Kong female longevity was the greatest in the world, though men were catching up.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) was the member for St Michael East. St Michael was divided into 11 constituencies. There was diversity within the city between rural and urban areas. Each constituency had a constituency council with a budget for 15 people to look after constituents on behalf of members of parliament. That system aided diversity. The Deputy Speaker of the Senate was blind and a very independent person.

Hon. Harbans Kapoor MLA (Uttarakhand, India) said 50 per cent of representation on certain local bodies in rural areas in Uttarakhand was reserved for women. There were also reservations for different castes and tribes, and for women within castes and tribes. One-third of his party were women.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) said that Uganda was very diverse. Geographically it was not big, but the population was 31 million. The parliament represented all groups, including young people, disabled people, women and religious groups. 30 per cent of members had to be women. There were four main parties, who had all worked together since independence in 1962. No single party was dominant. People in Uganda came from different ethnic backgrounds and spoke different languages, but there was one official language, which was English. There was a diversity of ages of members of parliament, and no discrimination operated in parliament.

Hon. Deependra Singh Shekhawat (Rajasthan, India) said his parliamentary system had an ingrained democratic ethic. Different parties were represented in it, and different parties took power. His province was looking at parliamentary reform, and he would be interested in assistance from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

108

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) said that six or seven of the 125 members of his province’s parliament were from outside Canada. Native groups were not represented in the provincial parliament, although there were 80,000 or so natives in the province. That did not set a good example. He was interested in examining solutions to it.

Mr Pierre Lauofo Fonotoe MP (Samoa) said that the Samoan Legislative Assembly had 49 members. Four of them were women. Of those, three were in the governing party and were members of the cabinet. The other woman was a member of the opposition and had attended previous CPA seminars. 47 of the members were chiefs, and two were untitled. To become a chief (and therefore a candidate) required election by families and villages, and a window of three months for objections. It was not an easy process. The two seats for untitled representatives were reserved for citizens with no connection to chiefs.

Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) thanked all delegates for a useful discussion. A common thread in it was an increase in efforts to make governments and parliamentary structures more diverse. The CPA could help those efforts. Diversity could require legislation. He closed the session.

109

Tuesday 10 March

MPs and the Internet: Challenges and Opportunities

Speakers: Mr Derek Wyatt MP (Labour) Ms Kerry McCarthy MP (Labour) Ms Nadine Dorries MP (Conservative)

Chairman: Miss Elspeth Macdonald (Assistant Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates.

Mr Derek Wyatt MP, Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, demonstrated his website to the delegates. He explained that his aim had been to exceed the circulation of the three weekly newspapers in his constituency and that he was now doing so with approximately 15,000 views each week. The site was updated about five times each day and, after eight years, consisted of 9,000 pages. He emphasised that sites needed to be friendly and welcoming, and highlighted the tools available to make sites accessible to those with poor eyesight.

Mr Wyatt demonstrated some features of his site – many of which were installed free from Google or other suppliers – including: a map, graphically representing recent constituency activity; a Flickr account for photographs, posted without copyright and available for media use; a poll which hopefully engaged visitors and encouraged them to visit again; and a mini-site showing videos of Parliamentary and constituency activity. News articles were filed as Parliamentary news, local news, or campaigning activity. A weekly diary piece was also posted to allow constituents and the media to know his plans for the forthcoming week.

Mr Wyatt concluded by emphasising the need to keep the home page of a site up-to-date, and to provide opportunity for comment and interaction.

Mrs Nadine Dorries MP, Member for Mid Bedfordshire, explained that as well as maintaining a web site she also published a blog (i.e. a web diary). She had started blogging at a party conference at the request of a television company, and based on the positive feedback she received, had continued. She wrote on her life as an MP, and meetings which she attended. The blog made business at Westminster more accessible to her constituents.

Mrs Dorries used the example of her campaign to change abortion limits to demonstrate the impact of her blog. In the month of the vote on abortion limits her site had received 500,000 hits. However, the subject matter was controversial and the site had received explicit and unprintable comments. She had taken the decision to prevent comments being made as she felt moderation of comments of this nature was not fair for her staff. She had also sent some comments to the police after she became concerned that a site user might threaten her. However, she emphasised that this was a relatively small downside against the fact that she had been able to use the site to promote her campaign and make more people aware of the debate. She hoped to allow comments again in the

110

future. In general, readers preferred being able to make comments which were published online quickly and as a consequence her staff had checked comments on her behalf before publication.

Mrs Dorries advocated publishing a variety of articles – including lighter, more personal stories – to maintain interest in a website, adding that using the blog had changed the relationship she had with her local newspapers. However, the online community was very quick at discovering and highlighting any mistakes or inconsistencies, so care was needed. As a busy MP, she struggled to find the time to write and tended to do so while commuting or between meetings. She urged delegates to double-check items before publication, particularly for potentially libellous statements and for comments that would upset the party whips.

Mrs Dorries highlighted the advantage of using the internet as a communications tool in large rural constituencies. It was possible to monitor where viewers were based; for example, her 40,000 regular viewers were not all in her constituency. Although it was commonly held that most website users were younger, she had had pensioners quoting her blog to her during meetings which demonstrated that the internet can be used to target all groups. In summary, she argued that websites let constituents feel more engaged with the political process.

Ms Kerry McCarthy MP, Labour Member for Bristol East, began by explaining that her website was now on its third incarnation. She added that it was important to have a site which could be updated without routing material through a developer. Her site included a facility to sign up to receive e-mails from her, a prominent charity link on the front page, articles promoting the work of volunteers in her constituency (“local heores”), a diary for the week ahead (including forthcoming House business), and details of constituency and Parliamentary work. She explained that she was also aware that the site was not only viewed by her constituents.

Ms McCarthy explained that the website was often the first port of call for people trying to make contact with her. However, a trial of online surgeries for constituents had not yet been successful. Parliamentary rules meant that websites paid for by public funds could not be party political and in consequence she only included news and details of her activities. A blog was published as a second site where she posted political comments as well as occasional frivolous items. This allowed her to comment on current issues and let her constituents know her views. In common with Ms Dorries, she had received a high volume of personal comments following some posts about controversial items. She highlighted the risk that she, as operator of the site, might be held responsible for, or associated with, defamatory comments posted on the site.

Ms McCarthy concluded by noting the emergence of Twitter, a web tool which facilitated “micro- blogging” (i.e. short posts of up to 140 characters, which could be made by mobile telephone as well as online). This was increasingly popular with MPs, some of whom had started using it in the Chamber to respond at Question Time or to debates.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and invited questions from the delegates.

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) noted that many rural areas did not have broadband access. He asked how much time the panel spent each day on updating their blogs.

111

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) expressed concern that those without internet access, and the illiterate, would not benefit from the information placed online.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) asked how the panel’s websites were funded, and about the rules regarding partisan material on websites. He also asked whether the blogs recorded the identity of those leaving comments.

Mr Wyatt explained that lack of access to broadband was also an issue in the United Kingdom: only 60% of the population had home broadband but nearly everyone had access to it. Innovative solutions were being found, such as local pubs installing wireless links and then allowing customers to use wifi. Widespread broadband had come about following a policy to install it in schools and libraries.

Mr Wyatt said that his video website was funded by the House and as a consequence it could not be political. He paid for the rest of the site and this meant he was able to include interesting content which attracted more visitors. He used the site data tools to track visitors and thus knew that 80% of hits came from constituents.

Mrs Dorries explained that her main site was also funded by the House and that the blog cost her £120 per year. It was important to maintain the separation as political opponents would report any breach of the rules.

Ms McCarthy added that her blog was hosted for free. The location of those leaving comments could be worked out if needed. However she believed that even the nasty comments were harmless. She had spent several hours on one post to ensure there was no way it could be misconstrued as the press were often trying to reinterpret blog posts. It was also important to check facts.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) noted that her constituency lacked telephone service in some areas and that would be a priority before broadband, although infrastructure was improving. She asked the panel what measures they had in place to avoid their sites being hacked.

Mr Wyatt emphasised the need for a reliable IT partner when installing broadband in communities, and suggested that those areas without broadband install mobile broadband technology. He suggested that some of the mobile telephone companies would be able to provide funding through their charitable trusts and gave the example of improvements to crop productivity in India thanks to the installation and provision of wireless broadband and telephone handsets. He emphasised that an online presence was an additional form of communication and not a replacement for other forms of contact.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) asked whether the panel’s families had read the offensive comments left on their blogs.

Mrs Dorries noted that it was possible to block all comments on a blog. She noted that larger websites than hers had found that not allowing rude comments meant that those attempting to post them eventually gave up.

112

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether there was a balance between posting online and continuing to be effective as an MP. He also asked whether the main purpose of the sites was to provide information to the public or self preservation.

Mr Wyatt said he spent thirty minutes each day on his site which did not stop him performing other functions and added to his effectiveness as an MP.

Mrs Dorries believed her site had provided information and helped promote her to her electorate. Everyone present had a majority to defend and using the internet allowed MPs to put their point of view across before the newspapers were published.

Mr Wyatt noted that the newspaper industry was struggling to find a business model which could make money online. He was confident that newspapers would catch up and that MPs would need to continue to improve their websites in order to stay ahead.

113

Tuesday 10 March 2009

BROADCASTING PARLIAMENT

Speaker: Mr Peter Knowles (Controller, BBC Parliament)

Chairman: Rt Hon. the Lord McNally (Liberal Democrats)

The Chairman said that he was pleased and honoured to be chairing the session as he had long been committed to promoting the broadcasting of the UK Parliament. It had not been a smooth process allowing outsiders to see what went on in Parliament. Parliament had cautiously allowed the broadcasters in and had then been pleasantly surprised as people began to better understand Parliament. He was delighted to introduce Peter Knowles, the Controller of BBC Parliament, as BBC Parliament was a real asset in bringing Parliament to the people.

Mr Peter Knowles said that the IPU had done a survey of the many Parliamentary channels across the world and had found that no two were the same; there was no consistency of coverage, and the broadcasting of some Parliaments was under the control of the Parliament itself whereas, in others, the broadcasting was under the control of broadcasters. As the Controller of the BBC Parliament television channel he was employed by the BBC, not by Parliament.

He was the Editor of Parliamentary Programmes which meant that, as well as BBC Parliament, he was in charge also of the radio programmes Today in Parliament and Yesterday in Parliament, the former having regular listening figures of half-a-million people every night. Radio still delivered a mass audience even in the face of new technologies, and a five minute round up every morning of the previous day’s Parliamentary business had an enormous impact.

The BBC had eight UK TV channels but BBC Parliament was small scale in terms of both budget and people. There was an assumption amongst its viewers that they were the only person watching the channel whereas, over the latest four month period, it was being seen by 1.6 million people – twice as many as watched it two years ago. In common with other digital channels, the schedule for its programmes was the same each week, so that people knew exactly when the particular programme they were interested in would be shown. Online, the channel had three broadband streams which would be developed into a web portal of eight streams for televising both Chambers and committees of both Houses.

If the debates being covered were dull and dry it was sometimes hard to explain why anybody would watch. As Bismarck had said, making laws was like making sausages – you don’t really want to know what goes into them! When the UK Parliament was good though, it was very good, as there were real debates; it was not just Members reading out pre-written speeches. As many of the debates took place during the day, BBC Parliament offered a good alternative to the usual daytime television.

The national audience rating system calculated that some 850,00 homes a month watched BBC Parliament at some time, though it could not tell whether the channel was on all day or for just five minutes (long enough to register that a channel was being watched). The fact that so many people

114

were now watching could be down to one of three reasons. Firstly, politics in the UK had become exciting with the possibility of a change of Government and a new seriousness engendered by the financial crisis. Secondly, distribution; a channel wouldn’t get an audience if it didn’t have a major distribution platform. BBC Parliament had been available on satellite and cable for several years and was now available full-screen on the Freeview digital channel, rather than appearing as a quarter-screen sized box. Finally, thought had actually been given as to how best attract an audience. For example, 2009 marked the 30th anniversary of the vote of no-confidence which had brought down the Callaghan Government, so special events and programmes would be shown to attract viewers. The channel was also getting a mention on BBC 1, which was helping to bring in an audience.

The audience was split 3:1 men:women and was predominantly over the age of 55. Both could be explained by the fact that it was being watched mainly during daytime television hours; men preferred it to other daytime television and it was mainly the retired and semi-retired who were at home and therefore able to watch it. There was an even spread of viewers across all social classes. Figures for radio listeners were similar, though there were more female listeners than viewers. The younger audience were watching mainly through the channel’s web service. Provided that there were strong, and agreed, rules of coverage in place, it was easier for broadcasters, than it was for politicians, to decide what shown be shown.

