Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-312)
19 MAY 2004
RT HON
PETER HAIN
AND MR
PHIL WOOLAS
Q300 David Hamilton: Before I ask the
final question, the Deputy Leader gave some answers a while ago
on the interests of minority parties. One of the answers you gave,
the base line, was that in cases where you have afforded the minority
parties positions in committees on many occasions they have not
taken them up. Could we have the evidence of that, Chairman, because
I think that is an extremely important issue in relation to this
report. Would it be possible to give examples of that?
Mr Woolas: Yes. It is very frustrating.
It is quite legitimate for the minority parties to ask for places
but if that comes about, in the case of a nationalist party, because
there is a particular part of the Bill which is affecting Scotland
or Wales, then they will often come just for that part of the
Bill and they may say that is quite reasonable, but from my point
of view it is never reasonable if I have had to refuse another
Member who may equally have a constituency reason or a general
interest in that Bill, and of course the only option in that case
is to increase the size of the Standing Committee, which then
puts pressure on back-benchers right across the House. I have
not got figures with me, but I could get some if that would help.
Chairman: If you could provide the Committee
with some, at your earliest convenience, that would be most helpful.
Q301 Sir Robert Smith: To be fair, you
probably should look at the major parties and whether they turn
up—
Mr Woolas: Those figures are available.
I am not particularly directing my remarks at Liberal Democrats.
Sir Robert Smith: No, although I am sure
at times we are equally guilty. I am just thinking in my experience
of Standing Committees or other committees of the House, all parties
at the moment seem to find it difficult to turn up.
Q302 David Hamilton: I appreciate the
comments of my colleagues but it was in specific terms in relation
to how the Liberals did not represent them in the first place
and that was how the discussion came about. It was a specific
issue because they have raised on the floor of the House on a
number of occasions about the unfairness in terms of being dealt
with and other parties are not doing that. That is why I think
it is important. Can I come to the final part of our questions.
At the end of the last session, only two Bills were carried over
to this session. Are you envisaging any carry-over Bills from
this session? How many are we looking at?
Mr Hain: I am envisaging some.
We have agreed the Constitutional Reform Bill will be carried
over in the Lords from this session to the next, and it may well
be that other Bills are introduced in the Commons for carry-over
and we are still making decisions on that. My prediction at the
moment is that there will be Bills introduced for carry-over.
Q303 David Hamilton: I think you have
answered this question already, is the scope for carry-over of
more Bills inhibited by the current restrictions on the procedure?
It is only applicable to Commons Bills in the House of Commons
of course.
Mr Hain: You obviously have to
get agreement on this, it is not something which Government can
just do. In October 2002, the House agreed a temporary Standing
Order with effect for the current Parliament only providing for
the carry-over of Bills. So there is an issue about this. I very
much saw this as part of the first step of a rolling programme
for legislation in the way I was describing earlier, and I myself
would like to see this become a permanent feature of the Standing
Orders rather than a temporary one.
Q304 David Hamilton: You obviously acknowledge
there is a danger, if you move Bills from one session to another,
rolling back, by the time you get to the last session in Government
you end up with a free-for-all because you might have several
Bills which have pushed the agenda back.
Mr Hain: I am well aware of that.
Q305 Chairman: You do personally believe
that carry-over should be by consensus if at all possible, and
you are not seeking to remove the current restriction, namely—and
I think David Hamilton referred to it—that Bills can only
be carried over if they are Commons Bills still in the House of
Commons? Am I correct? Are you in favour, albeit there is a Standing
Order which would give you authority to do it even without consensus,
subject to this restriction, do you believe it is best to have
consensus in respect of the carry-over of Bills?
Mr Hain: I always think it is
best to achieve consensus in the management of Government business,
and that applies to carry-over as well. I think we have to be
aware that the Opposition, whatever colour it is, sees the sessional
cut-off as a control on the Government and an opportunity to make
mischief or stop things it does not like, so you need to have
a sense of balance about this. On the whole, whether it is a Bill
carried over from the House of Lords into the Commons, as will
happen on the Constitutional Reform Bill, or whether it is other
Bills going the other way, I think there is a big advantage, not
just from the point of view of Government but from the point of
view of Parliament because it does also encourage better legislation.
Q306 Chairman: Are you then suggesting
to this Committee that you intend to change the Standing Order
that relates to the restriction that it can only be Bills which
are Commons Bills still in the Commons, because of course the
Constitutional Reform Bill started in the other place, did it
not?
Mr Hain: Yes, it did.
Q307 Chairman: So this is a House of
Lords Bill which would therefore not be able to be carried forward
unless you changed Standing Orders.
Mr Hain: No.
Q308 Chairman: The Lords could do it,
of course, but I believe we could not do it, could we?
Mr Hain: I think you can carry-over—
Q309 Chairman: If it is still in the
Lords, of course, it has nothing to do with us, we accept that.
Mr Hain: As I understand it, you
can carry-over Bills in the second House by agreement, and that
is I think an ad hoc motion of the House which is open
to the House to consider, and that is happening with the Constitutional
Reform Bill. It is in the Lords at the moment, it is coming from
the Lords here rather than from the Commons the other way. I think
there are other Bills in that position as well.
Q310 Chairman: I am grateful for that
clarification because it is complex.
Mr Hain: I do not have any plans
to change the Standing Order at the moment. I think it is a sensible
way to manage business, for carry-over to continue.
Q311 Chairman: Although for Opposition
parties—and this is really the last observation rather than
question and no doubt you will wish to comment or respond—the
sessional cut-off is a democratic safeguard. To an extent, carrying
forward, carry-over, does further undermine the ability of Opposition
parties to frustrate the Government of the day.
Mr Hain: Perhaps, but I think
you could look at this both ways. Some of the Bills which are
in front of me for possible introduction and carry-over which
were not in the Queen's Speech for that course of action I think
would be Bills that the Opposition will welcome.
Q312 Chairman: If I may say, Leader of
the House, that is a very constructive and positive note upon
which to finish. We have had a very long session this afternoon.
As you will have seen, members have drifted in and out and back
again but on behalf of all members who have been here today can
I thank you for the very valuable evidence which you and your
deputy have given to the Committee. That evidence will weigh very
heavily with us when we come to consider our report which clearly
will be not only important to you, as Leader of the House, but
to the House as a whole. So can I say to the Leader of the House
and the Deputy, thank you very much for your evidence and thank
you for giving us so generously of your time.
Mr Hain: Thank you.
| 
