You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Commons Select Committees > Procedure > Procedure

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 325-iii

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

PROCEDURE COMMITTEE

 

PROGRAMMING OF LEGISLATION

 

Wednesday 10 March 2004

BARBARA FOLLETT MP and RT HON ERIC FORTH MP

Evidence heard in Public Questions 87 - 138

 

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.

2.

Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

3.

Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.

4.

Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

 

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Procedure Committee

on Wednesday 10 March 2004

Members present

Sir Nicholas Winterton, in the Chair

Mr John Burnett

Mr Eric Illsley

Mr Tony McWalter

Sir Robert Smith

Mr Desmond Swayne

David Wright

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Rt Hon Eric Forth, a Member of the House and Barbara Follett. a Member of the House, examined.

Q87 Chairman: May I welcome two very eminent and colourful members of the House of Commons who have come to give evidence - and I do not say that just because Eric Forth, the former Shadow Leader of the House, is renowned for his colourful ties or for that matter that Barbara Follett is well known for her colourful remarks, but we do welcome both colleagues to the inquiry we are undertaking today into programming of legislation. On behalf of my colleagues, may I welcome you both. As is the prerogative of the Chairman of the Committee, I will be asking the first two questions. Could I put it to our witnesses whom we warmly welcome that it appears there is a fundamental difference of view between those who seek to divide up the time available in an agreed manner and those who view programming as a method of eliminating the opposition's power of delay. I put this question to both our witnesses: Do you see any way of reconciling those two views; that is, of those who seek to divide up time available in an acceptable and agreed manner and those who view the whole process of programming, guillotining, time allocation as a method of eliminating the opposition's ability and power to delay?

Mr Forth: Thank you very much, Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity of giving evidence to your Committee. If I may be slightly expansive in what I say initially, to try to set the scene from my perspective, I think everything in this rests on the assumptions that one makes about the relative roles of government and opposition in the legislative process and particularly in standing committees. If one assumes, as I do, that in our system of parliamentary government where the government has, by definition, a majority and where it is the government's legislative programme that is being scrutinised by parliament, I believe it is of the utmost importance for the effectiveness of that process that it is the opposition which essentially has the dominant hand in determining how much time will be spent in committee. My contention is that this was largely the case, certainly from the time I came into this House in 1983 and through the 1980s and 1990s, and what happened then, from my recollection - and, indeed, Chairman, from yours, going back much further than that - is that after the second reading of a bill, when the bill was then consigned to standing committee, there was no specified time limit on the deliberations of the committee. It was for the Opposition to decide, essentially, the pace of the committee and what was and was not considered. It was only after the expiration of a very considerable period of time - and, from memory, that was as much as 150 hours in committee for a large and complex bill; latterly perhaps down to 100 hours - that the Government would use its majority and say, "Enough, already. We really must bring this to a conclusion," and would introduce a guillotine motion which would then start to limit the amount of time. But notice that up until that point it was the Opposition which had the whip hand; it was the Opposition which determined the pace of the committee and which parts of the bill would get more consideration than others. To my mind that was right and that was crucial. My objection to what is happening now is that the Government decides from the outset, before the committee has even sat, how much time will be allocated by the Government to the committee to scrutinise a bill. That is a very fundamental change in the conduct of parliamentary scrutiny of the bill. Whereas on the one hand the Opposition largely determined how long they spent - rightly so, in my view - giving time for outside interests to make their representations, giving time for due deliberation to be made; now we have the Government deciding how much time it will allow the House or its standing committee to deliberate on a bill. That is my fundamental objection to programming. That is why I think it is dangerous and counterproductive to the parliamentary process.

Q88 Chairman: Thank you, Mr Forth. May I pass that question immediately to Barbara Follett.