The Chairman said that there was one important restriction, in that proceedings in the House of Commons Chamber took precedence over what happened in the House of Lords. At that very moment in the Lords, one of the most powerful Ministers in the Cabinet was speaking on a very controversial piece of legislation. However, Mr Knowles’ team would have to be covering Points of Order in the Commons instead!

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether there were any rules on what could, and could not, be broadcast of the UK Parliament.

Mr Knowles said that when broadcasting had first been allowed, the rules of coverage were very tight with nothing other than a mid-shot of the person actually speaking, and a cutaway to the person responding, being permitted. There had, however, been some relaxation of the rules and reaction shots were now allowed so that the broadcasting of Parliament was more like other outside broadcasts. The rules of coverage for the US Congress were very rigid with a head and shoulder shot of the person speaking being the only one acceptable, the reason being that Members of Congress simply turned up to read out speeches; as a result, not many Members were ever in the Chamber.

Mr Roy said that the rules were still very tight in New Zealand.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said that in Australia broadcasters could only show the person speaking and they were not permitted to pan across to other Members. She asked if it was permitted in the UK to show the Speaker if he was naming a Member.

Mr Knowles said that that was permissible. It was also now allowed to show Members listening to debates, though operators were not permitted to show, for example, people yawning! There was a

115

slight problem with the House of Lords in that loud speakers were built into the back of the benches, so it could look as if their Lordships were falling asleep when, in fact, they were following the debate.

The Chairman said it could look even worse if they closed their eyes whilst trying to concentrate!

Mr Knowles added that their Lordships had allowed the broadcasters in first and this had convinced the Commons that the sky wouldn’t fall in if the cameras arrived.

Mr Amjed Pervez Malik (Clerk, Pakistan) praised C-SPAN saying it was the exemplar for all Parliamentary channels.

Mr Knowles agreed that the network was magnificent and a good example to follow. He reminded delegates that C-SPAN was the US cable public affairs network which operated three TV channels, a radio channel and a website. It provided an invaluable service due to the paucity of other public service broadcasters. It based its service on providing coverage of Congress, but also covered other political events - including Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) from the House of Commons- as what happened on the Floor of Congress was not as exciting as other events. It was, however, very costly; he estimated it would now be costing in the region of $60-70 million per year and employing some 200-300 staff. In contrast, BBC Parliament cost £2 million and employed some 20 staff, including engineers. An advantage C-SPAN had was that if anyone in the US wanted to subscribe to cable, they had to take C-SPAN who, as a consequence, received about 4 cents from every US cable subscriber, whether or not they watched the channel.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (Saint Lucia) asked whether the proceedings in the UK Parliament could be broadcast live in Saint Lucia, and if BBC Parliament ever provided a spoken commentary on what was happening in the Chamber.

Mr Knowles explained that the footprint of the satellite system used to broadcast BBC Parliament covered Europe only; if it was to cover the Americas the signal would have to be boosted; this would be both expensive and have to be paid for by the country that would be receiving the signal. BBC Parliament was not allowed to intervene in Parliamentary proceedings and so did not include commentary during its coverage, although written captions were put at the bottom of the screen and there were round-up programmes when commentary was permitted.

The Chairman felt that sometimes it would be helpful if it could be explained to viewers what would happen to a particular Bill.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (ACT, Australia) asked whether broadcasters had a sense of what people wanted to watch and if there had been any research into the matter.

Mr Knowles said that he thought he did know what people wanted to watch, but that he didn’t worry too much about it, and C-SPAN had a deliberate policy of not wanting to know what their viewing figures were. The highlight of the week was PMQs, but, as it was possible to watch these from many other sources, viewing figures were relatively low when compared to other major Parliamentary occasions. BBC News took many of the main speeches live and then switched to

116

commentary and interviews. Whilst most people tended to then stick with the News channel, a sizeable minority switched to BBC Parliament so that they could watch the rest of the speeches. Just before Christmas 2008 there had been considerable controversy about police being allowed to search an MP’s office at the House of Commons. The viewing figures for the ensuing debate on this matter were higher than for the debates on the Iraq War and on tuition fees. There was a feeling in Britain that interest in politics was dead, so it was most encouraging that BBC Parliament’s viewing figures showed that ever more people were watching.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that the Jamaican Parliament met in plenary for one day a week with the rest of the sitting week taken up by committee meetings. She asked if there were any Parliamentary committees that could not be covered due to, for example, security concerns.

Mr Knowles said that provided a committee met in public then the cameras were allowed in. About 40 committees met in public each week, and Friday, Saturday and evenings were each week set aside to show five committee hearings; with the new web portal it would be possible to show more. It cost £400 each time a committee was filmed and, although he would like to broadcast more committees, he was limited by time and cost implications. For example, that particular day he had wanted to cover two Commons and one Lords committee but, in the event, was only able to cover two of the three. He did not know of another Parliament that charged broadcasters for pictures.

Mr P. K. Grover (Clerk, India) said that ran its own dedicated service, and that they charged if broadcasters wanted to use its output.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said that the Australian also charged broadcasters for footage.

Mr Knowles said that he wished he hadn’t heard the last two comments, as it weakened his hand in discussions with the UK Parliament!

Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho (Zanzibar) asked whether there were any proceedings in the Chamber which could not be broadcast.

Mr Knowles said that they were not permitted to broadcast Prayers before the start of the sitting. They were also not permitted to show any disruption in the Public Gallery, although disruptions at the Scottish Parliament could be shown.

Hon. Harbans Kapoor MLA (Uttarakhand, India) asked if there were any restrictions on showing committees live.

Mr Knowles said that there were no such restrictions; if a committee was sitting in public then it could be broadcast live if the broadcasters wanted.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked if BBC Parliament ever broadcast from individual constituencies.

117

Mr Knowles said that, with the exception of proceedings at the Greater London Assembly, they didn’t cover local issues; such issues would be covered by regional TV and local radio stations.

Mr Ashok Bhatt MLA (Gujarat, India) asked if any actions had been brought against broadcasters because they had covered statements made by Members making use of .

Mr Knowles acknowledged that sometimes Members used Parliamentary privilege to say things in the Chamber that they couldn’t say outside it for fear of being accused of slander. Provided broadcasters simply reported what was said in Parliament they would also be protected.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) had noticed that, at night, BBC Parliament repeated old debates, and wondered who would be watching them. She asked also what did the channel broadcast when Parliament was in recess.

Mr Knowles said that the UK Parliament sat for more hours on more days that any other Parliament in the world and, therefore, there were few instances of debates having to be repeated. During short recesses BBC Parliament would, for example, broadcast a whole sequence of select committee hearings on a particular subject or, if they were sitting, broadcast proceedings at the devolved legislatures. During the summer recess, a sequence of political programmes would be broadcast; they would be run automatically so there was no need for journalists or engineers to be present in the studio. Even during the peak summer month of August the channel still attracted one million viewers.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that in her Parliament some committees had difficulty in getting a . In the UK, did the fact that a committee was going to be televised mean that there would be no such difficulty.

Mr Knowles doubted whether the broadcasters had that much influence on attendance! He had recently attended Question Time for the – ie, the equivalent of PMQs - at the National Assembly for Wales in Cardiff and had been appalled by the lack of Members in the Plenary Hall. Of some 30 seats behind the Minister only seven were occupied. He wondered whether any one would bother watching such proceedings on TV if Members themselves couldn’t be bothered to turn up.

The Chairman said that in the UK Parliament a phenomenon known as “doughnutting” had grown up, whereby the few Members present would cluster around the Member speaking so that it appeared as if the Chamber was more full than it actually was.

Mr Knowles said that one opposition party was particularly adept at this practice!

The Chairman said that he couldn’t possibly comment! He thanked delegates for a most interesting session and particularly thanked Mr Knowles who was a professional journalist and broadcaster but one whose love of Parliament clearly shone through.

118

Tuesday 10 March 2009

ENGAGING WITH THE MEDIA

Speakers: Miss Julie Kirkbride MP (Conservative) Ms Sally Keeble MP (Labour)

Chairman: Miss Elspeth Macdonald (Assistant Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman began by introducing Miss Julie Kirkbride, Conservative Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove. She said that Miss Kirkbride had previously worked as a TV and print journalist, so was excellently placed to talk about the subject for the session, engaging with the media.

Miss Julie Kirkbride MP welcomed the delegates and began by stressing the importance of politicians having a good media profile. She said that politicians and the media had a mutual need for one another: politicians needed the media to report their stories, and at the same time the media needed the stories that politicians had generated. Miss Kirkbride said that there were ways for MPs to make things easier for themselves, and that she personally had worked very hard on her relationship with the media. However, she accepted that she was fortunate that there were only two local weekly newspapers in her constituency, which was easier to manage than the multiple newspapers in big cities. She said that cutbacks in journalism had created a gap in the media world, which politicians were able to fill themselves. As a result, she had always returned journalists’ phone calls, and had always kept a camera with her, in case she had a chance for a good photograph in which the papers would be interested. She concluded by stating that effective engagement with the media allowed politicians to show that they were “around”, were “doing something”, and were “relevant”.

The Chairman then introduced Sally Keeble, Labour Member of Parliament for Northampton North. She told the delegates that Ms Keeble had previously worked in print journalism in South Africa, and in the Labour Party communications team before becoming an MP.

Ms Sally Keeble MP said that there were three reasons why politicians had to work hard at their media work. Firstly, it was an effective way of getting information across to constituents, far more effective than mail drops. Secondly, it provided the opportunity for politicians to promote themselves, particularly around election time. Finally, it offered the opportunity to fulfil democratic responsibilities, for instance by replying to constituents.

Ms Keeble stated that politicians had to think about how they were presenting themselves to the media: words, pictures, and TV interviews were all very important. She said that she had run a project called Schools for Africa (a partnership between schools in her constituency and schools in Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe) which had not only proved a success for the students, but had also boosted her local media profile. She said that this was one example whereby a difficult policy issue had been broken down and had generated positive media coverage. She concluded by stating that if you were promoting a minority message, it was often worthwhile to get a well known figurehead to support your campaign.

119

The Chairman said that she felt sure all the delegates had had both positive and negative experiences with the media. She invited questions from the floor.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (Saint Lucia) asked how politicians could get the appropriate balance between promoting themselves as a “jack of all trades”, while concentrating on a few key issues.

Miss Kirkbride replied that some MPs were regularly asked to comment on news stories. She said that in these instances it was important not to be deliberately inflammatory to ensure high profile coverage, but to be true to your own beliefs.

Ms Keeble advised the delegates to concentrate on a limited number of issues that they felt comfortable commenting on. She recalled how, during her time as a journalist, it was possible to set public figures up for a fall if they were not careful with their comments to the media.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked what strategies might be used to build a good relationship with the media.

Ms Keeble replied that to build productive media relationships, politicians needed to talk to journalists. She said it was important to work out the most effective media channel to use (radio, TV, or print), and then be willing to put in the time and effort to build a good story.

Miss Kirkbride advised the delegates to call back journalists quickly, in order to meet their deadlines. She also suggested meeting the local media face-to-face, for instance by inviting journalists out to lunch.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether there were any media courses available for new MPs in the UK.

Miss Kirkbride replied that Parliament did not provide such courses, but that the political parties typically did. She said that it was worth new MPs getting media training, and that simply asking someone to film you and then watching the recording back was a very worthwhile exercise.

Ms Keeble said that Labour MPs had a lot of media training when they were candidates. She said that she had learnt to condense what she wanted to say into a soundbite of 100 words which allowed her to get her points across. She advised the delegates to adapt their message and their means of delivering it, according to their target audience.

Miss Kirkbride stressed the need to keep the message simple, and to keep repeating it. She also suggested putting photos on the web and making them downloadable for use by the media.

Ms Keeble commented upon the need for MPs to look their best on television by wearing make-up.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Australia- Northern Territory) said that she was not able to do media work without the permission of her party. She asked whether it was the same in the UK.

120

Ms Keeble said that she was astonished by this requirement, and that it was certainly not the case in the UK. She said that the Labour Party would never have been able to do that, and that, if you spoke common sense, the party would shut you up at its peril.

Miss Kirkbride said that her party would have loved to shut up its MPs, but that it wouldn’t get away with it.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) asked how MPs should deal with being misquoted by journalists.

Miss Kirkbride accepted that it was difficult, but suggested that taking up the issue with the editor, or even suing, were possibilities. However, she said that this would often result in a lot of hassle.

Ms Keeble expanded upon this view by stressing that, by choosing to sue, the relationship with the newspaper would then be in a permanently bad state. She said that it was important to weigh up what was most important: maintaining a good relationship, or making the story more accurate.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked whether MPs should call press conferences.

Miss Kirkbride said that this was rarely necessary. Instead, journalists were often found waiting outside high profile meetings in an attempt to hold impromptu interviews.

