Examination of Witness (Questions 200-219)
21 APRIL 2004
MR OLIVER
HEALD MP
Q200 Mr Swayne: You have acknowledged
the concern that many clauses now go undebated. One of the more
bizarre suggestions that is doing the rounds as a means of addressing
this is that we should have more effective rationing in committee,
in terms of time limits on speeches. How do you react to that
suggestion?
Mr Heald: I do not agree with
time limits on speeches, but I do think it is encumbent on Members
to make succinct, sensible contributions to debate; and I think
chairmen are often prepared to make that point.
Q201 Mr Swayne: Do you believe that the
interests of minor parties, indeed backbenchers, are adequately
represented; and, if not, what might be done to address that?
Mr Heald: It is important to recognise
that the number of people you have here as members of your party
does affect what you can do, so it is not possible for a party
with two or three members or even with 60 or 70 to do as much
around the place as a party with a lot more members; it is not
physically possible. It is quite difficult to obtain effective
representation as a minor party, given that you have not got enough
people to be on everything at the same time. It is certainly something
we would review again, but I have not really found a very effective
answer—or nobody has given me a very effective answer—on
how you achieve a really satisfactory solution. They tend to pick
and choose their issues much more than a major party would.
Q202 Mr Swayne: Is there any way that
the main opposition or Government backbenchers could be better
represented, in that the Opposition spokesman would be called
first after the minister, and in a guillotined debate it is often
the case that there is not any time for backbench contributions,
and people will be squeezed out? Going back to the Scotland Bill,
if those backbench contributions happened to be from Tam Dalyell,
as was often the case, he had a major point to put and actually
never got to put it. Is there any way in which the structure could
address that, or is it simply having to do away with the knives
in entirety?
Mr Heald: I do not agree with
the internal knives except in very rare cases. I do think you
are right that backbenchers and Government backbenchers particularly
lose out in the current system. We would object, given the way
that the programme is negotiated—or not negotiated at the
moment—by the Government, if a lot of Government backbenchers
started standing up, using the precious time in committee, because
at the moment we are being pushed into a position where we are
not getting the time we want, and the last thing we want is a
lot of Government backbenchers standing up, eating even more into
the time that we consider very precious. But if we went back to
the sort of system I am talking about, where it is a much more
consensual, flexible system, then Government backbenchers would
do better as well.
Q203 Chairman: Following up Desmond Swayne's
question, what about the Government party, taking the current
situation, where there are a number of Government members who
take a different view to the party view? Is it not appropriate
and proper that their views should have proper expression?
Mr Heald: Exactly, Mr Chairman;
I could not agree more. That is exactly the opposite of what the
Government is attempting to achieve the whole time. The whole
backcloth of recent important debates on tuition fees, Hutton,
and the local government settlement, was to restrict the amount
of time available for those who did not agree with the Government.
We have actually had the ridiculous situation where almost everybody
wanted to speak on tuition fees, on Hutton and on local government
settlement, and hardly anybody—half the Members who wanted
to speak got a chance on Hutton and on tuition fees. Yet we have
had other days since Christmas where the business has been very
light. I did a rough calculation that we had 14 hours of possible
sitting time that were unused between Christmas and the end of
March, so that was two days of business which were not used; and
yet I had asked for two days' debate on tuition fees and two days'
debate on Hutton, and more time on the local government settlement,
and been told, "oh, no, we are far too busy". It is
Government Members as well as Conservatives and other parties
that are missing out.
Chairman: Are there any colleagues on
the Committee that would like to take up this matter with Mr Heald,
because we have a number of Government backbenchers on this Committee?
Mr McWalter: On the third item that Mr
Heald mentioned, the local government settlement, it is important
to note that all that was heard was the Front Bench spokespersons,
and there were no opportunities at all for backbenchers on either
side to get up.
Q204 Mr Luke: We raised these issues
of special recalls and debates, like Iraq, which the Speaker recommended—and
we have had an investigation into the role of the Speaker on the
basis of the number of people wanting to speak in a specific debate,
to give a recommendation to the Government that there may be more
time needed.
Mr Heald: I do think the Speaker
has a very discreet role. It would be wrong, I think, if we got
our Speaker into the situation that certain other chairman of
proceedings in other Parliaments are in, where essentially they
are part of the fabric of government. It is a marvellous thing
that we have a tradition of an independent Speaker who is not
either the opposition spokesman to the government or the government's
spokesman to the opposition, and is truly independent. I would
not want to interfere with that, so I would be quite careful about
how I did it. I am sure that the Speaker, behind the scenes, tries
to pursue his traditional role on representing the interests of
backbenchers—and he should.
Q205 Chairman: Are you saying that perhaps
discreetly and privately, if in respect say of the Iraq debate
the Speaker had 60 or 70 Members who had indicated their strong
desire to speak, that it should be open to the Speaker privately,
not in any way publicly, to indicate his concern that so few of
those that had wanted to speak were going to get the opportunity
of doing so?
Mr Heald: I think it is useful
if the Speaker can have some discreet discussions with the Leader
of the House.
