Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
10 MARCH 2004
RT HON
ERIC FORTH
MP AND BARBARA
FOLLETT MP
Q100 Chairman: Thank you. Before we move
to Desmond Swayne, could I ask (with a simple yes or no answer):
Do our witnesses believe that the importance of report and remaining
stages is underestimated at the moment because very few members
can speak at second reading, only a few limited members will sit
on the standing committee, and therefore the remaining stage,
the report stage of a bill, is the only stage of legislation where
backbench members, who have not been able to participate in second
reading or to have participated in the standing committee, have
an opportunity of contributing to legislation? Do our witnesses
believe there should be a more generous time allocated to take
account of that fact?
Mr Forth: Yes.
Barbara Follett: Yes.
Chairman: Thank you. That is very helpful,
because that is cross-party and that indicates that we must never
underestimate the importance of report and remaining stages.
Q101 Mr Swayne: I am sure it must be
disagreeable, as Barbara Follett told us, to endure a session
of 24 hours and, indeed, 36 hours, but the Chairman of Ways and
Means has pointed out to us that it is perfectly permissible now
for standing committees to secure more time within the existing
standing orders by sitting beyond 5.30, but they are showing a
remarkable reluctance to do so. Why do our witnesses think that
might be?
Mr Forth: Because members are
idle and do not want to do the work. And actually the answer to
what Barbara Follett said at the beginning—I think this
gives me a chance to deal with it, Sir Nicholas—is that
it was entirely a matter for the Government whip on that committee
to have the committee adjourn at a reasonable hour and then return
for further sittings. The reason they did not was the Government
presumably had in its mind that the committee had to finish at
a particular endpoint and therefore had to put its poor unfortunate
delicate members through this hellish process that has been described
to us. But since it is now the Government who is completely in
charge of all these matters, then Barbara should have taken it
up with her whip and not been berating us, the poor Opposition,
who simply had to abide by what the Government decided to do in
that committee.
Q102 Chairman: Could I then come to one
of those delicate, sensitive members, Barbara Follett, who I am
sure was going to respond to that observation.
Barbara Follett: Not very delicately
or sensitively, I fear. I actually enjoyed those sessions.
Mr Forth: Ah!
Barbara Follett: But I do not
think they were particularly productive. You are quite right,
it is up to the whips, and particularly the Government whip, but
I think they wanted to break a filibuster and show they would
just go on. I am not going to get into the ins and outs of it:
it did happen; it was utterly fascinating. The Members of Parliament
for South Cambridgeshire and for Buckingham were really good to
listen to at 3.30 in the morning on the subject of tips! But I
do not know why—to answer Mr Swayne's question directly—people
are reluctant to sit beyond 5.30. I think it is to do with . .
. No, it cannot be to do with wanting to go in for the wind-ups,
because not that many people rush straight into the wind-ups.
I do not think it is because MPs are idle. I am sure they are
not. I know Mr Forth is not. I know I most certainly am not: I
know that the calls on my time are so multitudinous I do not know
how to fit everything in, is the truth of it. I think that might
be part of the reason people do not want standing committees to
go much later than half-past five, but I have been on one recently
that has gone on later.
Q103 Mr Swayne: We have heard of the
importance of report for providing an opportunity for members
of the House who were not on the standing committee or who perhaps
wanted to speak at second reading but were unable to do so, to
have an opportunity. Why do our witnesses think so few—shockingly
few—take up that opportunity?—because report is typically
the thinnest attended of all stages. Is that perhaps itself a
consequence of programming and the fact that often enough there
will only be time for the frontbenchers to contribute before the
knife falls?
Barbara Follett: I am not quite
sure. Prior to the current programming regime, I had the feeling
that people were not particularly encouraged to speak at that
point. There are ways of encouraging and discouraging people in
this place, as you know, and they were not encouraged to speak
at that point because it was all done and dusted. This was really
a bit like the last minute on Christmas Eve, when you are putting
the presents under your tree and you suddenly turn to your husband
and say, "I don't think we should have given that
to baby daughter X." It is a bit like opening up the present
again. A report stage has become tying the bow on and shoving
it under the tree and waiting for the festivities to start, and
that it should not really be. It should perhaps be more reflective
and perhaps should have messages for the other Place as it goes
on its way.
Mr Forth: It may be more fundamental
than that. It may be that the combination of a very large government
majority in two successive Parliaments and the reduction in time
available at all the different stages has meant that members progressively
find that other things are more important. I am constantly at
odds with some of my own colleagues, Sir Nicholas, about this,
who increasingly see that other activities, other than the legislative,
are claiming their time. I cannot understand this. I have a complete
mind-block about this, as members of the Committee may understand,
or at least they may sympathise with, because I think that the
prime task of a Member of Parliament is the legislative task,
and nothing else, in my mind, takes priority over that. But, sadly,
for a number of reasons, increasing numbers of members seem to
think that scrutinising legislation, participating in debates,
and even participating in votes, is of less and less importance—perhaps
because it has become so predictable and they find that other
activities are claiming their time.
Q104 Chairman: Such as?