Ms Keeble said that there was always the danger that no-one would turn up if you called a press conference.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (Australia- A.C.T) reflected that there had been a lot of coverage about “hatchet jobs” on MPs in the past week. He asked how MPs could deal with such instances.

Miss Kirkbride said that if you knew a story was likely to be hostile against you, it was worth keeping your head down for a while.

Ms Keeble said that it was an inevitable consequence of a free press that journalists would come after you. She accepted that, because she was in elected office, she was fair game.

The Chairman brought the session to a close by commenting that the relationship between the media and politicians was a subject close to everybody’s hearts.

121

Wednesday 11 March

THE SERJEANT AT ARMS

Speaker: Mrs Jill Pay, Serjeant at Arms

Chairman: Baroness D’Souza (Cross-bencher; Member, Joint Committee on Security)

The Chairman introduced Mrs Jill Pay, the Serjeant at Arms. Mrs Pay had worked for the House of Commons for 14 years. In October 2004 she had been appointed the first female Assistant Serjeant at Arms and, in January 2008, had then been appointed as the first female Serjeant at Arms.

Mrs Jill Pay said that the first Serjeant at Arms, Nicholas Maudit, had been appointed by King Henry V in 1415. Henry V had several Serjeants; one had been sent to recruit troops for the army, another to recruit sailors for the navy and another to keep order in the House of Commons, which was very unruly in those days. The Serjeant took his mace, still today the symbol of the ’s authority, to help him keep order. The Serjeant’s job description was “to attend the Speaker of the House of Commons” and therefore all ceremonial events and security matters were under the control of the Serjeant. In the Chamber, the Serjeant acted as the Executive Officer for the Speaker (or the Deputy Speakers if one was in the Chair). The Serjeant was also, as the House official responsible for security matters, a member of the Joint Committee on Security.

The Serjeant had responsibility for access arrangements to the House of Commons. The House received some one million visitors a year, including school parties, film crews and visiting VIPs. Until the recent reorganisation of the House of Commons Service, the Serjeant had formerly been the head of their Department; now the Serjeant was head of one Directorate within the larger Department of Chamber and Committee Services. With the assistance of a Deputy and an Assistant Serjeant she was in charge of the Doorkeepers, the Pass Office and the Admission Order Office – the latter being, in effect, the House of Commons’ “Box Office”. She also liaised with the Head of Security, a senior serving Police Officer, and, working closely with Black Rod in the House of Lords, oversaw the contract with the Metropolitan Police to provide the 500 plus police and security officers.

The Serjeant had a key ceremonial role on State Opening Day. As Black Rod approached the doors of the Commons, they were slammed shut on her order; they were eventually opened, again, on her order. The Serjeant then led the procession of Members of the House of Commons to the Lords Chamber to hear the Queen’s . On other sitting days the Serjeant, carrying the Mace, led the Speaker’s Procession from his office to the Chamber, and then placed the Mace on the Table of the House. Other aspects of the Serjeant’s duties included accompanying the Speaker on official engagements, such as foreign leaders addressing both Houses and for lyings in State, the last being for the Queen Mother in 2002. As well as the three full-time Serjeants, she could call on two Associate Serjeants, who worked for her for one day each fortnight covering duties in the Chamber; this was a new position she had created following the House departmental reorganisation.

122

As would be expected, security was the House’s main concern. There were three layers of protection; the outer perimeter which involved vehicle and personal security searches and utilised armed police officers and the recently introduced access control system, which made use of proximity cards and an individual pass holder’s PIN number. In order to keep the outer perimeter secure, in addition to armed police, the Houses were also able to call on other areas of the police force and the security service. Once inside the House, internal control was enforced by police and security officers who randomly carried out some 1000 checks a month on the photo passes of all people on the Parliamentary Estate. Access control had also been strengthened where public and private areas interfaced and physical presence and technical security had been increased in public areas. The final level of security involved the core areas, specifically the Chambers and Central Lobby, where armed and unarmed police would prevent unwarranted access to the Chambers. Prime Minister’s Questions represented the week’s highest risk half an hour in the week. The one million visitors each year were now photographed and given visitor photo-passes before they entered Parliament

Mail was another source of potential risk; all letters and parcels destined for Parliament were now screened off-site for any offensive or hazardous material. The biggest challenge was, however, the unknown. For example, protesters against a third runway at Heathrow had launched a rooftop protest. Regular joint exercises with the House of Lords were carried out to test out the response in the event of Parliament not being able to meet in Westminster.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Pay and invited questions from delegates.

Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) asked how the Serjeant at Arms was recruited.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked how the House dealt with mail delivered by couriers, whether perimeter security affected constituents visiting their MP and whether MPs were allowed to approach and touch the Mace.

Senator Evaristus Jn Marie (Saint Lucia) asked whether there had been any additional security costs following the events of 9/11.

Mrs Pay said that the Serjeant was recruited in the same way as other senior House of Commons managers were recruited – through internal and external open competition. Mail arriving by courier was screened on-site; if there was, however, any doubt about its safety it was sent to the off-site facility. Visitors were only allowed unescorted access to public areas such as Westminster Hall or Central Lobby. The public having appointments with Members had to be escorted by a pass holder if they were visiting private areas. Crowd control was still low-tech and relied on the human element – this was easier if the person doing the controlling was in uniform, though not necessarily a member of the Police; Doorkeepers and Visitor Assistants often participated in controlling visitors at Westminster. Concerning the Mace, it was the Serjeant’s job to protect it; no security officers were allowed in the Chamber but the Serjeant was able to call on the Doorkeepers to assist if necessary, as had been the case recently. There had been many additional costs since 9/11 connected with employing armed police and installing the security screen in the Chamber and “blockers” as people drove into the two Houses.

123

Mr Kevin Shiels (Clerk, Northern Ireland) asked who was the Serjeant’s equivalent in the House of Lords and whether Members of Parliament cooperated with the House authorities during evacuations of the House.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked whether staff of the House and Members’ staff were security screened.

Mrs Beverley Isles (Clerk, Canada) asked if Members had been involved in the exercise for the relocation of the Chamber and if the House’s technology had been tried out in the new location.

Mrs Pay said her equivalent in the House of Lords was Black Rod; they worked together closely on security matters as anything affecting one House could also affect the other. MPs were not keen to evacuate the House, and therefore sometimes they had to be persuaded as it was for their own personal safety. All staff, whether Members’ or House, were criminally and security vetted. The only pass holders not so vetted were MPs, Peers and their spouses. She confirmed that Members were involved during the relocation exercise and the House’s technology was tried out during such exercises.

Hon. Samuel Kambi MP (Kenya) asked whether, as in Kenya, issues of security in the House of Commons were covered by Standing Orders.

Mr Ashok Chandulal Bhatt MLA (Gujarat, India) asked how the House was defended against the use of biological agents, which couldn’t be identified by X-ray machines.

Hon Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how MPs’ email accounts were protected against viruses.

Mrs Pay said that, in the House of Commons, Standing Orders dealt only with the House’s Procedure; instead, matters such as security issues would be dealt with by protocols, which would be communicated to MPs by their respective Whips. She agreed it was difficult to detect biological agents but sniffer dogs were used and other discreet measures were in place to detect them. The House of Commons computers were protected by a firewall to prevent outside viruses, etc, from infecting the system.

Mr Bernard Joseph Dalinting (Clerk, Sabah, Malaysia) asked how often the House carried out fire drills.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) asked what briefing the House provided for new MPs.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked how the Serjeant built up a good working relationship with the Speaker and other MPs.

Mrs Pay said fire drills were carried out once or twice a year; everybody was expected to cooperate. House Staff acted as Fire Marshalls and they, police officers and fire fighters were responsible for checking offices. A lot of effort was now put into briefing for new MPs; a reception area was set up

124

on the first floor of Portcullis House for new MPs to get information from, for example, the Pass Office, Finance Office, Clerks and security personnel. Police and Crime Prevention Officers also advised new MPs on how to protect themselves, their staff and their House and constituency offices.

In order to build a working relationship, the Serjeant was always available to individual Members, both inside and outside the Chamber, to offer advice and assistance. With the Speaker, any relevant information the Serjeant receives was passed on to him; for example, if the Serjeant had been informed that a lift had broken down, this could affect Members being able to vote in time if there was a Division. Similarly, each day the Serjeant, together with other senior Officers such as the Clerk of the House and the Clerk Assistant, attended the Speaker’s Conference to discuss the day’s business. The Serjeant would report details of, for example, any Mass Lobbies taking place or other events that could have an impact on the business of the House.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Pay and delegates for a most interesting discussion and declared the session closed.

125

Wednesday 11 March

PAYING FOR PARLIAMENT

Speakers: Mr Andrew Walker (Director General of Resources, House of Commons)

Mr Jonathan Smith (Head of Finance, House of Lords)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

Mr Andrew Walker gave a presentation about the finance arrangements for the House of Commons, and the governance of those arrangements. He explained that there were two separate ‘Estimates’ or budgets, one for the administration and one for Members. The Administration Estimate (£258 million for the coming year) was the budget for running Parliament and covered costs such as staff salaries, building maintenance, staff computers, a grant in aid for the CPA UK Branch and select committee and delegation travel by Members. It was approved by the House of Commons Commission, laid by Mr Speaker and was under the control of the House itself. The Members Estimate (£183 million) was laid by Treasury as part of the main Government supply. It provided the finance for Members acting as individually elected representatives and covered the costs of Members’ salaries and allowances.

With regard to the governance arrangements, Mr Walker explained that there were two Audit Committees; the Administration Estimate Audit Committee and the Members Estimate Audit Committee. The membership of the two Committees was the same. There was also an internal audit service, and external audit was provided by the National Audit Office. The role of the Finance and Services Committee was to oversee the expenditure of the House of Commons and to propose its budget. Each autumn it received budget proposals from officials and made recommendations to the House of Commons Commission.

Turning to the pay and allowances system, Mr Walker said that new arrangements were being introduced and a revised, principles based edition of the guide for Members, (the ‘Green Book’) came into force on 1 April 2009. A new Select Committee, the Members Allowances Committee would adjudicate on what claims were allowable under the revised scheme.

Any increases in Members’ salary would be implemented on 1 April each year: the Senior Salaries Review Board would have the responsibility of writing to Mr Speaker with details of the pay increases which would be calculated according to a previously agreed formula.

Mr Jonathan Smith explained that he had the day-to-day responsibility for running finance arrangements for staff and Members of the House of Lords. The House of Lords had one single budget, which was provided via HM Treasury. This provided a resource budget, a capital budget and cash. The House of Lords had a five year strategic plan; each office annually prepared its plans for the coming three years and these were collated and reviewed by the Management Board so that they could be presented to the House Committee for approval. A large proportion of the budget related to book entries, for example for depreciation, partly because of the exceptional nature of the

126

premises. The four main categories of expenditure were Members expenses, staff pay, upkeep of the Parliamentary estate and security. The House of Lords was audited in a similar way to the Commons. The Clerk of the Parliaments was the Accounting Officer. He was supported by an internal review team and supported by an audit committee, which had two external members.

Mr Smith explained that most Members of the House of Lords did not receive a salary, but could claim expenses for those days on which they attended Parliamentary business. These expenses were for travel, overnight subsistence, daily subsistence and office costs. The guide to the allowances system was published on the internet. Around nine per cent of those Members entitled to claim expenses did not do so. The Senior Salaries Review Board reviewed the arrangements every three to four years and recommended whether rates should be increased; the House voted on these recommendations and usually accepted them.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether there were any restrictions on MPs taking on additional paid employment and questioned the lack of a salary for Members of the House of Lords.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) asked about the provision of insurance and pensions for Members of both Houses.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked about assets shared by the two Houses and whether there was a single Accounting Officer for Parliament.

Mr Walker said that there was no restriction on MPs having other employment; some Members were qualified lawyers, accountants or doctors and a few continued to practice. All that was required was that MPs should register their interests. MPs did receive a generous pension and were insured for public liability, travel and some legal costs, but did not have health or life insurance provided.

Mr Smith suggested that salary was less of an issue for Lords who were appointed because of their experience, and many of whom had another career. Only the very few salaried Members could opt to receive a pension and the only insurance provided was for travel associated with Parliamentary duties. Mr Smith explained that the main asset shared by both Houses was the Palace of Westminster building. For accounting purposes this was allocated 40 per cent to the House of Lords which was broadly in line with its space allocation. The Clerk of the House was the Accounting Officer for the Commons, and the Clerk of the Parliaments for the Lords.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked for further clarification about the allowances available to Members of the House of Lords and Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho (Zanzibar) asked about those available to Speakers.

Mrs Beverly Isles (Clerk, Canada) queried whether performance audits were carried out.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) requested information about resources available for the education of Members’ staff.

