Revisiting Rebuilding the House: the Impact of the Wright Reforms

Revisiting Rebuilding the House: the Impact of the Wright Reforms

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 82-ii HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM COMMITTEE REVISITING REBUILDING THE HOUSE: THE IMPACT OF THE WRIGHT REFORMS THURSDAY 16 MAY 2013 ANGELA EAGLE MP RT HON ANDREW LANSLEY CBE MP Evidence heard in Public Questions 243 - 312 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. 3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. 4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. 1 Oral Evidence Taken before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on Thursday 16 May 2013 Members present: Mrs Eleanor Laing (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope Paul Flynn Andrew Griffiths Fabian Hamilton Mr Andrew Turner ________________ Examination of Witness Witness: Ms Angela Eagle MP, Shadow Leader of the House, gave evidence. Q243 Chair: Welcome to this morning’s Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee. We are considering this morning the revisitation of the Wright reforms and the reform of Parliament. I am delighted to welcome Angela Eagle, the Shadow Leader of the House. Thank you very much, Angela, for coming to see the Committee this morning. Is there anything you would like to say to start with, before we begin the general questions? Ms Eagle: Not really. I submitted written evidence, as the Committee requested. I certainly welcome the work you are doing. I think it is timely, halfway through this Parliament, that you should be looking to see how the Wright Report implementation that has happened so far is going and consider those issues. At this stage I do not really want to add to the evidence that I have already submitted to the Committee. Q244 Chair: We are very grateful for that evidence; thank you very much. Would you like to consider, because we would be interested in your opinion, to what extent the Wright reforms have succeeded in, first of all, increasing the vitality of the House of Commons, if you think they have, and also to what extent they have rebalanced the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, if they have? Ms Eagle: Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish whether a Parliament is lively or not because the majority is smaller or there is Coalition Government, so there are other tensions and sources of liveliness to be looking at, rather than perhaps a Parliament where there is a very large majority. I think this Parliament is livelier, certainly on the floor of the House, but I suspect that might be because of the changed circumstances rather than directly because of the Wright Report. I think it is fairly obvious that the Wright Report has strengthened the Select Committee system, given it more legitimacy, and from that point of view the changes that were made to directly elect Chairs, with the whole House, and having elections for members, have definitely strengthened the Select Committee system. I am a big supporter of the Select Committee system and the way that they can challenge the Executive. If you look at some of the evidence submitted to your Committee from organisations like Democratic Audit, who track the number of mentions of Select Committees in media and reporting of Parliament, it 2 shows an upward trend. I would say that the successful bits of the Wright Committee reforms that have been implemented so far have been positive. The balance between the Executive and the Legislature is quite a difficult issue for us to consider in our own Parliament, because we do not have separation of powers and the Executive exists in the Legislature as well as outside it. I suspect that the changes in balance of power again are more about majorities and interparty controversies—and intraparty controversies as well, perhaps—than as a direct result of the Wright reforms— Chair: —of the structure. That is an enlightening answer. Thank you very much. Q245 Paul Flynn: What effect do you think the reforms have had on the standing of the House in the country? We know we have severe problems with the status of the House in the eyes of the public and the media. Do you think there has there been any perceptible change as a result of the reforms? Ms Eagle: I think there has and I think it has been positive. The Backbench Business Committee in its existence has contributed positively to that as well. But I do not think it is massive. Although I think objectively there have been improvements, we are living in the middle of a very anti-politics era. I have perceived in the 21 years that I have been a Member of the House that there has been a decline in understanding of our procedures. There has been a decline in understanding of the processes by which we come to arrangements and do our politics in the House. I think that is partially because some of our procedures can be obscure, and we have begun to try to change some of those, but I do not think that it is easy to say that the public perceive Parliament in a more positive way, although those who watch our proceedings more closely rightly think there have been improvements. Q246 Paul Flynn: In spite of reforms, we still have a Remembrancer, we still have a Silver Stick-in-Waiting and a Cap of Maintenance. Ms Eagle: Yes, I mentioned the Cap of Maintenance this morning in my Business Questions. Paul Flynn: Indeed, but we get this detritus from the past that clogs up the system and acts as a barrier to an understanding of the House. Ms Eagle: Yes, it does. Some people like the ceremonial at the beginning of the state opening of a Parliament and find it quaint. I am more proud of the fact that we have made some of our procedures in the Chamber more up to date. In the 21 years I have been here we have got rid of the top hat that we used to have to fling across the Chamber because you could not make a point of order during a division without wearing a top hat. I for one am very pleased about that and I was not certain when I first came into the House that we would be able to do that, but I would not disagree with you that perhaps we have further to go. Q247 Paul Flynn: It seems incredible that there were members of the Modernisation Committee who fiercely opposed the elimination of the top hat. It does give an idea of where we are. Ms Eagle: It makes you wonder about the definition of “modernisation”. Q248 Paul Flynn: Indeed, absolutely. How do you think this Parliament will be remembered? I think the last one is probably, “They have been a rotten Parliament—the expenses Parliament.” Do you think this one is likely to be known as the lobbyists’ Parliament because of the way they have flourished? Chair: Mr Flynn, I think that is going a little wide of the mark in asking the Shadow Leader of the House to give an opinion on that. Paul Flynn: The witness can agree or not. She may have her own idea. 3 Chair: The witness is not required to answer. Ms Eagle: I think there is an issue with lobbying and I am disappointed that there was not a Bill in the Queen’s Speech. I agree with the Prime Minister; I do think that that is potentially a scandal waiting to happen and I would like to see it addressed. Paul Flynn: The problem is the Prime Minister does not agree with the Prime Minister on what he said in March 2010. Chair: Mr Flynn, if we start going into the conflicts within the Prime Minister’s own perception of the Prime Minister, then we could be here for a very long time. Ms Eagle: I fear we would. Chair: This is not the purpose of our meeting this morning. Thank you, Angela, those have been helpful observances. Can we turn to Select Committees? Q249 Mr Chope: In your evidence you imply, although you do not expressly say you support it, that it would be good if Parliament could take control over whether or not a Bill was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny as a draft Bill. Is that something you are really going for and actively support or is it just something you think is a good idea? How would you think it would work in practice, bearing in mind that the decision as to whether or not to have a draft Bill or a full Bill is ultimately one for the Government? Ms Eagle: I think I said in my evidence that it might be an idea if Select Committees could choose whether they wanted to do the work on a draft Bill or not. They have their own list of things that they wish to look into and I would not want to force Select Committees to do the pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill.

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    25 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us