Memorandum from Mr Oliver Heald MP, Shadow
Leader of the House
PRACTICAL OPERATION
OF THE
NEW SYSTEM
AND THE
TEMPORARY STANDING
ORDERS
Consensual programming of legislation died in
the Sessions 1997-2001. Despite initial goodwill from all parts
of the House expressed in All Party Programme Motions, the Government
refused sensible requests for flexibility and ended up guillotining
everything. What happens now is oppressive of the Opposition and
we are opposed in principle to the current practice.
The right to debate should not be treated as
a favour to be handed down by a generous government to a supplicant
Opposition.
There are discussions between whips and the
Usual Channels about the timing of Bills and the Opposition tries
to be constructive, but the Government has so much power through
the changes in procedure that discussions are inevitably one-sided.
Material not scrutinised
The analysis at page 7 of the Modernisation
Committee Report HC 1222 shows that current practice leads to
a significant number of clauses and schedules in Bills not being
debated. The Committee points out the "undesirable effect
of curtailing debate on controversial matters on which Members
wished to speak" and that "concern about the volume
of legislation which passes undebated is entirely legitimate."
The system is failing.
Agreeing out-dates
In its "good example of programming"
on page 8, the Committee applauds a simple programme with a single
knife falling on the out-date and is critical of motions containing
complicated provisions with multiple knives. The truth is that
the whips were almost always able to agree an out-date under the
old system. Enforced Government "out-dates" and multiple
"knives" reflect the language of guillotines previously
only used on the rare occasions when agreement was not possible
or parliamentary delaying tactics were in play.
Although we agree with Sir Alan Haselhurst's
evidence that a programme for a Standing Committee should prescribe
an out-date only, we question whether a motion is necessary to
achieve an agreed and effective out-date in all but the rare cases
of controversy.
Internal knives unhelpful
The use of internal knives is usually unhelpful
in that it artificially restricts debate. It can be difficult
to estimate how much time is needed for each clause or group of
amendments, but Members are capable of budgeting their time as
they go, so that if one clause takes longer than expected, it
usually proves possible to catch up.
Flexible sitting hours in Committee
A degree of flexibility on sitting hours is
helpful. If the Committee gets behind, another hour here and there
can be most useful. The Government side should accept such requests.
Time for setting out-date
It is illogical that the Government expects
to set the time for Committee, including the out-date, before
the Second Reading debate. This means that the full ambit of debate
is not known at the time when decisions on timing are made. The
problems on the Standing Committee of the Criminal Justice and
Police Bill referred to at page 20 of the Modernisation Committee's
report were partly the result of a Government time estimate prepared
before it became apparent at Second Reading that substantial Government
amendments were needed to deal with the "Huntingdon Life
Sciences situation." The fact that the Government then forced
through a reduction in the number of sittings made matters even
worse. Committee timings should be agreed after Second Reading
and kept under constant review.
Report Stage
Sometimes, a situation such as that at Huntingdon
Life Sciences demands immediate action and late amendments are
justified. But all too often, great rafts of Government amendments
are produced at Committee or Report stage, because the Government
is not properly organised.
The Criminal Justice Bill was an example of
this. It was published in November 2002 and entered a Standing
Committee in December. The Committee met 32 times and reported
in March. The Government then added 500 amendments and 28 New
Clauses at Report Stage. This approach affects the realities of
when the Business Committee should sit. There is no point until
the Provisional Selection of Amendments has been made. Then the
overall shape of the business is clearer.
Third Reading
Adequate time should be available for a Third
Reading debate.
PLANNING AHEAD
AND THE
ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE
PROGRAMME
It would be very helpful if the Government could,
in future, provide a full list of its intended Bills and draft
Bills for the Session at the time of the Queen's Speech.
Through Usual Channels' discussions, the Government's
programme evolves in accordance with the demands of the House.
There is a constant need for speed and flexibility to accommodate
urgent debates and to deal with build-ups of work. It has been
possible at short notice to fit in urgent debates, a recent example
would be the debate on Equitable Life. We doubt if the more substantial
architecture of the "Legislative Business Committee"
would be responsive enough to the fast moving demands of Members.
Business Questions already provides backbench
Members the opportunity to make their own specific requests.
EXTENDING PROGRAMMING
TO SECOND
READINGS, PRE-
AND POST-LEGISLATIVE
SCRUTINY
The rigidities of programming should not be
extended further. Second Readings should normally be allowed a
day's debate or more, where the proposed legislation warrants
it.
24 March 2004
| 