127

Mr Walker explained that there were additional salaries paid to the Speaker and Deputy Speakers and other office holders.

Mr Smith said that in the Lords, those who received a salary generally could not claim expenses. In both Houses, the National Audit Office was sometimes requested to carry out performance or value for money audits, but there was no legal obligation for them.

With regard to capacity building for Members’ staff, Mr Walker explained that there was a budget for Members’ staff training and that courses were provided throughout the country, so that staff in constituencies were able to attend.

Mr P. K. Grover (Clerk, India) asked whether the arrangements for providing the Estimate via the Government could be seen to compromise Parliament’s independence.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) suggested that the Houses seemed to be operating as two separate organisations rather than two branches of the same one.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked whether there was a pay grading system.

Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) asked about Ministerial pay.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) queried whether there were funds for Members to buy cars.

Mr Walker said that in practice the Government could not interfere with the Estimate and that the system was as independent as possible.

Mr Smith explained that the Commons and Lords were two distinct Houses, each of which wanted to guard its independence. However, there was much joint working behind the scenes. Mr Walker said that there was no external pay grading system, decisions rested with the House. Ministers received a Ministerial salary which was paid by Government. There were funds available for the main opposition party, called ‘Short’ money, to enable them to cover costs such as staff, research and travel. With regard to funds for Members to buy cars, the mileage rate included an element for depreciation which was intended to contribute to the wider costs of running a car.

128

Wednesday 11 March 2008

OPEN FORUM 4: RUNNING PARLIAMENTS [PMQS COMMENTARY]

Speaker: Mr Liam Laurence Smyth (Clerk of Bills, House of Commons)

Chair: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman introduced Mr Liam Laurence Smyth, House of Commons Clerk of Public Bills.

Mr Liam Laurence Smyth began by noting that the previous week delegates had watched Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) with Harriet Harman standing in for the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and William Hague standing in for the Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron. The Prime Minister had been in the and had spoken to both Houses of Congress, while David Cameron had been away due to a family bereavement.

Delegates were directed to take note of key ministers taking their seats and how the general ambience of the Chamber changed as PMQs approached. Delegates were also told of key techniques to anticipate what questions would be asked by backbench MPs. For example, press coverage that day and over preceding days could suggest some of the issues that might come to the fore. In addition, the order paper and the names of individual MPs might suggest constituency based questions. For example, if a particular industry was based in a constituency an MP might ask a question around that industry. On that basis, it was suggested that some questions might be based on banks, Northern Ireland and the car industry. Before the Prime Minister started, delegates were also encouraged to watch how the Speaker of the House of Commons managed questions.

The Prime Minister began by offering condolences to the families of those members of the security and police forces who had been killed in Northern Ireland since the previous week’s PMQs. It was noted that a sombre mood had entered the Chamber and that both the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and subsequent speakers refrained from overtly political stances to reflect this. Several of the speakers who made contributions regarding Northern Ireland had held Ministerial posts associated with the province, such as , or represented Northern Ireland constituencies. It was noted that it was quite unusual for the Chamber to be so quiet at PMQs. The manner in which the Speaker chose questions from all sides of the House, especially with regard to MPs representing different communities in Northern Ireland, was also highlighted. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both appeared to speak for the whole country rather than as opposing politicians.

It was also noted how one of the MPs, , brought humour to the proceedings and that Mr Skinner occupied a seat once used by . Mr Skinner was a good example of a Parliamentarian with an excellent attendance record and use of witty comments.

The Chairman thought that it was interesting that both Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition wore dark suits and dark ties, which perhaps reflected the occasion and the events that had occurred in Northern Ireland. He asked whether there were any questions.

129

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shebesh MP (Kenya) thought that more respect had been shown by some MPs to the Prime Minister than to Harriet Harman the week before. She asked why this had been the case?

Mr Laurence Smyth replied that if Harriet Harman had been speaking on behalf of the country as the Prime Minister had with regard to Northern Ireland he suspected that she would have drawn the same response. There probably would not have been the political banter that had occurred the week before between Ms Harman and Mr Hague.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A. C. T., Australia) thought that some of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions were interesting.

Mr Laurence Smyth was intrigued that the Leader of the Opposition had raised the issue of alleged torture in Guantanamo Bay. Usually it would be a backbench MP that would raise such a question.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (Saint Lucia) thought that the sense of grief in the Chamber was palpable.

The Chairman agreed that the sombre mood was very evident. He called the session to a close.

130

Wednesday 11 March 2009

RESOURCES FOR FORMER MEMBERS

Speakers: Mr Alf Bates (Former Member of Parliament; Member, Executive Committee, Association of Former Members) Sir John Butterfill MP (Conservative)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman announced that he would be chairing the session, as Lord Steele, who had been scheduled to do so, was unable to attend and had sent apologies. The session would consist of contributions from two speakers, Alf Bates a former Member of Parliament, and Sir John Butterfill, a current Member of Parliament, executive member of the CPA UK branch and Chairman of the Trustees of the Members’ pension fund.

Mr Alf Bates said that he was delighted to be asked to speak at the event as he was a life member of the CPA. The CPA was an important organisation: all who believed in democracy had a great deal to learn from each other. Mr Bates said that he had been elected a Member of Parliament 35 years previously and had been an MP for five years. There had been a large number of changes in the services for current and former Members since that time. 35 years ago the allowance for secretarial help for Members only covered a part-time secretary and 30 years ago, when he had left Parliament, the allowance had amounted to one full-time member of staff. Now Members were able to staff their offices adequately to serve their constituents.

Mr Bates said that when he had been beaten at the General Election in 1979, he had been given one day in which to return and clear out his office and say goodbye to his secretary. His secretary had in effect been sacked but had received no resettlement help. As a former Member he had received a modest resettlement allowance. All of these matters had been modernised and now there was proper help and assistance for both former Members and their staff.

Mr Bates said that when he left Parliament it had been difficult to find another job. He had claimed unemployment benefit as any unemployed person would have. It was important to remember that in a democracy a Member would sometimes lose their seat in an election, but the reality of losing an election and with it a livelihood was very hard. At some elections only a few incumbent Members might lose their seats, in others, such as 1979 and 1997, when there was a change of Government, many lost their seats, including a number who did not expect to do so and were unprepared for the trauma of being made redundant at a stroke.

The Association of Former Members of Parliament was a fairly recent organisation. It had begun in 2001 when the then Leader of the House, MP, moved a resolution in the House. It had been formally established in 2005. There were currently approximately 340 members, including two former Prime Ministers and 30 former Ministers. The initial purpose of the Association had been to give support to former Members of Parliament as they tried to cope with the shock of losing their seat, from others who could understand what they were going through. The Association also allowed former Members to stay in touch with former colleagues, and to facilitate this the

131

Association had negotiated a right of access to the House for Former Members. The third thing which the Association wished to do was to provide both a forum and a negotiating voice for former Members to raise matters of common concern, such as pensions.

The Association produced a newsletter three times a year for Members, and also had undertaken research, in association with the University of , about the impact on a Member of Parliament of losing their seat. Mr Bates said that the Association would be happy to forward a copy of either its newsletter or its research to Commonwealth colleagues. Looking to the future Mr Bates said that he believed the expertise of former Members needed to be harnessed, for instance to talk to schools about democracy, and to engage with organisations such as the CPA and the European institutions.

In conclusion Mr Bates said that he wished to share with the group a personal view: he believed democracy as it was in the UK was not perfect. He felt that it was becoming ancient and creaky and that the UK had much to learn from the newer and more vibrant systems found in many parts of the Commonwealth, just as, as one time, Commonwealth countries had had much to learn from the UK.

Sir John Butterfill MP said that he would first discuss what the reward package should be for a Member of Parliament. Firstly it was important to attract people from every walk of life in order that Parliament benefited from a variety of skills and expertise. It was important that MPs should have diverse backgrounds, such as academic, business, trade union, manufacturing etc. Such people would be likely to have been successful in their own fields, meaning that their remuneration might well have been more than they could expect when they became a Member of Parliament. There was a balance to be struck between paying enough to attract the right people and not attracting people for money alone. A Member of Parliament needed to wish to serve their electorate.

An appropriate pension was also very important, even if a former Member might not be able to draw on it for some years after losing their seat. There were two main types of pension in the UK, defined benefit and final salary. Currently Members’ pensions were final salary based, up to a maximum of two-thirds of a Member’s final salary. An independent body assessed what salary Members should be paid, and made recommendations to the Government on the matter. Recently the recommendations of this body had been quite controversial as successive Governments had paid less than the recommendations of the review body, meaning that over the past eleven years Members’ pay had increased by less than the cost of living. The average tenure of a Member of Parliament was ten years, with the average age of entry being 42 and of exit being 52. Therefore Members were interrupting another career at a time when their earning capacity was at its peak.

Sir John explained that the costs of running a final salary scheme, which included a Board of Trustees, investment advisers and lawyers, were high. Also, in recent years, legislation had been introduced which inhibited the ability of the Trustees to run the scheme in an efficient manner. For instance it was now compulsory to value the Fund every three years, and to take action to make up any shortfall. Sir John said that he believed this to be a damaging exercise – the three year assessment was a snapshot, which would largely depend on the value of the stockmarket at that time, creating peaks and troughs in value. Instead Sir John supported using actuarial advice to assess the value of the Fund over a fifty year period to allow a judgement to be made as to whether there were sufficient funds available over a reasonable timeframe.

132

The biggest unknown factor for any pension fund was the longevity of its beneficiaries. People were living much longer than previously, meaning that they would be paid their pension for longer. This needed to be allowed for. Many schemes, including state schemes in a number of European countries, were attempting to do so by increasing the retirement age for employees.

Finally, Sir John turned to allowances. Originally Members had received no assistance to undertake their work, and had to pay for their own staff, travel and expenses. That had changed over time and Members now received a number of allowances to assist them. Most controversially most Members received an allowance to cover the cost of maintaining a second home. Members also received an allowance to cover travel to and from and within the constituency. Finally Members received a staffing allowance, equivalent to roughly two full-time staff. Postage and stationery for official use was provided free of charge. Sir John said that the modern age had changed the way in which he communicated with his constituents, as most now preferred to correspond via email. On a typical day he received approximately 20 letters and 120 emails. The difficulty with email was that constituents often expected an immediate response, whereas with a letter a constituent would expect a reply to take a few days to arrive. A final way of connecting with constituents was through the sending of a newsletter; the House had recently voted to introduce a Communications Allowance to allow Members to do this. This was also controversial as it could be seen as favouring the incumbent Member.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) said that it was inevitable that everyone attending the conference would lose their seat at some point. The biggest challenge would be re-entering the workforce, especially if the Member’s party had lost the election concerned. In Canada a Member was entitled to transitional payments to ease their path, and he wondered if this was the case in the UK?

Sir John said that in the UK those who lost their seats were entitled to up to one year’s salary, depending on their age and length of service. On average a former Member received six months salary, but the formula for working out what a Member was entitled to was very complex. The Member was also entitled to retain his staff for one month to tie up loose ends and hand over constituency work. Following this staff received a statutory redundancy pay under law, plus as the employer the Member could decide to give a bonus which doubled the amount of redundancy pay given to the employee. This bonus was paid by the Department of Resources.

Mr Bates said that when he had lost his seat all Members had received three months salary, regardless of length of service, and their staff received nothing. The improvement since that time was welcome. He personally had been out of work for nearly a year following his defeat at the 1979 General Election.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) said that in New Zealand anyone leaving Parliament received three month’s backbench salary. There had been much bad press relating to Members pension entitlements in New Zealand, and currently Members contributed to their pension scheme on a one for one basis and Members could choose where to invest this from a number of approved funds.

Sir John said that normal contribution rate for Members in the UK Parliament was 10 per cent of salary.

133

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh (Kenya) said that for Members in Kenya the second election was extremely important as a Member had to serve two terms to be entitled to a pension. In Kenya there was no compulsory retirement age. Did Members in the UK have to retire once they reached the UK retirement age?

Sir John said that there was no requirement for Members to retire at any point. It was their own decision. The national retirement age was 65, and a Member who retired before then would receive a reduced pension. Members who carried on after 65 and then either retired or were defeated at an election received less resettlement grant than younger Members due to their entitlement to their pension.

Mr Bates said that when he had been a Member of Parliament, Members had been required to make five years of contributions before being entitled to a pension. This had now changed.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that in Jamaica former Members of Parliament not only had access to Parliament, they were given preference above currently serving Senators on certain special occasions.

Mr Bates said that his access to the House was restricted, and was limited to the Strangers Bar and certain restaurants at certain times. There was no right of access to the majority of the working parts of the Parliament such as the Library, which was understandable as Parliament was a very busy place. The Association of Former Members had discovered that practice varied dramatically between Parliaments, and in some European Parliaments former Members were able to speak, but not vote, in debates.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) said that in his country with up to five years’ service a Member was entitled to a pension at 40 per cent of salary, and with more than five years’ service this increased to 80 per cent of salary.