Mr Forth: I do not want to begin
to imagine, Sir Nicholas, because it is beyond my powers to imagine
what could be more important than legislating for a Member of
Parliament.
Q105 Mr McWalter: Chairman, could I perhaps—
Mr Forth: Ah!
Q106 Mr McWalter: The Right Honourable
Member is sitting here giving us evidence when he could be legislating
on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] or attending its
second reading. His presence here is testimony to the fact that
MPs have various demands on their time, including, quite often,
not being able to involve the legislative process. His presence
doth contradict himself, as it were.
Mr Forth: That is a particularly
subtle point from one of the more subtle Members of the House
and I will plead semi-guilty on this occasion, Sir Nicholas, that,
yes, I have accepted the invitation that your select committee
kindly gave me, which I regarded really as a summons—and—
Q107 Chairman: Correct.
Mr Forth: Indeed. And I am very
happy to respond to that summons for what is a truly parliamentary
occasion. On advice from the honourable gentleman, I will slightly
modify what I said and say that parliamentary activities, whether
legislative or select committee, should take absolute priority,
and I thank him for the modification.
Q108 Chairman: Barbara Follett, before
I go back to Desmond Swayne?
Barbara Follett: I think that
Eric Forth has touched on a very important point. The role of
Parliament has been diminished—and it has not just been
under this Government. I remember, when I was studying government
at LSE, you know, that it goes right back into the fifties, when
things changed: the Executive became more powerful; we have had
successive governments with large majorities for a long time;
but also the role of an MP has changed. There have come in recently,
I think, many more demands for an MP to be in his or her constituency.
I know Eric profoundly disagrees but I find it quite difficult
to explain to my constituents that I am in the House of Commons
doing important work on a Wednesday when they want me in Stevenage.
The ceremonial role of an MP has become greater and the social
worker role of an MP has become infinitely greater. We all know
that. We would all like it to be other, I think, but I think we
have to take that into account. That is part of the multitudinous
pulls on our time.
Q109 Chairman: Would Barbara Follett
agree with the immediate past Speaker of the House, who said,
I think with great wisdom—and I was with her at lunch—"I
am the Member for West Bromwich in Westminster; I am not Westminster's
representative in West Bromwich"? Was Baroness Boothroyd
right in saying that or was she wrong? Is not the prime responsibility
of Members of Parliament to scrutinise the government of the day,
and to hold the government of the day to account over what it
does, the management of the affairs of this country, and the legislation
that it is introducing?
Barbara Follett: Absolutely. But
there has been a change. I am going to just take it away from
Westminster for a minute and let's have a look at the Royal Family.
It is the "tabloidisation": they are seen as remote
and in an ivory tower if they are doing their job of going through
red boxes or whatever but are seen as part of the people if they
are out, leaning down and holding sick babies. I am afraid some
of this has been associated with MPs as well: we are meant to
be out there much more than ever we were, and visibly out there.
I happen to agree with what you have said, Sir Nicholas, and for
once to be in agreement with the Right Honourable gentleman on
what the main role of a parliamentarian is, but, remember, those
are the people who sent you here and who perceive you as having
a different role. I think there is actually a job of work to be
done, not by this Committee but by the other committee on which
both you and I serve.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q110 Mr Swayne: How do you greet the
suggestion that we might deal with some of the time constraints
in standing committee by restraining the length at which members
might speak or, indeed, the number of times that they might speak?
Mr Forth: That is completely unacceptable.
Chairman: In standing committee and the
House?
Mr Swayne: In standing committee.
Q111 Chairman: In standing committee.
Mr Forth: No, that is completely
and utterly unacceptable. Because I thought that one of the functions
of Parliament was debate, the free exchange of views and ideas,
and the only way that can be carried out properly, I believe,
is by unrestrained contributions—and, if necessary, serial
and repeated contributions. Because that is what debate must be.
That is particularly so dealing either with a complex subject
or, indeed, seeking to represent legitimate outside interests,
for example; and a combination of complexity and outside interests,
I would have thought, would suggest that, other than, as Barbara
mentioned a moment ago, the excellence of Sir Nicholas's chairmanship
of standing committees which is legendary—and of course
performs the function of restraint that is quite rightly to be
there—
Barbara Follett: Yes.
Mr Forth: —all I would say
is that, in a sense, there is occasionally a battle of wills and
wits between members of a committee and the chairman thereof,
or, indeed, members on the floor of the House and the occupant
of the chair—a battle in which I have occasionally participated
myself—and that is perfectly legitimate as well. But I think
that once one starts to talk of arbitrary time limits, one is
getting into very dangerous territory indeed, and I hope the Committee
will not pursue that.
Barbara Follett: I find myself,
once again, in agreement with the Right Honourable gentleman.
I think there should not be a constraint on time or on contributions.
But it does go back to chairing and chairing very tightly, because
sometimes that does not happen, and it is when that does not happen
that the real cut and thrust of the debate goes and people glaze
over and get bored.
Chairman: Before I pass back finally
to one question that I know Mr Swayne wants to ask, John Burnett
wants to intervene.
