Wright Committee

Debate between Tom Brake and Michael Meacher

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on securing the debate and on his fine, principled and even visionary statement about how the House could and should operate. I do not think that there is anyone in the House with a longer or more robust record of wishing to see reform to parliamentary procedure, so it is a great pleasure to follow him.

On the key question of the House business committee, which is central to the debate, and to which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) referred, the Government made it absolutely clear in their coalition agreement that such a committee would be introduced within three years—in other words by May this year, which is now two months ago. It is by far the most important of the Wright Committee reforms that have not been implemented so far.

One normally gets only two chances a year to ask a question to the Prime Minister, but I was called at the beginning of the year to ask him about progress on the business committee. The Prime Minister said that the matter was very firmly under consideration, so we would like to know from the Deputy Leader of the House why, after three years, these considerations are continuing to go on endlessly.

The purpose of the House business committee, as proposed by the Wright Committee, was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said so eloquently, to enable the House to gain control of its own agenda. At present, the Executive, under Standing Order No. 14, overwhelmingly control the use of parliamentary time, even following the creation of the excellent Backbench Business Committee. The Executive not only decide what business is put before the House, but the scheduling of that business.

The Wright Committee’s proposal was that the House agenda should be determined not unilaterally by Ministers, but rather by the House itself, working in collaboration with Ministers. Ministers would still have adequate time to carry through their own business—no one is challenging that—but the rest of the business should be not a matter for the Executive alone, but for the House as a whole.

The main reform recommended by Wright for that purpose was that the House as a whole should be able to vote on the agenda for the next week or weeks, rather than, as we all know is the case at present, the agenda being delivered to the House ex cathedra by the Leader of the House, although sometimes, of course, that is after prior consultation with the Opposition through the usual channels. I repeat again, because this must not be used as an argument against change, that that process would in no way prevent the Government—indeed, this could be written into the Standing Orders if necessary—from being able to bring forward all their business for proper debate and a vote on the Floor of the House, and within an agreed time scale, so there would be no threat to the Government at all. Instead, the aim was to ensure that the remainder of parliamentary business was managed in a way that required the consent of the House and that was not manipulated in a manner designed to suit the interests of the Executive.

At present, as has been said, Backbench Business Committee debates are invariably shunted to Thursdays. I am very glad that the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), is sitting beside me, and it is perfectly true that those Thursday debates are well attended.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that 56 Members attended a Thursday debate about cycling.

[Mr Meacher]

Yes, but it is also true that when more controversial issues are discussed—although the great advantage of the Backbench Business Committee is that a lot of issues that would never arise in the House, but are of great interest to a significant proportion of the public, are debated—as the last vote is often on Wednesday at 7 pm, those debates are not sufficiently well attended to secure a vote that would properly reflect the balance of the whole House. Of course, many Members depart for other commitments on a Wednesday. That is their choice, even if many of us think that they should not do so, but the temptation to do so, because of the organisation of the agenda, is considerable.

Private Member’s Bills are largely marginalised because they are confined to Fridays, when most MPs are in their constituencies, and there is a high voting bar to secure Second Reading. Such Bills are also subject to severe time constraints, and they can be readily squeezed out due to filibustering on prior Bills taken the same day.

The Report stage of Bills is crucial, but it is often a caricature of scrutiny: inadequate time is allotted to consider extremely important issues; many Members—I will return to this point—are not properly informed about what they are voting on; and many significant amendments are simply not reached at all. Equally, Lords amendments, which generally focus on issues that are not only the most controversial, but the most important, are frequently not given the time and consideration that they clearly deserve. Given the time pressure, less important business is often given a measure of priority that could be challenged.

All those drawbacks and deficiencies could begin to be redressed by the principle of a votable agenda. I repeat that the Government would still command a majority in the House, but they would have to listen much more carefully to the strongly held views of Members, particularly when there was a consensus between the Opposition and Government Back Benchers. Crucially, it would introduce transparency into setting the agenda, which could involve all Members, not simply Front Benchers engaged in discussions through the usual channels behind the scenes.

The Wright Committee envisaged that the votable agenda motion would supersede Thursday’s business questions, and that it would be subject to debate and amendment, with the Speaker having the right to select and group amendments as happens now with other business. If an amendment was selected, it could be debated for up to 45 minutes, with time-limited speeches of perhaps five minutes. If no amendment was tabled, there could of course still be a question and answer session, which would be similar to what happens now.

Clearly a votable motion could be presented by the Leader of the House and amended via the formalities of open debate on the Floor, followed by a Division. However, the whole process of agreeing the business agenda—agreement is the key point—is likely to be far better negotiated, in a more inclusive and participative manner, if there have been detailed discussions between representatives of both the Executive and the legislature beforehand. Surely all Members must agree that openness is key to achieving better democratic accountability. Regular meetings—perhaps weekly—between both sides, in the forum of a House business committee, are much more likely to secure the outcome that the management of Government business is a genuinely shared process that is not subject to hidden traps that the House discovers only later, at considerable cost, as happens all too often at present. The object of the exercise is not in any way to aggravate the Executive or to contest votes, but to build a consensus. It is about involvement in the actual decision making for the scheduling of Government business, not merely the scrutiny of decisions already taken.