Q206 David Wright: It is encumbent on
the whips' offices to ensure that they are not whipping in large
numbers of lists of speakers into the Speaker's office. There
needs to be a consensus there between government, opposition and
other parties; that they are not putting undue pressure on the
Speaker in those circumstances. It is a difficult one to manage.
Mr Heald: It is probably less
of a problem for the opposition because there are so few of us
at the moment. Realistically, given that we have to man committees
and perform all the other duties, 160 MPs is a smallish number
for a major opposition party, and I do not think we would be easily
doing that.
Q207 Chairman: Would you also translate
the view that you have expressed about the role of the Speaker,
which is very critical to our democratic parliamentary system,
to be extended in committee situations to the role of chairman?
They are generally joint chairmen, and again they are entirely
impartial. It is important to emphasise that once they are appointed
to chair a standing committee, they take no further part in the
debate on that bill, including third reading. Do you think that
your views on the Speaker might be translated to—
Mr Heald: If the sort of proposal
that the Clerk was putting forward, that if a debate is obviously
of interest to members of a committee and is continuing, then
there should be the possibility for some limited overtime, which
is within the discretion of the chairman, then I think that is
a sensible idea.
Q208 Mr Atkinson: Turning to the power
of the programming sub-committee, do you think that if it could
recommend changes in out-date or recommend more time in the report
stage, that would be a useful tool; or do you think the same thing
could be done just as effectively by the usual channels?
Mr Heald: If you are going to
programme a bill, then there is no harm at all in having a programming
sub-committee. I think it would be useful if there were minutes
available for the formal part of the proceedings so that everybody
could refer to them. Once you have agreed a programme, then why
not have a programming sub-committee? However, I do not think
they are necessary for most bills.
Q209 Mr Luke: There has hardly ever been
a programming committee for the report stage of a bill. In your
submission you make the point there may be a case for delaying
the sitting of a programming committee until amendments have been
tabled. How would you see that in practice being put into effect?
Mr Heald: At the moment, the Opposition
tend to try and manage the report stage by putting their new clauses
down that deal with their main issues, in an order which suits
the Opposition, at a very early stage. That means that you do
not really need a programming committee in those cases. However,
one of the problems is that the Government can slam down a huge
number of amendments, and then you are scuppered because you have
lost the chance to have your new clauses and the Government goes
first. It is helpful to good order if the Government can get themselves
better organised from the start and not produce large numbers
of amendments. I also think it is quite impossible to programme
a bill using a programming committee system unless you know what
the amendments are and how they have been selected. The point
I was making was that unless there is a provisional selection,
which there has not always been with programming committees, it
is quite impossible to do any programming. My view is that the
date when the amendments should be down should be earlier, and
you should then have your programming committee if necessary.
My third point is that the Government should, where possible,
not put down huge numbers of amendments. There have been some
absolute stinkers over recent years. The Criminal Justice Bill,
which started in 2002-03 Session, went into committee for 32 sessions;
it came out, and then at report the Government put down 500 amendments
and 28 new clauses. Of course, it made it very, very difficult
for the Opposition to get any sort of say at all.
Q210 Mr Luke: To make that work effectively
you would need to set an earlier deadline for amendments tabled.
Mr Heald: Exactly. I support that.
Q211 Chairman: How can you do that, Mr
Heald, if a bill is making steady progress and outside organisations
that need to make representations to government or to opposition
parties, whether it is Her Majesty's opposition or other opposition
parties? How can you get amendments down earlier?
Mr Heald: The secret is to have
a long enough gap between committee and report to have time to
play with; and then you also need to be able to advertise the
final date for amendments in a very clear and straightforward
way. I would have thought that we should look at our website and
the ways in which we publicise what we do. As you know, Mr Chairman,
the Modernisation Committee has been looking at that. I think
that publicising the final date for amendments for the report
stage of a bill and for committee as well would be a useful thing
to do.
Q212 Chairman: If, as you have indicated,
the Government itself can come back to a bill at report stage,
tabling 500 amendments and 28 new clauses, is that feasible?
Mr Heald: It makes it almost impossible
if that happens. It is something that should not happen. Sadly,
even though we have been saying this for some time—and my
predecessor—indeed Angela Browning and Eric Forth took a
very strong view on this—only recently with the Planning
Bill, at a very late stage, we had a whole new section of the
Bill added at report; so it is still going on.
Q213 Chairman: Can I ask you this question,
as somebody committed to the role of backbenchers in this place.
Very often, somebody who is interested in a bill and the issues
behind that bill will not be called at second reading. Their chances
of getting on to the committee if they did not speak during second
reading is less than if they did participate in the second reading
debate; and the only opportunity they get to contribute to an
important bill which may have considerable implications for their
own constituency or their own region is at the report stage or
remaining stages. Do you believe that it is appropriate, in the
interests of good legislation and democracy, that programming
be applied to remaining stages, the report stage of legislation?