Sir John said that that was similar to the benefits enjoyed by Members of the .

Hon. Zubier Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) said that he had two questions, firstly whether gratuities were paid to Members in addition to allowances and secondly what happened to the staff of Members if the Member stood down or was defeated.

Sir John confirmed that Members were not paid gratuities in addition to allowances. Members of staff were entitled to redundancy, as he had already explained. But any decent member of staff was likely to get snapped up by an incoming Member.

The Chairman said that in the UK the hiring and firing of staff was the responsibility of the Member, while pay was administered by the Department of Resources, who also provided assistance with HR matters.

Sir John said that it was important to note that the Member was the employer in law – for instance the cost of being taken to an employment tribunal would be borne by the Member not by Parliament.

134

135

Wednesday 11 March 2009

WORKING RELATIONS IN PARLIAMENT: ENSURING EXCELLENCE

Speakers: Mr Mark Hutton (Clerk of the Overseas Office, House of Commons) Rt Hon. MP (Labour)

Chairman: Professor the Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative; Shadow Minister for Health)

The Chairman welcomed delegates and introduced the speakers.

Mr Mark Hutton explained the organisational structure of the House of Commons. All staff of the House of Commons were employed by the House of Commons Commission whose head was Mr Speaker. The House of Commons Service was independent, however the terms and conditions of employment it provided for staff were broadly comparable with that provided by the Civil Service.

Until October 2007 the House of Commons Service comprised six departments. After a review undertaken by Sir Kevin Tebbit, the Service was reduced to four departments. The reorganisation had streamlined the service provided to Members. Under the old structure, some aspects of the House service were removed from the work of MPs– the people they ultimately worked for. The new structure had made the service to Members more joined-up. That new approach was demonstrated by the new one-stop-shop, staffed by people from each of the House departments, which had opened recently in Portcullis House. It was intended that Members could visit the new facility and receive information about different aspects of the House in one visit.

The Commission had delegated a number of important functions to the Management Board by an Instrument of Delegation. The Management Board, which also advised the Commission on strategic matters, was chaired by The Clerk of the House, Dr Malcolm Jack. The heads of the four House Departments were also represented on the Board: the Director General of Committee and Chamber Services, the Director General of Facilities, the Director General of Information Services, and the Director General of Resources. The Management Board could also appoint up to two external members.

Despite these changes, the House remained a complex organisation. MPs carried out a wide and varied range of tasks in a building which was not designed for modern working practices.

As a House of Commons Clerk, Mr Hutton had spent his entire career, apart from a period on secondment to the Foreign Office, working closely with Members. Staff in the Department for Chamber and Committee Services (DCCS) worked closely with Members. If a Clerk worked in a procedural office they would be required to provide Members with instant advice in response to any number of queries about House procedures. Examples included how to table a parliamentary question or how to draft an Early Day Motion. In the Committee Office, the staff of the Committee tended to work closely with Members over a longer period of time. Committee Inquiries were more of a common endeavour and staff were expected to offer advice more proactively.

136

A striking aspect of Parliament was that many staff had worked there for a long time. A significant number of staff remained in the House for the entirety of their career. Indeed many remained for the whole of their career. It was an advantage to the House that it had many experienced and knowledgeable staff but it was important that staff appreciated how complex the House organisation was, particularly to new Members.

It was important to remember that politics was at the heart of everything that happened in Parliament. In the end, everything was decided by a political imperative. In that respect it was very different from other places of work. That was one of many factors that made parliament an exciting and rewarding place to work.

Rt Hon. Alun Michael MP said that some House staff were very visible to Members whereas others were not. The example given was that staff who worked in procedural offices were usually well known to Members. However other staff, including those who worked in the Facilities department, were not so visible even though the work they did was important to the smooth running of the House.

It was important for MPs to develop good relationships with Clerks. Not all MPs had a good understanding of the rules of procedure or had the inclination to acquaint themselves with it. They therefore relied on Clerks for advice in many aspects of their work. However, MPs tended to want to get things done quickly whereas Clerks wanted to do things in a procedurally correct way. There was therefore a potential for frustration on behalf of MPs. It was necessary for both sides to appreciate the other’s perspective.

Democracy was not a straightforward process. From time to time it was necessary to update certain procedures so that it worked efficiently.

For Parliament to work effectively, clear rules of procedure were important. However, on occasion, there were no rules to deal with a particular situation and conventions were necessary for the system to work flexibly.

New MPs often arrived with strong values and principles which they wanted to demonstrate in Parliament. However, many soon felt frustration with rules and conventions which they felt worked against their interest as an MP. Parliamentary rules and procedures should uphold democracy but should not be used to stop change.

The constituency link was vital and should be maintained. When Members spoke in the Chamber, they were referred to by the name of their constituency, never by their real name. That practice had for many years served as an important reminder that, although party loyalties were important, Members were elected first and foremost to represent their constituents.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that in her experience Clerks were excellent at their job. They ensured that Parliament was run smoothly and efficiently.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether Clerks or Members were the ultimate authority in the UK Parliament.

137

Mr Michael said that Mr Speaker was the ultimate authority in the House of Commons. His rulings were final. Once an MP had been made the Speaker by his colleagues, he gave up his party affiliation to serve all MPs. On retirement, Mr Speaker would remain above party politics.

In the Welsh Assembly the Presiding Officer remained an active politician. That situation had caused many problems within the Assembly and was a weakness in the Welsh system.

Mr Richard Ssendage (Clerk, Uganda) noted that in the all staff, not just Clerks, performed an important function.

Mr Hutton agreed that all staff should be valued for the work they did. In the House Service, efforts had been made recently to move towards a common pool of research staff which comprised researchers in the Department of Information Services and Committee Specialists who worked in the Department of Chamber and Committee Services.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) believed that good communication between MPs and staff was important. The Parliament in Kampala held regular training workshops so that an understanding of the two rules was developed.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) wondered what procedures were followed in the House of Commons when staff showed political bias.

Mr Hutton responded that the staff handbook was very clear on that matter. Senior Commons Staff were not allowed to engage in politics at all. That meant that they could not stand for election to a political office or express political opinions publicly. More junior staff were more allowed to engage in local politics.

Within Parliament, all staff were required to act with integrity and in a non-partisan manner.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) said that in Ghana the Speaker was also the Leader of the House. The current holder was not an elected politician and was a very controversial character.

Mr Michael said that in the House of Commons the roles were quite distinct. The Leader of the House was a member of the Government whereas the Speaker’s duty was to protect the rights of Parliament.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether MPs and Clerks held joint social events.

Mr Hutton said that the Sports and Social Club and the Parliamentary Choir had provided opportunities for House staff and MPs to socialise together. Both groups also had an opportunity to get to know each other at familiarisation workshops and other events.

Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) noted that in Pakistan Clerks were able to stand for election once they had been retired for two years.

138

Mr Hutton said that many Clerks spent their entire career at Parliament. Once they had retired, most Clerks had no wish to enter politics.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and delegates for their contribution.

139

Wednesday 11 March 2009

RESEARCH AND INFORMATION SERVICES FOR MEMBERS

Speakers: Dr John Pullinger (Libarian and Director General, Information Services, House of Commons) Ms Elizabeth Hallam Smith (Director of Information Services and Librarian, House of Lords)

Chairman: Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP (Labour)

The Chairman began by saying that it was a pleasure to be chairing the afternoon’s session on Research and information services for Members. She introduced Dr John Pullinger and Elizabeth Hallam Smith, each of whom would speak for approximately 10 minutes before taking questions.

Dr John Pullinger thanked Dr Blackman-Woods for her introduction. He said that he and Elizabeth Hallam Smith were both cheerful people as they had wonderful jobs making an unique contribution to an informed democracy. The Libraries of both Houses were dedicated to supporting Parliamentarians. The services they provided to Members were completely impartial and confidential. The Department of Information Services in the Commons was increasingly taking on the role of informing the public as well through the online publication of documents, and by going out and giving talks around the country.

He enjoyed CPA events, in particular because they gave the opportunity for discussion with colleagues from around the world. Talking to colleagues from relatively new Parliaments was especially interesting. Last year, Dr Pullinger had attended and chaired an IPU conference in Geneva on ‘informing democracy’, which had been attended by politicians, clerks and librarians. The President of the IPU (Dr Theo-Ben Gurirab) had been elected only the day before the conference, and had remarked to the delegates that they were the people who ensured that when he rose to speak, he said something sensible.

Two of the biggest challenges that the Department of Information Services faced at the moment were economic and scientific literacy amongst Members.

The House of Commons library had been founded in 1818. Dr Pullinger was the fourteenth Librarian. The Library lost much of its original stock of books in the fire of 1834, in the time of Thomas Vardon, the second Librarian. The Library that was built as part of the new House was quite clearly designed around Victorian views of the role of reason in democracy. Both libraries enjoyed excellent river-facing accommodation, and were very close to the Chambers. Dr Pullinger expressed the view that the Library rather lost its way during the twentieth century, perhaps losing focus on its duty to keep Members informed. During the 1940s, a Select Committee on the Library recommended the employment of expert staff. The Library now had such a staff, the busiest of which was the Business and Transport division.

Ms Elizabeth Hallam Smith began by explaining that the two libraries were working closely together. She particularly enjoyed the history of the buildings in which she worked, but was aware

140

that the nineteenth century buildings had (understandably) not been designed with the needs of a twenty-first century Parliament in mind. Her predecessor Librarians had enjoyed the provision of a large flat on the premises with a well-stocked drinks cabinet. She had not maintained the practice of receiving Members in her rooms.

The Library served approximately 700 Members of the House of Lords, 350-400 of whom were regular users. Many Peers were experts in their subject areas, and had a wide range of research needs. The thirty-five staff of the House of Lords library provided context and perspective. The Library was working to develop a virtual library as a way of drawing together and improving accessibility to its vast resources.

The House of Lords Library was also working to connect with the public. The ‘Lords of the Blog’ website had been very successful, and provided a model for similar projects.

The Chairman thanked both speakers for their presentations and invited questions from the floor.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether television news bulletins were archived for later viewing.

Dr Pullinger confirmed that proceedings in the Chamber were broadcast on the internet and later on television. Programmes were available on demand for a fortnight, and then could be retrieved, or burnt to a DVD. Members could use the BBC’s ‘iPlayer’ service to view repeats of broadcast television.

Ms Hallam Smith added that the ‘Parliament Live’ website kept material for one year, after which time it was passed on for archiving at the British Film Institute.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that in Kenya, there was no culture of reading and that information which needed hiding was safest in a book.

Dr Pullinger explained that in the modern library, people were as important as books. Library staff gave talks, and were increasingly experimenting with new media. Some Members had strong preferences for particular formats.

Ms Hallam Smith remarked upon the oral culture in the House of Lords. Information-seeking styles did differ and the libraries had to cater for this.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked how much content the libraries held.

Ms Hallam Smith said that lots of information was available. Much was accessible via desktops, but there was no substitute for telephoning or visiting the subject experts in the Library proper.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked about budgeting arrangements for the Library.

Dr Pullinger explained that he sat on the Management Board, which was responsible for allocating budgets to each department. There was extra money available this year to fund a project on

141

organising information. The House of Commons’ Library divided its funds almost equally on physical and online assets.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how far back databases were digitised.

Ms Hallam Smith said that Hansard was available online back to the early nineteenth century. Lots of information was accessible through the Parliamentary Archives. Files could also be deposited electronically.

Dr Pullinger said that as well as depositing documents, technology was now in place to allow collaboration both within and without the House. The Library built links with university departments where it could.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked about research services.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked whether the research that was conducted stayed within the Library.

Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) asked whether the libraries only assisted MPs and Peers.

Dr Pullinger said that the primary driver for research services was legislation. The second was debates. Research papers related to Bills, whereas Standard Notes dealt with general topics and were revised from time to time. POSTnotes (written by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology) dealt with specialist subject matter.

The Library was seen as a place of sanctuary by Members as it was accessible only by them.

Ms Hallam Smith noted that on non-sitting days, staff of the House of Lords Library conducted tours for librarians from outside the House. Members of the public were able to use the virtual tour on the website.

The Chairman thanked both the delegates and the speakers.