Mr Burnett: I have only very recently
arrived, so I have missed out on many pearls of wisdom, I am sure.
Chairman: You have!
Q112 Mr Burnett: If there are no constraints
on time, what would happen, for example, with a two-volume Finance
Bill which could be debated for two years? It could easily be
debated, I can tell you, for two or three years.
Barbara Follett: I agree with
you and obviously there has to be a certain amount of programming.
The constraints I do not really want are on the amount of time
a member on a standing committee can speak or on the frequency
or for how long that member can speak. I do remember, on the Employment
Relations Bill, a particularly impassioned subject about trade
union membership for people from sects like the Plymouth Brethren—about
which I was extremely interested because my husband's family happen
to be Plymouth Brethren—that went on at length, and there
was a great deal of back and forth—of very illuminating
back and forth on that—and we needed it. We had to have
it. We do not always know that beforehand. But I do think that
the chairs have to be tougher—because they are not always
as tough as Sir Nicholas.
Mr Forth: There is a very crucial
point about the Finance Bill—and I am rather glad John Burnett
has raised it. One of the ghosts at this feast is the House of
Lords. It is worth mentioning, I think, even if just in passing,
Sir Nicholas, that if the House of Commons is going to derogate
from its responsibilities in proper scrutiny, it will and is inevitably
passing that to the House of Lords, which, in my view, is now
becoming the superior Chamber in terms of effective scrutiny.
Why? Because the Government does not have a majority there and,
more crucially, because the Government cannot yet control the
timetable in the Lords (although it is desperately anxious to
do so, for the reasons we have been discussing). I say this because
the crucial difference with a Finance Bill, of course, is that
it does not go to their Lordships.
Q113 Mr Burnett: It never goes there.
Mr Forth: And therefore there
is an even greater responsibility on us to make a proper job of
it. There I think I would go back to the pearl that Mr Burnett
missed at the beginning—it was my pearl, as it happens!—and
that is that there should be no constraint on committees ab
initio, but, if the committee starts grotesquely to misbehave
or whatever, then it is always for the government to step in and
seek to put a time limit on it but only after the committee has
demonstrated its incapacity or inability.
Mr Burnett: I must come back to Mr Forth
on that.
Chairman: I cannot stop you, John Burnett.
Q114 Mr Burnett: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
What does Mr Forth mean by "grotesquely to misbehave"?
Because there are many clauses in many Finance Bills—very
difficult, very arcane subjects—that are worthy of days
of debate.
Mr Forth: Yes.
Q115 Mr Burnett: I could give you share
option schemes, for example.
Mr Forth: One then gets into the
fascinating complexities of the membership of the committee, its
expertise and ability and so on, but also perhaps—
Q116 Mr Burnett: You have not answered
my question.
Mr Forth: I am about to. Crucially,
on that bill, maybe more than most or maybe more than any other,
the committee should be unconstrained and find its own pace and
decide its own priorities in terms of what it will debate, which
parts of the bill it will look at and so on, and maybe even—dare
I say it?—sit rather longer hours than the average idle
committee these days chooses to sit? It is always open to the
standing committee, is it not, if it is unconstrained by the government,
to sit for lengthy hours in order properly to deliberate?
Q117 Mr Burnett: I am sorry, I have not
had an answer. I agree with the hours: longer hours for Finance
Bills. We do fairly long hours—I mean, I have done most
of them since I have been in the House, all but one very short
early one. Mr Forth must realise that there has to be some constraint
because it has to be wrapped up before the summer recess.
Mr Forth: In the end, of course,
the government is in control.
Q118 Mr Burnett: But I think you said
earlier that really the government should not have that level
of control. What sort of control do you actually mean?
Mr Forth: Again, perhaps John
would actually read the transcript and get the answer, but I will
give it again, without wanting to be too tedious. The point I
am making—and I think it is valid here as well—is
that no committee should be constrained by the government when
it embarks on its deliberations. Only if the government comes
to the conclusion, after giving the committee a very wide degree
of latitude, that either it is unnecessarily delaying its deliberations
or it is running out of time—and in the case of the Finance
Bill, the normal constraints of the session—then the Government
always has the capability to step in. We could of course get into—I
doubt if you want me to at this stage, Sir Nicholas, but I leave
it as a thought—the whole structure of the parliamentary
year, because it is perfectly possible that we should be arguing
that the budget should be in October/November or November, at
the beginning of the session, allowing the Finance Bill Committee
then to commence its deliberations, let us say, in January and
deliberate for four or five months. There may be an answer there.
I would suggest to your Committee, Sir Nicholas, that you should
not feel constrained by what is now; maybe you should think out
of the box and say, "Let's change the whole parliamentary
year around." That might give us the answer.
Chairman: We are grateful for the challenge,
Mr Forth. I am sure we will take it up and consider it.
Q119 Mr Swayne: To what extent are the
interests of backbenchers and, indeed, minority parties catered
for by the existing arrangements, existing procedures? Are they
satisfactory?
Barbara Follett: Is this programming
particularly?
| 