Mr Heald: No, I think it is something
that should be used very sparingly. You are absolutely right,
Chairman, that if you think about some of the bills like the recent
Higher Education Funding Bill, where there was huge interest in
the House and a pretty rigid guillotine, backbenchers have not
had their fair say. It is the reason you come here, obviously,
to be able to represent constituents' interests and speak in major
debates. If it is very vigorously curtailed by a guillotine, you
cannot do that.
Q214 David Wright: I was one of the few
Members who attended all or most of the sessions in the Planning
Bill, and there were so few of us that we hung our anoraks up
in the cloakroom before going in there! In some senses, that Bill
is a poor example because the Government has spent a long time
on it. Is not the key to this problem, draft bills and more effective
pre-legislative scrutiny? That is the way in which you get organisations
to contribute more effectively and bring forward their views.
They can potentially table the amendments that can be used by
opposition or indeed by government backbenchers at a very early
stage.
Mr Heald: I am very strongly supportive
of pre-legislative scrutiny and always have been. I am glad that
the Government is increasing the number of bills they subject
to it. It is worth remembering, however, that you cannot amend
the bill when you are doing pre-legislative scrutiny, and there
can still be an important role for the standing committee stage
where you can make changes to the bill. I also like the idea of
more on-line pre-legislative scrutiny, where experts in particular
fields, bodies with an interest, can give us the benefit of their
views. With the Communications Bill, I understand it worked extremely
well to have an on-line facility, and I would like to see more
of that, properly moderated by the Hansard Society.
Q215 Mr Swayne: Do you accept that effective
pre-legislative scrutiny does not necessarily reduce the time
required at committee because members, both backbench and frontbench,
will be better informed as a consequence of scrutiny and they
may well have more to say?
Mr Heald: I do agree with that.
I have just been doing the Civil Contingencies Bill, because I
am also the spokesman on the Cabinet Office. That Bill had had
a lot of pre-legislative scrutiny and we had eight very full sessions
on it. The advantage of it is that the debates are much better
focused, and you are making points that the minister has had the
opportunity of researching through the pre-legislative process;
therefore, you get a much better debate. Sadly, we have not been
able to agree on six points that we still think are vitally important.
It has certainly improved the quality of the scrutiny.
Q216 Chairman: Therefore, it is better
legislation when it comes for Queen's assent.
Mr Heald: I am hoping that Douglas
Alexander will agree my remaining six points, and then I would
assent to that completely.
Chairman: I cannot make any comment from
the Chair.
Q217 David Wright: I want to touch briefly
on the issue of second and third reading. It seems to me that
one of the problems with this House is that for an enormous bill,
one day is allocated to second reading, and for a small bill one
day is allocated for second reading. We need to look at the time
we are giving to second-reading debates on major pieces of legislation.
There is no reason why we cannot have a two-day debate on second
reading, and also on third reading. You say within your material
that you think adequate time should be allocated to third reading.
How would you define "adequate"? Is that on the basis
of the size of the bill or the number of amendments that have
been made? Ultimately, third reading is a bit of a final nod,
is it not, so how would you see time splitting on second reading?
Mr Heald: On second reading, I
think there are very few bills that do not warrant a day, and
I think that more bills warrant two days than currently get them.
As regards third reading, I think an hour is the minimum. That
is my overall view.
Q218 Chairman: That is not really a very
good answer because David Wright asked what you considered to
be adequate time, not the minimum.
Mr Heald: With a really substantial
bill with a number of issues involved, I believe you need more
than an hour, but there are a lot of bills that do not fall into
that category. Obviously, there are about 40 a year, so you could
go through dividing them into two categories: those that should
have more than an hour; and those that should have an hour.
Q219 Chairman: This is all about programming
for Parliament and about parliamentarians and the main parties
sitting down and looking at the legislative programme for the
coming parliamentary session, deciding what are the key bills
and how much time should be allocated for each bill, and having
a more consensual approach on that basis and agreeing where we
can reduce time on bills where there is broad agreement. On the
Civil Contingencies Bill there may be five or six points you are
hoping to get the Government to change its mind on, but I do not
think there is any feeling across the House that we should not
have that Bill. I think it is about better management of time
and a better session programme.
Mr Heald: We do not feel that
there is too much wrong with the overall structure of the annual
round of legislation. We have a very good working relationship
in relation to that with the Government. Our arguments tend to
be over the more immediate issues. In terms of the year as a whole,
the Chief Whip and the Government Chief Whip do not have a problem.
I have a very good relationship with the Leader of the House and
I am not unhappy with that. I would have thought that there was
not really much need to change the way we do the overall picture,
with one exception: I strongly believe that the Government should
produce a full list of its bills and intended draft bills at the
beginning of the year. This year, we have had an absolute farce,
with Peter Hain saying that if I could guess what draft bills
he was going to put forward, then he would agree that that was
one of them. We therefore had a guessing game for about a week,
trying to work out which draft bills were going to go ahead. I
do not see any reason why the Government at the time of the Queen's
speech should not put out a document that simply lists the bills
they intend to take forward, and the draft bills they intend to
put forward for pre-leg. We would all then accept that they might
want to change it as the year goes on, but there are not many
businesses where you do not have an annual agenda.
| 