142

Thursday 12 March 2009

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY: SUPPORTING AND STRENGTHENING

Speakers: Mr Mark Hutton, Clerk of the Overseas Office, House of Commons Mr Ken Courtenay, General Secretary, Inter-Parliamentary Union British Group Mr Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary, CPA, UK Branch

Mr Andrew Tuggey DL explained that his work as Secretary of the CPA, UK branch, together with that of Mr Mark Hutton, Clerk of the Overseas Office, and Mr Ken Courtenay, General Secretary, IPU—British Group, focussed on efforts to build and support democracy. The seminar would explain the work they undertook but it would also provide an opportunity for delegates to help the UK Parliament to target its work more effectively. He also noted that delegates would have the opportunity to hear from the Speaker of North West Frontier Conference in Pakistan.

Mr Mark Hutton, Clerk of the Overseas Office, briefly explained that the work of the Overseas Office involved facilitating visits of other parliamentarians and their staff to the UK Parliament. Each year, parliament received over a hundred delegations from parliaments across the world. Some came with a specific requirement in mind. For example the Iraqi Health Select Committee had recently visited to observe and learn from the British Health Select Committee. The Overseas Office also ran attachments for Parliamentary Officials. These attachments were extended to Clerks and other specialist staff within the breadth of parliamentary service, from researchers to finance professionals and lasted for 1-2 weeks.

The Overseas Office also organised outward visits. The office worked closely with the CPA, to respond to requests from other countries to disseminate the procedure parliament. The Office did not undertake to tell other countries how to run Parliament but rather sought to to share the UK experience and spread good practice.

The Overseas Office was participating in an organisation called the Westminster Consortium, which brought together a range of bodies to provide advice, assistance, training and resources to six Parliaments, two of which were in Commonwealth countries, in order to strengthen their capacity to hold their Executives to account. This was an attempt to develop a “bigger way” of working. It was expected that the project would require up to five years input. The Overseas Office was increasingly looking at longer term work and hoped that countries would take the opportunity to set up such programme and work with the UK to deliver over time a planned strategic approach to develop parliamentary staff.

Mr Hutton noted that although the Overseas Office continued to get very good feedback it did not mean there was no room for improvement. He asked delegates if their priority was still procedural capacity building targeted towards clerks, or whether more focus should be on other areas? He also asked how the Overseas Office could develop the sustainability of its work with delegates. He was conscious that programmes had run for many years and yet in some areas there had been little progress.

143

Mr Ken Courtenay, General Secretary, Inter-Parliamentary Union British Group, explained that the IPU was defined in statute as an organisation of parliaments of sovereign states. The IPU only dealt with national parliaments. He noted that there were delegates from 25 different national legislatures in the audience. The IPU’s headquarters were in Geneva. The IPU was founded to provide a forum where international disputes could be resolved via arbitration. Its mission was to foster contacts between parliamentarians.

In Westminster, the IPU was a voluntary association that worked with both Houses of Parliament and was funded by a block grant from Parliament. UK members of the IPU provided UK representation at the IPU assembly twice a year. The UK group run a programme of bi-lateral contacts around the world. There had been recent visits to Bolivia, Mongolia and the UAE. The group also provided assistance to all-party country groups affiliated to IPU and also supported their work.

The IPU worked to promote Parliamentary Democracy. In considering what defined a democratic parliament the IPU referred to universal values, to which parliaments should all aspire and which retained their validity whatever the system of government. According to this definition, a democratic parliament was representative, transparent, accessible, accountable and effective. The IPU produced a number of books such as Parliament and democracy in the 21st Century – Guide to good practice, and a self assessment toolkit which had been produced to enable parliaments to evaluate their democratic performance against a set of criteria. The purpose was to help parliaments to identify their strengths and weaknesses against international criteria, in order to determine priorities for strengthening the parliamentary institution. The tool kit was available at www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/self-e.pdf

The IPU also promoted peace and democracy. On human rights, Mr Courtenay noted that in some countries the human rights of MPs were badly abused. The IPU pressured for justice for them or the ending of their suffering or imprisonment.

Mr Tuggey said that the CPA International had 177 branches in sovereign, provisional and State legislatures. Some were small. The CPA budget was £2.5m, of which £350,000 a year was dedicated to parliamentary staff of 14. The CPA UK branch was funded by Parliament. Mr Tuggey and his branch were accountable to an executive committee. The CPA was essentially a charity for Commonwealth countries, however work was sometimes undertaken in countries which had an interest in the Commonwealth, such as Rwanda. The CPA focussed on parliamentary strengthening and capacity building. He had a permanent secretariat of 10 staff to support CPA-UK branch activity. He pointed out that the UK branch could also call on the 646 MPs, 700 peers and many people who worked in parliament to support its work undertaken by the CPA. He had found that parliamentarians worked best with other parliamentarians as they were all members of a ‘cllub’ of those who had stood for election.

Mr Tuggey told delegates that the programme they were undertaking was the CPA UK’s flagship programme which included Clerks as well as Parliamentarians. Next year he hoped to involve Serjeants at Arms as well. The CPA also ran a programme of inward visits which included a trip to Brussels to look at EU governance issues. The CPA organised conferences on topical issues. The

144

next conference would be in July and would focus on climate change. Climate change was a major issue for parliaments across the world.

He said that the CPA’s contribution to the work of the Westminster consortium would be to run a 3 day version of this 2 week programme for each of the countries involved.

The panel was opened to questions.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) wanted to know what work the panel had done on women’s rights. She noted that too many UN, IPU and CPU programmes duplicated work. She asked what controls were in place to try and stop such duplication of effort.

Mr Tuggey noted that only Uganda had deployed a filter to ensure that programmes weren’t replicated. He recognised that it was difficult for some parliaments to turn down offers. He pointed out that the CPA only went to a country when asked to do so.

Mr Hutton pointed out that the Overseas Office required feedback from the countries it worked with in order to target its work effectively. He was concerned that earlier work was often repeated rather than built on.

Mr Courtenay said that the IPU had been involved in promoting women in parliament for a long time. It regularly published a map of women MPS across the world.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) raised the difficulties of MPs in opposition parties. She asked if the panel would respond to an opposition request for a visit rather than government?

Mr Tuggey said that when visiting the Seychelles, the CPA had been invited by the Leader of Government business. The CPA would only come if asked by a Parliament or the Speaker. He hoped that such visits would be supported by government and parliament. The CPA offered seminars on how opposition and government could work better together. Requests for visits often came through the British High Commission or DFID.

Hon. Headley (Jamaica) was concerned that the Speaker was selected from the Government party and that the High Commission could be biased.

Mr Tuggey explained that opposition members could contact the CPA but protocol would dictate that the CPA would have to respond through the Speaker and High Commission.

Mr Courtenay said that IPU always insisted that meetings were conducted with opposition as well as Government MPs. He noted that, during a recent visit to Bolivia the British IPU delegation had attended a lunch where Government MPs were sat at one end and opposition at the other. Although the two parties did not wish to mix, the British IPU was able to meet both.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) noted that in a recent CPA visit to Uganda, the Speaker of the Ugandan parliament had invited all members of parliament to attend the visit.

145

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked for more information about the Westminster Consortium.

Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho MP (Zanzibar) asked if the CPA UK branch could write to other branches in Commonwealth to ask for relevant topics for seminars.

Mr Tuggey agreed that the delegation visit to Uganda had been a success.

Westminster consortium was funded by DFID from the global transparency fund. It was set up to provide sustainable parliamentary centres of excellence in , , , Yemen, Uganda and Mozambique. 80% of funding was required to be spent in within the country. So the consortium had to work with partners in the host country

Mr Hutton said that the vision of the Westminster consortium might provide a method of working which could be extended to other countries. It was sustainable and output based, which enabled people to see what was achieved in terms of value for money.

Mr Tuggey noted that communications with national branches was principally a matter for CPA International but CPA UK might write to other CPA branches if the other branches agreed.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked if the funding for the IPU’s UK branch came from Geneva and if there were other IPU branches?

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked how effective the work of the IPU was.

Mr Courtenay explained that the IPU was a body with its headquarters in Geneva. The members consisted of parliaments or parliamentary groups. In the UK the Group was constituted as a voluntary body made up of members from the House of Commons and House of Lords. In other Parliamens, the IPU could be a group like the UK group or the parliament itself. Work undertaken by IPU was listed at www.IPU.org

Mr Tuggey said that he could provide delegates with a brochure setting out the work undertaken by the CPA. He thanked delegates for their questions and concluded the morning’s discussion by introducing the Speaker from the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, Mr Khan.

Mr Kiramatullah Khan MPA (NWFP, Pakistan) thanked delegates for their time. He explained that he lived in part of the world which bordered Afghanistan, a country that was in turmoil. Many people had tried to leave during the Soviet occupation. Following 9/11 NATO forces had been deployed through Afghanistan. There was a huge problem of terrorism. NATO forces were equipped with every sort of weapon and many resources. His police force was also on the front line and faced similar battles with far less support.

Each night at home he learnt of the deaths from that day. They were between 5 and 50. The terrorists targeted his police force. His policemen were only trained for basic policing and were not equipped to deal with a huge terrorist threat. He told delegates that they needed the world to help as

146

they were not fighting for themselves alone. This was a global problem and Pakistan was fighting on behalf of the whole world.

He asked delegates to consider helping Pakistan, through moral or material means of support. Pakistan had a good education system, and was developing an educated unemployed graduate force for whom opportunities could not be provided. They had thousands of graduates in every field. Mr Khan requested that delegates asked their governments to give employment to Pakistan’s youth; they were very hard working people.

He told delegates that he would be grateful if they would help Pakistan to combat the issue of terrorism, for if Pakistan failed, no-one would survive.

147

Thursday 12 March 2009

CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT ROLE FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS?

Speakers: Mr Elliot Morley MP (Labour; Chairman, Energy and Climate Change Committee) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour; Member, Energy and Climate Change Committee)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

Mr Elliot Morley MP said that he was impressed by the conference programme, which demonstrated that the Westminster system was dynamic and adaptive. He said that climate change was an important example of how the parliamentary system can influence debate and decisions at all levels. The risks and implications of climate change were so severe that international collaboration was absolutely necessary. Different members of the international community had different responsibilities, and he accepted that the developed world had been a major contributor to climate change. He noted, however, that the UK could not tackle climate change alone, as it contributed a relatively small proportion of carbon emissions. It was therefore necessary to agree a way forward between Parliaments and Governments.

He noted that there was consensus in the UK on the science of climate change. It was agreed that climate change had been caused by the , was a serious problem, required tough decisions and a major cultural shift, and that it was imperative that an international agreement be secured in Copenhagen in 2009. There was a lack of consensus, however, on what measures should be implemented to address climate change, how fast these might be implemented and how emissions reductions could be achieved. He observed that debate on climate change in the UK centred not on whether a party would address climate change but rather about which party would do more.

He told delegates that he was the Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, a committee established to scrutinise the work of the recently created Department for Energy and Climate Change. He said that the creation of this department had been the right thing to do, and that a cross-government approach to climate change was needed. No environment ministry could make a difference on its own without the agreement of the departments for Transport, Energy or Finance.

There was also consensus within Parliament on climate change. He had co-operated with members of other political parties through GLOBE International and through all-party groups on climate change and energy. Cross-party select committees held the Executive to account and undertook inquiries. It was the role of Parliamentarians to push the boundaries and to urge the Government to go even further in its efforts to tackle climate change.

He had recently written a letter to the Times, also signed by the Chairmen of the International Development Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee, urging the Government to increase its green fiscal stimulus package, of which 20% would be directed towards low carbon technologies. This would create jobs as well as reducing emissions. The technology developed could then be shared with emerging economies.

148

He noted that it was also the role of Parliamentarians to support the Government when it was following the right course of action. As a result of the global economic downturn, EU member states were at risk of diluting their efforts on climate change and reducing the stringency of the targets they had agreed. Mr Morley said that it was important that Parliamentarians continued to push for an ambitious position.

At a global level, Mr Morley noted that the Commonwealth was in a unique position as it represented a cross-section of all groups of countries, and could therefore act as a forum for building consensus. He said that it was important to build on a number of coming events, such as the G20, the G8 and the EU Spring Council, in the approach to the meeting of the parties to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen in 2009. Decisions taken at this meeting would affect the future of the world. He said that failure at Copenhagen would be disastrous. Unilateral action risked provoking divisions and trade wars.

Mr Morley said that it was crucial that the democratic process was used to hold the Government to account and to ensure that ambitious targets were established. It was important to ensure that governments did not give in to vested interests, such as energy companies.

Turning to the costs of action, he cited Lord Stern’s report in arguing that the costs would be manageable. There would be advantages, such as the creation of new jobs and new industries. Developed countries did not expect developing countries to take equal responsibility, but all countries had to work together. Parliamentarians also had a role to play in educating their own people about climate change. In the UK, a target for emissions reductions of 80% by 2050 was now part of the law, but this would require big changes for which Members of Parliament had to prepare the electorate.

In conclusion, he said that Parliamentarians must ensure that governments have the right ambitions for Copenhagen, and reminded them that failure at Copenhagen would be a disaster.