Barbara Follett: Thank you, Sir Nicholas, and thank you too for giving me the opportunity to give evidence here - and, forgive me, I have had laryngitis, so I have a croak rather than a voice here. I came into this House in 1997. The first bill committee that I sat on was the Minimum Wage Bill. That bill committee is famous for having had the longest session of any bill ever in this House: 36 hours, in which we sat without a break. Because Labour obviously had a majority, we could go out and have the occasional wash, but none of us looked very salubrious by the end of those 36 hours. A day later we had a 24-hour sitting when a very similar thing happened on the Employment Relations Bill. I think those two incidences formed a lot of the Government's thinking, were the basis of the Government's thinking. Because I can tell you, having sat through the Minimum Wage Bill, that a great deal of what was happening on the opposition side was just good old-fashioned filibustering. You should hear John Bercow on the subject of tipping! To me it will remain, 'til my dying day, extremely interesting, but it was not relevant to what we were discussing. I understand entirely what Mr Forth is saying but the Opposition - and I include my own party in this - have not always used that prerogative responsibly. It is a bit like asking the press to self-regulate. Some of us have borne the brunt of that lack of regulation when it seems to break down. In an ideal world, I would prefer it to be a consensus between government and opposition - it is a much fairer system - but I am not entirely sure how we arrive at it. Because of the adversarial nature of this Place - and I completely understand it and quite enjoy it - we are always pushing things not to a consensus but to a cut off and this has become one of the adversarial issues. However, I do think it is time we sat down and talked about it, because we have tended to make decisions, on either side, by fiat if we are in government. I think it is time that we talked about it. Perhaps we could have guillotines that came down if the opposition seemed to be filibustering. But can you imagine whichever party it was having to defend their right to talk about tipping for seven and a half hours on the basis that it was relevant? We are caught up in a game, almost, which I think we need to drop. I have just come off the Fire and Rescue Services Bill and I was on the Planning Bill. The Planning Bill is a wonderful example of programming gone awry and I think, having been on that bill, we need to have another look at how we do it. But, I am very sorry, I do not have a specific answer, except - and you might say this is a very girlie answer and Ms Greer will have me for this - that we have to talk about this and try to work something out or the usual channels do.

Q89 Chairman: I am very grateful to Ms Follett for that reply because, by implication, you are indicating that, while programming may be necessary, it is not working, mainly because there is inadequate discussion between government and opposition over how time should be allocated. I was rather interested that you made reference to the Fire Services and Rescue Standing Committee, which I had the privilege of chairing as one of the two chairmen, and we actually completed that bill, with all the clauses, all the schedules and all the new clauses being debated - albeit we did it in, if I may use the phrase, the nick of time.

Barbara Follett: That leads me on to something. Chairing is also very important. On that bill - and I think that was the first time I have had the pleasure of being in a committee that was chaired by you - I did enjoy it because you moved us all along, impartially. As soon as people waffled and went off the point, you were on to them. That does not always happen. I think we have to be far more firm in our chairing of standing committees.

Chairman: I can only express some appreciation of your generous comments. But, David, do you want to come in?

Q90 David Wright: I am probably being a little naughty now because I am going to try to bring one of my questions forward, but it follows on from what Barbara Follett has said - and I would be interested to hear Eric Forth's views as well - about the general programming of the government's business over a parliamentary session. My feeling is that you probably do not have enough dialogue early in a session after the Queen's Speech about when the government is going to bring through particular bills. One of the hobby-horses I have had in this Committee is that certain bills on second reading deserve two or three days' consideration on the floor of the House - because most bills at the moment get one afternoon's consideration on second reading in the House. Some of the most contentious bills need a two- or three-day sitting on the floor of the House, in my view, at second reading. Do you agree with that? Do you agree that we need to have a better dialogue between the parties about which bills can move through the House quickly, maybe at the start or, indeed, at the very end of the session, to maximise time on the most contentious bills in the core weeks of a parliamentary session.

Barbara Follett: I agree entirely with what you are saying, Mr Wright. Particularly as a Labour backbencher, who is not a privy councillor or anything, if I want to speak on a contentious bill I do not have a great deal of chance. I think honourable members should get a chance to express their opinions or their constituents' opinions, so more time on the floor of the House I would welcome. I also think that dialogue is essential. You have to bring in the smaller parties as well, the smaller opposition parties, because occasionally they will have a sticking point, but we should have a period of time after the Queen's Speech when we discuss which bills are going to get perhaps lengthier attention but we should also have a certain amount of flexibility built in.

Q91 Chairman: Thank you. Eric Forth, I am sure you have something to contribute to that question.

