Examination of Witness (Questions 187-199)
21 APRIL 2004
MR OLIVER
HEALD MP
Q187 Chairman: On behalf of the Procedure
Committee, I welcome Oliver Heald, the Conservative Member of
Parliament for North East Hertfordshire, who is Shadow Leader
of the House, and thank him for coming to help us with our inquiry
into programming. Mr Heald, we have had your paper, which we have
read with interest. I congratulate you on its succinctness, which
is certainly very helpful to members of this Committee. In your
submission, you say: "Initial goodwill of all parts of the
House" in relation to programming of Bills, was lost when
the Government "refused sensible requests for flexibility
and ended up by guillotining everything". Can you describe
to the Committee how this situation arose and why it arose?
Mr Heald: Mr Chairman, in 1997
I went to the Whips' Office as a whip, and the Chief Whip at that
time, James Arbuthnot, was very prepared to look at new ideas
such as programming, and in a sense we were learning opposition
for the first time in a long time. The Shadow Leader of the House
at the time, Sir George Young, was also very willing to look at
programming. We thought it meant reaching agreements on certain
bills, not all bills, where it would be helpful to Members to
have a more structured programme for the legislation, and also
to have a clear out-date for committee. We envisaged, a bit like
pre-legislative scrutiny, that it would be something that would
evolve over time and that we would find the measure of it and
how it worked best. I was the whip on the Scotland Bill, which
was the first bill that was programmed, with John McFall for the
Labour Party, and we tried very hard to make it work. On reflection,
I would say that the Scotland Bill, with the exception of one
day where it all went horribly wrong, went okay. Then we got on
to the Government of Wales Bill, where it really became very,
very difficult to programme successfully. There were three or
four different kinds of opposition to the Bill, so it was not
just the Government and the Opposition. The Government found a
lot of the opposition it was receiving extremely tiresome, including
some of the opposition from its own side, so a certain rigidity
developed. We ended up with quite a lot of arguments towards the
Government of Wales Bill about the detail of the programme. In
the first year, the Chief Whip and the Government Chief Whip were
able to agree about eleven programmes, and we signed up to them
with Sir George Young's name on the motions. It progressively
got worse as the Parliament went on, with the Government increasingly
wanting to get through more legislation, not necessarily more
bills but sheer pages of legislation, and insisting on tighter
and tighter programming; so it became more and more difficult.
Frankly, we felt we were being oppressed because every time we
could not reach agreement we got guillotined. There was really
a state of hostility between the Government and the Opposition
whips' offices, not on a personal level but on a professional
level, from about 1998 onwards. I would say that when the Modernisation
Committee introduced the new structure in 2001, we felt that was
just beyond all, and were extremely unhappy with it. Of course,
it proved to be disastrous.
Q188 Sir Robert Smith: In the third paragraph
of your memorandum you talk about the early stages being okay,
and then you say: "The Government has so much power through
the changes in procedure that discussions are inevitably one-sided."
Is there anything that could be done to change Standing Orders
now that would help this sort of thing?
Mr Heald: I think we need to go
back to the original idea that there are quite a lot of bills
where the usual channels can agree an out-date easily. For three
years I had no problem at all agreeing out-dates. The idea of
programming should be a consensual thing. We should be aiming
to look at some of the original questions like what kind of committee
the bill goes to. We have not used a special standing committee
for a long time. If it became a matter of consent, and it was
not a mandatory structure of the sort we have now, then that would
make a difference.
Q189 Sir Robert Smith: Are there specific
changes in standing orders that could facilitate that, or is it
more a cultural operation?
Mr Heald: I think what I call
structure 2, what we have at the moment, the standard structure
and framework which is in the temporary standing orders, is completely
unacceptable; but if we went back to what preceded it, then we
could, with goodwill, make it work.
Q190 Sir Robert Smith: You do not think
one of the challenges though in making anything work at the moment
is such that when the Government has such a huge majority, in
the end, whatever happens, it feels it can get its own way!
Mr Heald: I do think that. The
fact is the Government has got such a big majority that it has
become arrogant, and it does not really take very seriously the
Opposition's requirement to raise issues in bills. I have recently
been spokesman on a bill where there were a lot of outside representations.
As all Members will know, bodies want a point of view aired in
committee. The present balance of arms is such that they do not
get a fair crack of the whip. If you think of that dreadful bill
on which I was the spokesman in 2000-01, the Criminal Justice
and Police Bill, where Ann Widdecombe staged a sit-in at the end
because we were so unhappy, that was an absolute disgrace and
an example of the Government abusing its power.