I shall say a quick word about how the House business committee might work, as several questions need to be settled. First, it should not pre-empt, incorporate or supersede in any way the excellent work of the Backbench Business Committee, which has been referred to strongly in the debate. That Committee has an entirely separate function and, by general consent, has fulfilled it extremely well. It has established the right of Back Benchers to debate issues that otherwise might never have been debated, which often does not accord with the wishes of either Front Bench team. That should continue and not become confused with the very separate role of specifically scheduling Government business.

Secondly, if the House business committee is not to be the usual channels writ large, it should not be chaired by either the Government Chief Whip or the Leader of the House. Since the essential characteristic of the chair should be exercising a non-partisan role, the obvious person to chair it would be the Speaker.

Thirdly, the membership of the House business committee—of course, considerable discussion of this issue is needed—should be equally balanced between the legislature and the Executive. In a Committee of 15 members, for example, the Executive could choose its own seven representatives, while the other seven might be composed of, say, three chosen by the Opposition parties and two elected by Back Benchers—in other words, excluding Front Benchers—with two ex-officio members, whom I would suggest could be the Chairs of the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee.

Fourthly, the secretariat would have to be provided both by the seconded civil servants who work for the Executive and by the Clerks whose broad role is to support Parliament in holding the Executive to account. Any disputes between them would have to be settled by the House business committee itself.

I want to make another key point very quickly. An utterly essential and fundamental way of improving the scrutiny of Government legislation is to ensure that Members have a clear and readily available opportunity to ascertain exactly what they are being asked to vote for when amendments or new clauses are considered in Committee and on Report. At present, especially on Report, Members who have not participated in the Bill’s Committee stage often do not know, or have made little effort to find out, precisely what they are voting for. Many times, when the bell rings and, like everyone else, I troop down the escalator through to the Palace, I turn to whoever is standing beside me, of whichever party, and ask, “By the way, what are we voting for?” Perhaps a third of Members shrug their shoulders. Another third say, “Oh it’s the Social Security Bill,” and when I ask, “Yes, but what exactly are we voting for?” I doubt that more than one or two Members actually know. I am guilty of that too—I am not being holier than anyone else, but that seems to be a huge failing.

This is a matter of great significance because Report is often the only real opportunity—especially if the Minister and Government Whip have kept the Committee stage of a Bill on a tight leash—for the House to modify a Bill. The debates on Report are usually focused on important issues about which the public hold strong views. It is a reasonable assumption that if the public were aware that matters of considerable importance to themselves were treated in such a cavalier fashion by many Members, if not most, and that they vote blind without even knowing what they are voting for, there would be a huge outcry that Parliament was abusing its proper functions.

If a Member is diligent—and some are—it is necessary to obtain a copy of the Bill, a copy of the amendments and, on the day of consideration, a copy of the grouping of amendments selected by the Speaker. Of course, a number of Members with a particular interest will do that but, in most cases, they will be in the minority. In the absence of obtaining the necessary documentation, applying it to understand the point at hand, which is quite difficult, and reaching a considered view—perhaps after taking account of arguments advanced by letter or e-mail from interested individuals or organisations—the default position is for Members to troop in, see on which side their Whips are standing, and just follow them into the Lobby like sheep.

Even if a Member took the trouble to get and read the relevant documents, however, it is often difficult for someone who has not been following a Bill closely to understand precisely what an amendment is designed to do. Some amendments—even important ones—may seem obscure to someone who is not familiar with the underlying arguments behind a Bill, and I think that that is a very serious flaw.

A key proposal to remedy that problem from the Wright Committee and the Parliament First all-party group, which I chair, is that every amendment or new clause tabled by the Government, the Opposition, the smaller parties or individual Back Benchers should have a short statement attached to it of no more than 50 words that explains the measure’s purpose. Those statements would be set out on the amendment paper, and one would appear at the bottom of every amendment.

Let me turn, for one minute, to the objections to that proposal—apart, of course, from those of the Whips, whose control over every aspect of the parliamentary process might begin to be questioned more. The only objection raised, as far as I know, is that while the Government have their civil servants to deal with amendments and to provide explanatory statements, the Opposition do not have the same resources, and adding a requirement for explanatory statements would impose too great a burden. To put it simply, I think that that is utterly untenable. It takes a great deal of time to get to grips with a new Bill, to consult outside experts over all its detailed aspects, to identify areas in which modifications need to be sought and to draft amendments in an acceptable parliamentary form. However, once all that has been done, drafting a short statement that distils the essence of the amendment would take no more than seconds. I hope that explanatory statements, as well as the House business committee, are something that the Government will look on favourably and introduce quickly.