Dr Alan Whitehead MP said that he agreed wholeheartedly with what Mr Morley had said. He noted that climate change was both simple and complex: the science was simple, but the conclusions on action to be taken were less clear. He suggested that this was an area where arguments for small government did not work. He argued that legislatures had a fundamental role to play in how climate change was tackled and in how governments took part in international negotiations.

He said that science demonstrated that the world would heat up if “business as usual” were to continue. The effects on biodiversity would be incalculable, as would the effects on sea levels and agriculture. Business as usual was therefore not an option. Even if action was taken now, it was nevertheless probable that the world would heat up. The earlier action was taken, the lower the rise in temperature would be.

Dr Whitehead said that it was necessary for legislatures to determine how the radical decarbonisation of the economy could be achieved. The difficulty lay in ensuring that life could be lived as well as possible, but in a fundamentally different way. He said that it was necessary to produce energy on a low carbon basis, to make transport more energy efficient, and to improve energy efficiency in homes and workplaces. He noted that the 80% target established in the Climate Change Act represented a strong challenge. The Committee on Climate Change had recently

149

recommended levels at which interim targets and carbon budgets should be set. The UK Government had committed to adhering to targets established by the EU, for a 20% cut in emission reductions and for 20% of energy to be supplied by renewable sources.

Dr Whitehead said that the new Department for Energy and Climate Change was a good fit for these imperatives, and that its corresponding select committee was a good fit for holding the department to account. He argued that it differed from a traditional select committee in that it was not neutral: the question posed by the Committee was not the question of what should be done about climate change, but rather of how fast it was necessary to act. He identified the problem of inter- departmentalism, and noted that it was important to avoid the ghettoisation of climate change. He used the example of waste management, for which responsibility was spread between Defra, DECC, DCLG and DBERR.

He said that the duties of a legislature were to ensure that the Government met its targets and to ensure that it moved beyond these targets if possible. It was also the role of Parliamentarians to support governments when they achieved their targets.

Dr Whitehead described a number of ways in which the economy could additionally reduce carbon. He noted that household circulation pumps consumed 5% of the household’s energy, but that most were very inefficient. He argued that Parliaments should effect a change in building regulations. These small details could be examined by individual Parliamentarians and by parliamentary committees. He told delegates that he was the Chair of two all party parliamentary groups, which were able to command attention in Parliament.

He concluded by reminding delegates that it was necessary to link what Parliament was doing with the actions of local people and local government. Measures to address climate change were necessary at all levels of society, from international negotiations to individual actions.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that African countries were beginning to unite in order to present a united position at Copenhagen. It was necessary to give climate change visibility in Africa; while most countries placed responsibility for climate change in their environment department, it was necessary for Heads of Government, Presidents or Vice Presidents to take responsibility. In Kenya, the Prime Minister had ownership of climate change policy. A coalition of East African countries had produced model climate change legislation for African countries.

She noted that Africa’s major contribution to climate change was made through logging. Since Africa was vulnerable to climate change, it was necessary for African countries to engage in efforts to combat it. She said that African countries were asking for support from countries that were more advanced on this issue, and were asking for assistance in achieving food security. They were also asking for adaptation to be made a priority at Copenhagen.

She said it was necessary for Parliamentarians to bring their people on board. Climate change was a cultural issue and people needed to be educated about the changes they could expect to see. It was necessary that this message reach the grassroots, especially the women who went to fetch water.

150

Hon Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) said that climate change was a bigger problem than AIDS. Africa’s contribution to climate change was less than 2%, and the major contributors were the USA and Russia. These countries had not even ratified the Kyoto protocol. He said that African countries did not have the necessary resources to manage change. He said that the developed world must help Africa today. He asked how developed countries would ensure that African nations could benefit from carbon credits.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A.C.T., Australia) said he had been in Bali in 2007 and noted significant divisions between countries. He asked if this had changed in the intervening years, especially with the recent change to the US presidency.

Mr Ashok Bhatt MLA (Gujurat, India) said that his region had created a separate department for climate change, to co-ordinate departments and manage changes to legislation. This department would also deal with carbon credits, water management and in stimulating a green revolution among the people.

Mr Morley said that it was true that the USA, Russia and were not doing as much as they should be to tackle climate change. He hoped that the election of President Obama was cause for optimism. He noted that China was the world’s biggest polluter, but that emissions per capita were highest in Australia. Poorer countries contributed to climate change through deforestation. He said that part of the deal in Copenhagen would be that developed countries would make money available for adaptation and the transfer of technology. It was necessary that this be part of the package offered, to reflect the differing levels of responsibility. Citing the example of African nations that had adopted mobile telephone networks without first establishing a fixed landline network, he suggested that it might be possible for developing countries to move immediately to decentralised renewable power generation in local communities.

On carbon credits, he noted that African countries were not often successful at profiting from CDM projects. Such projects offered an opportunity for money to be transferred from developed nations to merging economies. He said that global carbon trading was important because it would place a cap on emissions. It also offered an opportunity for a levy to be placed on credits, and money generated by this could be channelled into adaptation funds.

He was pleased to hear about the creation of a department for climate change in Gujurat and said that this highlighted the important role of regional assemblies. There were many examples of good practice in regional government from which central government could learn.

He said that change in the USA was positive but that the American political system was often slow to move. He expressed concern that change might not take place in time for Copenhagen. He said that it would be difficult to change the position of China and India, but noted that the parliamentary process was the means to achieve this.

Dr Whitehead said that he agreed with Mr Morley’s optimism about the situation in the USA but also with his concern that change would not come fast enough.

151

He said that the UK’s target of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 was a sign that the UK recognised the differential contributions of different states to climate change. He noted that the UK’s contribution was relatively small when compared with that of the US, but said that this ambitious target demonstrated the UK’s responsibility for climate change.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) said that, more than AIDS, climate change affected ordinary women through flooding and drought. She proposed a year of action on climate change and asked how the melting of ice sheets could be halted.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked whether manufacturers were playing a role in the fight against climate change. He asked whether there was interaction between manufactures and government, especially in encouraging the production of hybrid vehicles.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) said that this was a global problem, and noted that the EU was a net importer of food, but that responsibility for emissions produced lay with the producing countries. He suggested that liability for emissions should instead lie with consuming countries.

Hon. Harbans Kapoor MLA (Uttarakhand, India) said that public awareness was a problem. He also noted that in India, programmes for the development of hydroelectric power had led to deforestation. It was necessary that Parliamentarians work to improve public awareness of the problems of climate change.

Dr Whitehead said that vehicles were an area in which legislatures could set regulations on emissions from vehicles. By doing so, they could drive a shift towards hybrid or electric vehicles. He suggested that funding should be provided for the development of electric cars, but noted that clean electricity generation would be needed to support this. It was necessary to fully decarbonise energy generation.

He agreed that a year or years of action on climate change were necessary, noting that action needed to be taken in the next ten or fifteen years. Further delay would have inevitable consequences, pushing the climate beyond a tipping point and setting feedback loops in motion.

Mr Morley said that a recent rescue package for car manufacturers had been linked to encouraging the development of green technologies. He agreed that it was necessary for consuming countries to take responsibility for the emissions they generated elsewhere. He said that it was necessary to work together to address this issue, and he noted that the UK had worked with China on the development of carbon capture and storage technology.

He said that the Hadley Centre had produced excellent resources for communicating climate science, and recommended that Parliamentarians make use of these resources.

152

Thursday 12 March 2009

THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS: BRIEFING

Speakers: Alderman Ian Luder (the Rt Hon. the Lord of the City of London) Mr Andy Love MP (Labour; Member, Treasury Select Committee)

Chairman: Lord Paul of Marylebone (Labour; Member, Economic Affairs Committee)

The Chairman introduced the Alderman Ian Luder as the first speaker.

Alderman Ian Luder explained that the “square mile” of the City of London was the oldest municipal authority in the country. He said that part of his job was to act as ambassador for all UK based financial services and that he would be visiting many Commonwealth countries in that capacity in the near future.

He said that the impact of the financial crisis on the public was akin to a bereavement; People went through stages, from initial denial, through recognition, resignation and anger, finally to reform and reconstruction. He said that people felt let down by “greedy” bankers, but suggested that it was time to stop blaming bankers and to move on. He believed that the Government’s policies would work, but that they would take time to have an effect.

He said that despite problems such as the depressed housing market and the banking crisis, the Global Financial Centres Index confirmed London’s position as a global financial centre. His own personal view was that the UK had a long track record of adaptability that meant it was well placed to face the crisis.

Alderman Luder explained that 43% of the UK’s financial sector was based in London, with 5% in the region and the remaining 52% throughout the rest of the UK. In 2007 financial services provided 13.9% of all Government’s tax revenue. This connection to public spending meant that it was vital that the sector was restored to full health.

He believed that the crisis taught that there were limits to what Government and regulators could achieve and that regulation which set a framework, rather than attempted to make all the decisions for the industry was more effective. Such a framework, he said, also required less funding.

Alderman Luder said that cross-border initiatives and reforms were required; this was a global problem which required a global solution. He said that buy-British or buy-American schemes would cause serious problems for international trade and advised against nationalistic attitudes.

He said that the global crisis could be seen as an opportunity and that he was convinced everyone must discover a sense of institutional and personal responsibility. Values such as honesty, transparency and generosity were required for an effective free-market to operate. He reminded the delegates of the London Stock Exchange’s motto: dictum meum pactum

153

He said that if he were to suggest the delegates did one thing, he would ask that they returned home and led the fight against protectionism; that they worked to keep the lines of trade and commerce open.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked what the role of accountants and auditors had been in the global crisis and whether they could be sued for negligence. He also asked what the role of Government was in bringing these to account.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) noted that in the recent decades the fashion had been to encourage private enterprise and reduce government involvement . He asked how the public could now be convinced that greater public ownership was a positive step now that this trend had been reversed.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked what the impact would be for countries such as Kenya which enjoy high levels of tax revenue and investment from UK and US based companies such as Shell, BP or British American Tobacco, if these companies were to be affected by the global crisis.

Alderman Luder said that some of the crisis had been caused by the behaviour of “crooks” but believed that for the majority it was due to incompetent decisions. He said that auditors worked retrospectively and were not responsible for running businesses. Poor decisions had been made, for example regarding the taking over and purchase of banks by some of the largest UK financial institutions, which had not been undertaken with due diligence. He said that lessons could be learned from these failures of management. He suggested that non-executive directors of banks should be more positively named as “supervisory directors” and that they could have a role in challenging the behaviour of executives.

Alderman Luder admitted that there had been regulatory failures, for example where a single person practice had been allowed to audit an international financial organisation. He did not want to suggest that only the big accountancy firms should be allowed to audit banks, but that there should be an “A” and “B” list, and that only those firms which were big and skilled enough should be on the “A” list and allowed to audit the “big four” UK banks.

In reply to the second question, he said that there were times when companies should be allowed to fail; for example, where the market had been overextended. This would usually have only had a small impact on the economy as a whole. However, in times of recession, there was a need for greater nationalisation and support for companies in difficulty; particularly where there was especially low levels of credit available for small and medium sized companies. He accepted that there was a role for government and NGOs to prop up companies with short term difficulties but medium term prospects.

In response to the final question, he said that UK companies did have an international impact. However, he did not believe that any of the organisations mentioned were likely to fail. He said that this was an example of the need to work together and fight against protectionism. Any threat to world trade also constituted a threat to entire countries and governments.

154

Alderman Luder thanked the delegates and departed.

The Chairman introduced the next speaker, Mr Andy Love MP.

Mr Andy Love MP said that this was an unprecedented economic and financial crisis, which had recently seen previously unknown interest rate cuts, with rates currently at 0.5% in both the UK and the US. He noted that the recent introduction of Quantitave Easing, or printing money to boost the economy, had inflationary consequences, but said that it was necessary to avoid deflation which had caused great difficulty during the recession of the 1930s. Flexibility was needed to face major new problems which may still be out there.

Mr Love said that several steps had been taken to try to stabilise the situation. Firstly, on a global basis, Governments had acted to stop the banking system from collapsing entirely. He said that this possibility sounded dramatic, but emphasised that it had been a real danger. In Northern Rock, the UK had seen the first run on a bank in 130 years. As a result, Governments and central banks had pumped liquidity into the system and guaranteed depositors’ money. In recapitalising the banks, the public sector now held majority shares in most UK banks.

Secondly, he said that economies had to be supported, by reducing interest rates and introducing financial stimuli. He said that this also involved assisting private companies and households affected by the declining housing market.

Finally, Mr Love said that banks needed to be supported to lend more money; in a liquidity crisis, banks didn’t lend to anyone, including each other. Insurance schemes to cover “bad assets” had also been affected and Governments had had to step in to provide such a guarantee. In some countries “bad banks” had been considered, to keep bad assets away from the rest of the sector. The key was to get banks lending.