Q191 Mr McWalter: I wanted to say from
the Labour Benches that, clearly, what you say in your memorandum
is very serious. If you say consensual programming died, that
is very serious, and this Committee feels to some extent that
it is the custodian of the rights of Members, to be able to have
a say and to have time apportioned to them for that, no matter
where they are coming from. That is very much the view of the
majority of Labour Members, and not just Labour Members of the
Committee. Given that even if you lost some goodwill, say from
the Government's Whips' Office, and assuming that I am right and
there is a great deal of goodwill from Members of Parliament in
general, would you be prepared to submit a paper based on that
premise, on the assumption that it will have a reasonable chance
of at least getting a fair hearing, leading to changes in procedure
which might well address the very strong grievance that you feel?
Mr Heald: We have an issue of
principle about the Government simply imposing a programme on
the Opposition, and the fact that that is the backcloth to discussions
in the usual channels. I could state that, as I have in this paper,
but that is an objection of principle. It is true that within
the current structure there are changes you could make which would
improve things. The Clerk has suggested overtime being made available
to a chairman of the Standing Committee in circumstances where
a debate has not concluded, and suggested that a chairman could
give an extra 15 minutes. I think that is a good idea, and it
is a good idea that there should be some overtime in circumstances
where there is perhaps more than one division. Those are minor
changes that would improve matters, but they would not go to the
heart of our grievance, which is that we believe programming should
be consensual and that we should have a right to say that this
is not the sort of bill which we think requires a formal programme.
I would not have thought that the majority of bills would ever
need to be programmed.
Q192 Mr McWalter: If you were able to
make that representation, not to those who are clearly in opposition
to some of that representation, but to some other party, for instance
the joint chairs of a committee or whoever, would that not be
a procedural improvement? That formal request could hopefully
be negotiated more effectively and formally in the way that currently
you are indicating those requests are not negotiated?
Mr Heald: The difficulty with
it is that on the one hand the Government is entitled to have
its way. All our committees, with the exception of Standards and
Privileges Committee, reflect that. It is part of the backcloth
of what we do. I think it is an important principle that the Government
should be able to have its way. However, at the same time, you
do not want to compromise the chair or the Speaker by turning
that role into something which is in any way political. It is
a good thing that we have managed to have an independent chairman
or chairmen of our proceedings in committee. Once you trespass
beyond the minor change that the Clerk is suggesting, you have
a difficulty. I cannot envisage what sort of committee you could
set up in this place, understanding the Realpolitik of
it, which would be able to get away from the political arithmetic.
Q193 Chairman: Have you, Mr Heald, sought
to go and discuss this matter with the Leader of the House, Peter
Hain? Have you considered sending a paper to the Chairman of Ways
and Means, who, as it were, presides over the panel of chairmen?
To my mind, these sorts of approaches might well produce a move
in the right direction. I am seeking, as it were, to explore matters
along the lines that Tony McWalter is taking you down at the moment.
Mr Heald: I do not think it is
impossible that we could reach a better accommodation than we
have at the moment. I have not been doing this very long, but
I have had a preliminary discussion with the Leader of the House,
and a very informal chat with Sir Alan. Having said that, it is
something I would need to pursue quite carefully and discreetly.
Q194 Mr McWalter: If that does not happen,
what you were saying before the Chairman's question is that it
is broke but you cannot think of any way of fixing it. If that
is what happens, this comes over as a whinge, so we have to find
a way of translating the very strong negative sentiments expressed
in this paper into some kind of programme for positive action.
We really need your help, and indeed of the Speaker or chairmen's
panel, to do that; but there has to be a way in which we can get
people signed up to addressing these matters. We cannot have the
Opposition expressing these sentiments in this way and such a
paper is simply allowed to lie on the table. We need to find a
way of programming.
Mr Heald: With respect, I do not
think that it is controversial or mean-spirited to say we are
prepared to do this in a consensual way, which is what we used
to do and tried to do. Part of the problem after the 1997 general
election was the nature of the legislation that we were trying
to do this with. If you think about the Scotland Bill and the
Government of Wales Bill, and some of these other bills, they
were very hotly contested. There were difficulties which we did
not necessarily appreciate at the outset. For example, on the
Government of Wales Bill, there were four different kinds of opposition
to that Bill, and they all wanted to have their say, and it was
all on the floor of the House. We got to the position one day
where we had half a dozen privy councillors wanting to speak and
ten minutes left before a knife. Those sorts of problems did make
it very difficult, but I would have thought that for most bills
you do not need a programme motion at all. On the others, they
fall into two categories. There is the sort of bill where it is
quite helpful for all parties to have a programme, perhaps because
it is a bill with two very clear halves to it. With the Civil
Contingencies Bill we did not agree the programme, but that is
a Bill where the Government has a knife between Part I and Part
II. If that was the only provision in the programme motion, I
would not be against it because I think it was sensible to divide
off the local arrangements from the national, and to secure the
time in two clear portions for the two halves of the discussion.
