House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Revisiting Rebuilding the House: the impact of the Wright reforms Third Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes and oral evidence Written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/pcrc Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 9 July 2013 HC 82 Incorporating HC 1062-i to iii, Session 2012-13 Published on 18 July 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50 The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider political and constitutional reform. Current membership Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham North) (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Paul Flynn (Labour, Newport West) Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) Andrew Griffiths MP (Conservative, Burton) Fabian Hamilton MP, (Labour, Leeds North East) Simon Hart MP (Conservative, Camarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) Tristram Hunt MP (Labour, Stoke on Trent Central) Mrs Eleanor Laing MP (Conservative, Epping Forest) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West) Powers The Committee’s powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in Temporary Standing Order (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee). These are available on the Internet via http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmstords.htm. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/pcrc. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Philip Aylett, (Clerk on the Wright reforms inquiry) Joanna Dodd (Clerk), Adele Brown (Senior Committee Specialist), Emma Fitzsimons (Legal Specialist), Tony Catinella (Senior Committee Assistant), Jim Lawford, (Committee Assistant) and Jessica Bridges-Palmer (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6287; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. Revisiting Rebuilding the House: the impact of the Wright reforms 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 Background and history of the Wright Committee 5 Our inquiry 6 2 Select Committees 7 More robust investigations 9 Continuing challenges 11 Committees and legislation 13 3 The Backbench Business Committee 16 Backbench Business Committee – some unfinished business 17 Minority parties and the Backbench Business Committee 20 4 Managing the rest of the House’s time 21 A House Business Committee 23 A proposal for a House Business Committee 32 A votable agenda? 34 5 Involving the public 36 Petitions 38 6 Conclusion 43 Progress made 43 Annex A 44 Conclusions and recommendations 46 Formal Minutes 51 Witnesses 52 List of written evidence 53 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 54 Revisiting Rebuilding the House: the impact of the Wright reforms 3 Summary We welcome the progress that has been made by the House since the Wright Report of 2009. There have been clear advances in the effectiveness of Commons select committees, though some issues remain, and they must be addressed if the momentum for reform is to be maintained. There is a case for more representation for minority parties on select committees. It is also unacceptable that appointments to public bill committees and ad hoc committees on draft bills are not even approved by the House, and often ignore the claims of Members with specialised knowledge. As a minimum the House should be asked to endorse, and where it so wishes amend, the proposed membership of public bill committees. Pre-legislative scrutiny must in future be an integral and mandatory part of the process of consideration for every public bill. The only exceptions should be cases in which there is an accepted and pressing need for immediate legislation. The Backbench Business Committee has been a success and we welcome the good working relationships which it has established with the business managers, the Liaison Committee and other bodies. The number of days allotted for backbench, Opposition and Private Members’ business should be regularised, and made proportional to the length of a session. The Backbench Business Committee should have more say over the scheduling of backbench business. Despite all the recent advances, it was clear from our evidence that the Commons is as far away as ever from implementing the basic Wright principle that all time should be regarded as “the House’s time”. The present procedure for setting the agenda for most of the House’s business —that which is not decided by the Backbench Business Committee — is inadequate, remaining in clear violation of the principles set out in the Wright report. The need for reform is obvious and urgent. We conclude that a consultative House Business Committee is an immediate practical option for the House. This would enable the Government to redeem its Coalition Agreement pledge to move forward on this aspect of the Wright Reforms, while still ensuring that its programme is considered in a proper and timely way. The operation of the House’s petitions procedure, especially the e-petitions system, is failing to meet public expectations. There is too much confusion between the roles of Government and Parliament. This may already be leading to a growth in public cynicism, which in the long term can only damage Parliament. We believe that there must be a clear separation between petitions intended to prompt action by Government and petitions aimed at Parliament. The Parliamentary petitions system must in future belong unequivocally to Parliament. This means that all e-petitions for consideration by Parliament must be hosted on the Parliamentary website. We also believe that numbers thresholds should not be used to determine whether a petition should 4 Revisiting Rebuilding the House: the impact of the Wright reforms be debated. There is still a case for the establishment of a petitions committee, as considered by the Wright Committee. We recommend that the House should be invited to agree to a Resolution on public petitions which would outline the principal features of a new system, and which would invite the Clerk of the House to work up a detailed and costed proposition which could then be put to the House for its endorsement. We see this inquiry as simply the beginning of a process which should bring much-needed further advances towards the reformed House envisaged by Wright. We have already set out our recommendations for early progress towards the establishment of a House Business Committee. But if, as seems likely, there is still unfinished business from the Wright Committee by the date of the next General Election, we hope that all parties will agree that a new committee should be elected to see through the implementation of all remaining Wright reforms. Alternatively, we hope that our successor committee in the next Parliament will take this forward. Revisiting Rebuilding the House: the impact of the Wright reforms 5 1 Introduction Background and history of the Wright Committee 1. The Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, which came to be known popularly as the Wright Committee after its Chair, Dr (now Professor) Tony Wright, was appointed by the House of Commons on 20 July 2009. It was asked to consider and report on four specified matters: • the appointment of members and chairmen of select committees; • the appointment of the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means; • scheduling business in the House, and • enabling the public to initiate debates and proceedings in the House and closely connected matters. 2. The Wright Committee reported to the House on 4 November 2009.1 It produced 50 recommendations and conclusions on three main subjects: • control of the Parliamentary agenda, on which it called for the establishment of two new committees, a Backbench Business Committee and a House Business Committee; • Select Committees, on which it recommended elections for chairs and members, and • public initiation of proceedings. 3. The Report said that, “at a time when the House of Commons is going through a crisis of confidence not experienced in our lifetimes ... largely, but not exclusively, because of the revelations about Members’ expenses ... both structural and cultural change” were required. The House voted on 22 February and 4 March 2010 to approve and in some cases give effect to many of the recommendations made in the Committee’s Report, and in March 2010 the Committee published a second Report on the implementation of its recommendations.2 This set out the Standing Orders framework necessary for the implementation of a key recommendation: the establishment of a Backbench Business Committee to start work as soon as practicable after the start of the new Parliament which would be elected later that year. 1 Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, First Report of Session 2008-09, Rebuilding the House, HC 1117 2 Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, First Report of Session 2009-10, Rebuilding the House, Implementation, HC 372 6 Revisiting Rebuilding the House: the impact of the Wright reforms 4. The Backbench Business Committee was established in June 2010, just after the General Election of that year, and key changes recommended by Wright to select committees, notably the election of chairs and members, were implemented at around the same time.