Mr Forth: If there is any lack of debating time at second readings, then it is only that the Government wants it that way, frankly. The Government has so much time now in the Commons that it could give lots more to almost any measure. When one considers how much one-line business we now have on Thursdays for people who want to disappear from here, we are now getting towards a two-day a week parliament, with people arriving late on a Monday and leaving either on a Wednesday evening or a Thursday. Now, that is up to them, I say, but they must not then complain that they do not get the chance to participate. Because the truth is that in a lot of debates now the chamber is almost empty and people can walk in and speak if they wish to, so I really do not have very much sympathy for people, even on the Government's side, with a large majority. I suffered the same fate back in the eighties, when I was a government backbencher, when we had a majority of 140, and one just took one's chances. And back then I remember being told, "If you're lucky you'll get to speak in a debate in the chamber four times a year." That was your allocation and one accepted that. That was the way it was. So I am afraid I entirely blame the Government on this occasion because, if members feel that not enough time is given to second readings, I would recommend it is raised at the PLP and that Labour members in particular say to their betters, "Why don't you give us more debating time?" because frankly there is so much spare time in the House of Commons now you can do it any time you like.

Q92 Chairman: Do you think, therefore - to an extent I think Barbara Follett has reflected this - there is inadequate discussion between government and opposition when a new bill is introduced over how much time there should be allocated to standing committee and report, remaining stages and third reading?

Mr Forth: I think that is a dream world, because, where you have a prime minister, in particular, or a government who are not really interested in the parliamentary process, in fact are rather hostile to it, no amount of cosy discussions or consensus seeking is going to make any difference. Because the attitude of the Government, generally speaking, is that you have a manifesto, you win an election and, frankly, after that, all this parliamentary stuff is really a bit of an irritation and a waste of time: We don't want debate; we really don't see why we should vote because we win them all anyway. I do not mind people dreaming about a consensual world in which some arrangement is made about lots of time, but I am not sure that is where the Government starts or, indeed, wants to finish.

Q93 Chairman: Take it from me, the Committee which I have the honour of chairing is not inclined to support that view. We believe that parliament has an important role and in this inquiry we are trying to ensure that backbenchers and the House of Commons are able to do the job which people elect people to do here as members of parliament.

Mr Forth: I hope you call the Prime Minister to give evidence because he is at the root of all this. I think you should examine the Prime Minister's attitude to parliament and to the parliamentary process.

Q94 David Wright: The point I was trying to drive at is that clearly in any government's programme there is going to be a number of bills that the opposition can sign up to that ... Take the Traffic Management Bill, for example, on most of the elements of the Traffic Management Bill - I sat on the Committee for that bill - the Opposition was supportive. Therefore, surely we can come to an agreement where the opposition are going to say, "Right, okay, this bill is largely acceptable - apart from, say, 10 or 20 per cent of it which we will thrash out on the floor of the House and in committee. We will accept that we will spend much less time on this bill and we will try to maximise time on others." That seems to be perfectly reasonable.

Mr Forth: No. Absolutely not. Because that makes the arrogant assumption that we all know at second reading how much of the bill is contentious or not and how much time it requires. The whole point of the scrutiny process, if it is done properly, is that when the bill gets into standing committee outside interest groups by then have had a chance to examine it and to make their representations, others have had a chance to consider whether what they thought was all right now is not any more, and very often during the process of examination, the tabling of amendments and so on, it is discovered, perhaps, that the bill is not as we thought it was or has inadequacies or has problems. Indeed, very often - as the Committee will know, Sir Nicholas - it emerges during that process that the government has to bring forward a large number of amendments. And, since we are swapping anecdotes about chairing committees, Sir Nicholas, in the one I have recently chaired the Government brought forward a huge swathe of amendments which radically altered the bill halfway through the standing committee. That can happen as well, so I do not accept that even on a bill which apparently is consensual and apparently is uncontentious we should then minimise the time for scrutiny in standing committee. That denies the whole process of scrutiny and, most importantly, input from outside interests.

Chairman: Thank you. I am going to call Eric Illsley and then I will bring Barbara Follett back in again

Q95 Mr Illsley: The point Eric Forth made about the present Government ignoring parliament and that parliament is a little bit of a headache after we have won the election with a large majority, how do you reconcile that with the introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny on draft bills, where this Government have actually produced bills a year before they come before the House to allow for outside influences to comment and for members to consider those bills.