I am not saying it cannot be done. There are also situations where
the Government and the Opposition just flatly do not agree about
how long it requires to debate a bill, and then the Government
has in the end to guillotine. That is the way it should work.
Chairman: We should get on record at
this stage that when we refer to constitutional bills, they have
historically always been taken on the floor of the House rather
than in committee, and it is important for those that will read
the minutes of this meeting to appreciate that fact.
Q195 Mr Atkinson: Mr Heald, the Chairman
of Ways and Means, in his paper, takes the view that there should
be no knives, but that the Government would be entitled to have
an out-date, and he thinks that is as far as the programming should
go. You disagree with that.
Mr Heald: I broadly agree with
that for most bills. It is just that I think there is a small
category where it is either complexity or just the particular
nature of the bill where it is quite useful to have perhaps one
knife. Where we tend to have gone wrong, though, over the past
few years, is having a lot of knives. As you will see from table
A of the Clerk's evidence, they are very often effective knives,
in the sense that they do cut off debate. That shows the failure.
Q196 Mr Luke: Interestingly, the Finance
Bill, which is about to start its course, is completely unprogrammed.
That is the first that has been unprogrammed for a considerable
length of time, so it would be interesting to see if consensus
lasts through the course on that.
Mr Heald: I particularly welcome
that because with the Finance Bill there are so many outside interests
that want to make representations to members of the committee
that unless you have some flexibility with the timing of the programme,
so that as the representations come in they could be reflected
in amendments, unless you have that sort of steady progress at
the beginning of the Bill and then speed up at the end, as the
Finance Bill has always done, it does not work.
Q197 Chairman: Mr Luke has mentioned
the Finance Bill. Can I ask how and why that situation has occurred?
Why has this exception been made by the Government, that the Finance
Bill, which as you have said is a critical bill, and perhaps the
most important bill in the parliamentary year, is unprogrammed?
Mr Heald: The history is that
it has been less programmed than almost any other bill. It was
programmed last year, but not the year before. It does not go
down at all well in business and City circles if an important
debate about something which affects billions of pounds is cut
off half-way through. I think the Government recognises that;
or I guess that is the reason. The other thing is that on the
Finance Bill there are always traditionally very experienced whips
and also very experienced teams on both sides, the spokesmen and
the minister. That helps because the preparation is done very
well, and a lot of the relationships are well established.
Q198 Mr Atkinson: In the paper you talk
about flexibility of hours, adding to a point that the Chairman
of Ways and Means in his evidence said that committees seem to
be unwilling to sit beyond five or five-thirty. What is your view
on that? Are committees regularly sitting longer hours, or should
that just be available to them if proceedings are getting too
delayed?
Mr Heald: I think a lot of Members
have got rather sloppy and are not prepared to do the hours that
they should. Say we did have a much more balanced Parliament in
terms of the numbers, I think a lot of people would get quite
a shock when they saw what this place is like, with the sort of
electric atmosphere you get in a committee where the majority
is one or two. We are sent here to do a job, and the whole place
should not be run for our convenience. We should get on and do
our job, and if it takes extra hours then we should make them
available. I think Parliament should come first above some other
activities.
Q199 Mr Atkinson: Being in the position
of a shadow spokesman on a bill on many occasions, asking a committee
to sit for an extra two or three hours every now and then—does
that not put a lot of pressure on opposition spokesmen who do
not have any civil servants to brief them?
Mr Heald: There is a balance to
be struck. I think we should work the hours that we need to, but
I do agree with the point that if you are the opposition you are
often working with one researcher and outside bodies who are making
representations to you, which you obviously want to look into
carefully. To get a day's worth of committee's business prepared,
where you have your speaking notes, your amendments properly flagged
up and all the rest of it—just the technical side of it—is
quite an objective. The other thing is that if you rush it too
much, quite a lot of outside bodies do not catch on to what is
going on with the bill until rather later than you would expect,
funnily enough—as colleagues know. I remember on the Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Bill, we had been doing it in committee
for quite a while, and suddenly the whole world knew about the
Bill. It suddenly hit the headlines and was on every website,
and lots of public meetings were held. Issues that we had not
realised were important became important. The banks suddenly realised
that the Bill had implications for them. If you are rushing everything,
you can get to the point where you have gone beyond a particular
part of the bill before you realise it is a significant issue;
so rushing it is not a good idea.
|
