Letter to the Chairman from Mrs Gwyneth
Dunwoody MP
Unfortunately, as you know, I am not able to
respond to the Committee in person.
It has been clear to me for a long time that
the programming of Bills, which is undertaken routinely, is a
backward step in relation to legislation. It is quite clear that
the arguments for timetabling are of considerable interest to
the executive government, who always want to put their Bills onto
the statute book with the minimum of fuss and the greatest amount
of speed. This is not, however, a reason why Parliament should
accept the situation without very considerable questioning of
the responsibility of individual Members of Parliament to study
legislation and, where necessary, improve it.
When I first entered Parliament, it was clear
that many Bills were only timetabled after there had been a very
determined attempt to filibuster the initial stages in a Committee
session. This was not only irritating but constituted what many
regarded as a considerable waste of time. Unfortunately, the use
of Parliamentary time was one of the few weapons left to an opposition
and was therefore frequently employed.
There were, nevertheless, differences between
various Bills some of which were allowed to go through virtually
unaltered, but others, because of their political content, required
a great deal of debate and, if necessary, change. I think it is
vital to understand that this was not always simply a "waste
of time", it was frequently a very specific attempt to ensure
that the general public understood the legislation that was being
proposed and were given the chance to comment on the content.
What now happens is that Bills routinely go through at enormous
speed so that those who are most concerned have very little opportunity
either to become aware of the legislation or comment upon it before
it goes onto the statute book.
The resultant situation whereby the government
frequently finds itself introducing 300 amendments at the Report
Stage or, even worse, where the Upper House is entirely relied
upon to make routine recommendations in relation to Bills seems
to me to be not only dangerous but unacceptable.
I realise that those who are powerfully concerned
with their own manifestos will feel that they have a god given
right to push whatever has been voted for by the electorate with
as little impediment as possible, but I do not think that this
is commensurate with a democratic system.
I am deeply concerned about the routine acceptance
of a circumscribed attitude towards debate and decision which
is now growing up within the House of Commons.
2 March 2004
| 