Mr Love said that the UK was looking at reform of financial regulation. Auditors’ reports prior to the crisis had shown no concern. Therefore there was a need to look at the whole sector and develop an early warning system to prevent any reoccurrence of this situation.

There was also a need for international action and the G20 summit in April would be a major attempt to agree on a united approach. Mr Love suggested that there were four possible actions that could be agreed on.

Firstly, it could be agreed that a clear signal opposing protectionism should be sent. The USA and had both demonstrated tendencies towards nationalism, which Mr Love believed should be avoided. Secondly, some countries like the USA may need even greater financial stimulus. Thirdly, he believed that the problems were probably deeper seated than currently recognised and that the UK would remain in recession going into 2010. He said that there may be a need to put more money into the IMF; a controversial measure, but necessary in order to lend to countries in difficulty. Furthermore, reform was needed to give greater voice in Washington to smaller counties. Finally, he believed that it was necessary to maintain flows of development aid to protect third world countries with vulnerable economies; a lesson learned from the 1930s.

155

Mr Love concluded by saying that countries must not look inward, and that global trade must be kept going in order to reduce the effects of the recession as quickly as possible.

Mr Blaine Pederson MLA (Manitoba, Canada) asked what prediction Mr Love made of interest rates in the next few years.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) suggested that there was a need for greater public education regarding financial services and individual responsibility for investment.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked what deficiencies in financial regulation allowed the crisis to occur.

Mr Love said in response to the last question that almost all banks had had too much leverage and in the bull market, banks had lent huge amounts of money without thinking of their capital base. He noted that the Spanish system had allowed banks to put capital aside during the good times to make up for times when there was less capital available and hoped that the G20 meeting would come to an agreement to implement some wider system to facilitate this practice.

In response to the second question, he said that the state of international markets depended on fear and greed, and that at present fear dominated. In 2007, greed had been the dominating driving factor and risks had been taken without thinking. Mr Love said that banks should have known better, but accepted that if people had been educated to understand prudence and risk, this could have improved the situation. In the UK, individual consumers lacked the basic knowledge of financial services and products like pensions, mortgages and loans. Increased public education, he suggested, could be a wise investment for the future.

In response to the first question, he said that interest rates would depend on where the lowest point of recession lay. At present, we had seen an average 15% decline in house prices in the UK. A further 15% decline was predicted. The value of the stock market had decline by 40%. Mr Love did not know whether this would continue. He said that artificially boosting the supply of money had inflationary consequences, and that this must be understood or interest rates could end up as high as 10 – 15%.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) asked whether the fact that signs of recovery had not yet been seen meant that governments were treating the wrong symptoms of the crisis.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how it was decided which banks should be saved and which left to fail.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked when financial regulation had last been reformed.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked how it could be ensured that distribution of aid to Africa avoided corruption and reached those who needed it.

156

Hon. Mohamed Haji Mohamoud Omar MP (Somaliland) asked what particular issues would be raised at the G20 meeting and also who had authorised the use of Quantitave Easing; did the Prime Minister make the decision or did Parliament have a role?

Mr Love said in response to the first question that in some countries, such as and Zimbabwe, there were strong suggestions that the proposed solutions had not worked. He said that his Committee had visited Japan and attempted to find out why they could not get out of their deflationary spiral. He believed that this was in part because they had taken a long time to come to terms with the scale of the problem and to take action. He hoped that lessons had been learnt from the Japanese experience and noted that this time action had been taken much more quickly on an international basis.

He said that in Zimbabwe the government had kept printing money after it had been clear that this had not worked. However, he was optimistic that a way forward could be found if the situation could be stabilised through international aid.

Mr Love said that in the UK government intervention had been the only way to save banks and that this action was necessary in order to support industries like the motor industry, as people rely on bank loans to purchase cars. He said that stress testing had been carried out to analyse what would happen to banks in extreme circumstances and he believed that this government action should mean that the banks survive.

In response to question three, he said that there had been two possible courses of action. They could have let the course of the recession run, as had occurred in the 1930s. However this had been shown to be ineffective, and the 1930s depression had led to 10 years of deflation, only ended by the second world war.

The alternative was for governments to take action, but Mr Love emphasised that money spent now must be paid back, and this debt would be a problem for the future and the government must balance these issues. He noted that in Japan the levels of national debt were greater than 100% of GDP.

In relation to the question about international aid and corruption, Mr Love said that he had recently visited countries in this predicament and said that aid agencies strove to prevent money from ending up in the wrong hands. He said that they would continue to work with national politicians to improve the situation.

In relation to printing money, the Government allowed the central bank, or the Fed in the USA, to decide whether to undertake such measures. The Central Bank bought up Government Securities or Gilts, which increased the capital deposits of banks and hopefully allowed them to commence loaning to the public and one another as usual. Mr Love suggested that getting local and national economies running normally also helped international markets and the global economy recover.

The Chairman thanked Mr Love and the delegates for an interesting discussion and said that the Government had responsibility for addressing the problems discussed.

157

Thursday 12 March 2009

SUMMING UP AND FEEDBACK SESSION

Speakers: Sir Nicholas Winterton MP (Conservative; Member, CPA UK Branch Executive Committee) Dr Malcolm Jack (Clerk of the House of Commons)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman thanked all the CPA staff for their hard work on the conference. He also thanked Karen Georgiou from the Overseas Office in the House of Commons. He introduced Hon. Samuel Kazungu Kambi MP, who had agreed that morning to make a short presentation on the operation of the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) in Africa.

Hon. Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) said that it was an honour to be able to make a short presentation on the CDF on behalf of Kenya. Kenya was a small country bordering many other countries. It also had a port. It gained independence in 1963, at which point it was a . This arrangement ended within one year because, like many new African heads of State, the rulers of Kenya wanted more power. Before independence, each region had a District Development Committee, which could initiate local projects. After independence a new system of district administration was introduced. It did not work because the districts were all fighting for limited resources and there was a great deal of corruption. He joked that there was absolutely no corruption remaining.

Every country in the world had its problems and corruption existed everywhere to differing extents. Africa was trying its best, with very limited resources, to stamp out corruption. Its best was not yet good enough.

Mr Kambi said that the Constituency Development Fund Bill was first introduced into the Kenyan Parliament by an MP who was an engineer. It had not been passed because the ruling party had not been comfortable with the idea of moving power from the Executive to individual MPs. In 2003, however, the Constituency Development Fund Act was finally passed and the first tranche of money had been distributed to the constituencies.

Mr Kambi’s constituency received approximately £1 million each year for development projects to help his constituents. As an MP he was also a local patron. The money was administered by a Committee, of which the District Commissioner was a member.

The CDF accounted for only 2.5% of the total budget in Kenya each year, but its impact was disproportionately large. Mr Kambi believed that the Fund was used more effectively than the remaining 97.5% of the budget. It had succeeded in lifting people away from the poverty line and in providing them with a good education, healthcare and decent roads. Over 12% of the Fund was spent on bursaries.

The Chairman thanked Mr Kambi and opened the floor to questions.

158

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) said that the CDF operated differently in Ghana. Only 5% of the money sent to the districts was available to the MP to use. Projects had to have the permission of the Assembly before they could go ahead. She wanted to know what the role of District Chief Executives was in Kenya if MPs had control of CDF funds.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked who scrutinised the use of funds.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) said that, in Uganda, his CDF money was only £3,500 per year. He did not think that it was appropriate for the MP to act like the Executive at a local level. He believed that the funds should be distributed through local government instead. He asked whether there was a conflict of interest between the MP acting as the Executive at a local level but representing their constituents at a national level. In Uganda, money was given directly to local government in order to ensure the separation of powers.

Mr Kambi said that, in addition to the 2.5% of the national budget allocated to the CDF, 3% was allocated to the Local Authority Fund. The CDF was managed by the Minister of Planning and the expenditure was audited. He believed that the MP was the best person to decide how the money was spent because he received representations from his constituents that showed where the greatest need lay.

There was no regional government in Kenya. Instead there was a system of District Commissioners. They had their own District Development Fund which derived from the Office of the President and was also voted by Parliament.

Mr Kambi said that, before the CDF, many people in his constituency were living on less than three dollars a day. The CDF had helped to improve this.

Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) said that, in Nigeria, MPs had powers of oversight over the CDF but did not come into direct contact with the funds. They could help to choose the sector and location of constituency projects. He observed that Kenya was operating a and asked how it managed to ensure the separation of powers.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that the CDF had been introduced in Jamaica 18 months previously. No funds were sent to an MP’s personal or constituency account. Each constituency had an oversight committee, which included members from the opposition. In order for a project to be approved, it had to be properly documented and went through a rigorous approval process in parliament where a central committee made the final decision. Before the CDF, MPs had to go to the Minister and beg even for a road in the constituency. Now constituencies were able to ask for the things that they needed the most.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shebesh MP (Kenya) said that she was in favour of the CDF. Kenya was working towards devolution. The CDF was the only way to improve development in the constituencies.

159

Mr Kambi said that Kenyans were fighting for the equal distribution of funds because previously money had only been given to the President’s region. MPs were not the signatories on their CDF account – it was the District Commissioner that took that role. It was local people, not the MP, that decided on the priorities for their area.

The Chairman thanked Mr Kambi for his presentation. He asked delegates for some feedback on the conference, both in terms of content and administration. He would value honesty and constructive criticism.

Mr Tuggey introduced Sir Nicholas Winterton MP and Dr Malcolm Jack, Clerk of the House of Commons, who would present the delegates with certificates.

Sir Nicholas Winterton MP said that it was a privilege to attend part of the conference. He had been with the delegates on three occasions during the fortnight – it would have been four occasions, but on the fourth he was speaking in a debate.

He was fascinated by the remarks of Mr Arissol from the Seychelles. He himself had 74 thousand constituents, almost as many as the entire population of the Seychelles. He was also greatly amused by the comments that had been raised about levels of comfort.

Sir Nicholas said that he was very committed to the Commonwealth and was pleased to welcome people from outside the traditional Commonwealth area. He said that delegates represented what he believed to be the best club in the world and hoped that they would continue to be able to influence the world for the better.

He thanked the CPA secretariat for their organisation. It was wonderful to hear so many positive comments on the conference. He hoped to be in touch with some of the delegates in future.

He presented the following delegates with certificates: Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA, Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA and Ms Lisa Baker MLA (Australia); Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados); Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA, Mr Henri-François Gautrin MNA and Mr Glen Hart MLA (Canada); Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana); Mr Khimi Ram Sharma MLA, Mr Deependra Singh Shekhawat MLA, Mr. Ashok Chandulal Bhatt MLA and Hon. Harbens Kapoor MLA (India); Hon. Samuel Kazunge Kambi MP and Hon. Rachel Wambui Shebesh MP (Kenya); Hon. Teatao Teannaki MD (); Hon. Masier Kujat MP and Hon. Juhar Mahiruddin MLA (Malaysia); Hon. Dr Joseph Sammut MP (Malta); Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand); Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwa MP (Nigeria); Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman); Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan); Hon. Francis Marus MP (); Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP and Hon. Julienne Uwacu MP (Rwanda); Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (Saint Lucia); Mr Pierre Lauofo Fonotoe MP (Samoa); Hon. Sandy John Arissol MNA (Seychelles); Hon. Claude Danel Melville Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone); Dr She Hong Ong MP (Singapore); Mr Mohamed Haji Mahamoud Omar MP (Somaliland); Hon. Unnathi Piyankara Jayaratne MP (Sri Lanka); Hon. Gibson Hlophe MP (Swaziland); Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania); Senator Wesley George (Trinidad and Tobago); Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda); Hon. Brian Macloudine Muleya Ntundu MP (Zambia); and Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho (Zanzibar).

160

Dr Malcolm Jack said that he could not match Sir Nicholas Winterton’s ebullience, but that he shared his enthusiasm for the Commonwealth. He believed that having both Clerks and Members present at the conference had been a success. He warned delegates that he would probably visit them, although he would contact them first.

He presented the following delegates with certificates: Mrs Beverley Isles (Canada); Mr P. K. Grover and Mr Hanuman Ram Kuri (India); Mr Jeffrey Lackson Mwenyeheli and Joseph Manzi (); Mr Bernard Joseph Dalinting (Malaysia); Mr Kevin Shiels (Northern Ireland); Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Pakistan); Mr Mohamed Hassan Kahin Farah (Somaliland); Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda (Sir Lanka); Dr Wiliami Uasike Latu (); Mr Neil Jagassar (Trinidad and Tobago); and Mr Richard Ssendege (Uganda).

The Chairman thanked Sir Nicholas and Dr Jack and brought the session to a close.

161

162