Mr Forth: So? I would say: So? I mean, it is fine as far as it goes but it should not alter or in any way prejudice the proper parliamentary process that then follows, because one of the other things we have to remember, Sir Nicholas, is the totality of the parliamentary process - and, by the way, I take the blame for this, but we have perhaps been concentrating excessively on standing committee stage. Let's not forget report and third reading, where, crucially, members who have not been privileged to be on the standing committee should have an opportunity to participate, and we are finding that report and third reading stages are now being truncated to an alarming degree as well. You can have as much pre-legislative scrutiny as you like - and I welcome it and all that - but, frankly - and one of the things that I think the Government will learn to its cost - one of the things that happens during pre-legislative scrutiny is that people learn more and more about the bill and its weaknesses and why it may not necessarily be a very good thing, and it may, indeed, lengthen the proper scrutiny process of the parliamentary stages rather than reduce it.

Q96 Mr Illsley: But the point is the Government is still having that amount of time to deal with it. It is not as though the Government have simply said, "You can have this bill and it is going to go through a short committee stage." By having a draft bill it extends the time ----

Mr Forth: No, it does not extend the time - not the time I am talking about, not the proper parliamentary scrutiny time. In any case, relatively few bills go through pre-legislative scrutiny. It is a diversion. It is something that Leaders of the House like to bring up and flourish, saying, "Isn't this good?" My answer is, "Only as far as it goes, but I don't think it alters the argument at all."

Q97 Chairman: Before David comes back, could we perhaps ask Barbara Follett to comment.

Barbara Follett: My point was going to be similar to Eric Illsley's. I think draft legislation coming in for scrutiny has been an immense help. Eric Forth is talking about the fact that sometimes, when the public realise what is in the bill, when parliamentarians realise what is in the bill, the government have to change what is in the bill and there is a great deal of heat and light generated. I prefer that to happen in the pre-legislative period, because then you can concentrate just on the legislative side of it, but perhaps in the pre-legislative period we can also start flagging up which areas are going to need a great deal of discussion and more parliamentary time. Perhaps at that point there could be discussion on both sides, with the usual channels, of how much time should be devoted to it. Or the select committee that does the pre-legislative scrutiny could recommend.

Q98 Chairman: Could I come in again because I think what Barbara Follett has said is very important. Do you think there should be more meaningful consultation and discussion between the government and government usual channels and opposition parties and their usual channels over the time that it will need to take to bring legislation before the House?

Barbara Follett: Absolutely.

Chairman: Thank you.

Q99 David Wright: I wanted to pick up on the one point that Mr Forth made about pre-legislative scrutiny. One of the issues that you raised was about the opportunities for outside bodies through a committee stage to make representations. Would you acknowledge that one of the advantages of the pre-legislative scrutiny process is that you can actually call in expert witnesses? You can actually bring in people to talk directly about legislation through that stage, which obviously is not open during the committee stage when you are looking at members of parliament to represent groups. So there is a positive about that process, is there not?

Mr Forth: Yes. Of course there is, and I welcome that, but let's not get too carried away with it, because there is, in that stage, no opportunity, formally or definitively, to amend the bill. Just as a word of caution, I think it is fair to say, Sir Nicholas, with the greatest of respect to your Committee, that not everybody here has experienced standing committees where a government has a very small majority. You will recall, Sir Nicholas, that there is a very big difference between a standing committee as now composed, as we have had it since 1997, and the exciting days that you and I recall when standing committees only had a majority of one on the government side. And at that point it becomes very important as to what each member thinks and does, and the representations that are made and the fact that amendments can be made in standing committee that the government do not necessarily want. I know what is going on here, Sir Nicholas - I am not fooled at all! - that the Government, with all this sleight of hand with the pre-legislative scrutiny, the three-card trick, is trying to get more legislation through in each session - and they have already tried to fiddle this one by carryover or rollover at the end of the session. That will end in tears, I predict - I am not going to tell your Committee how because I would not want to give it away to the Government, but they are not going to get away with it in the totality of a parliament. But I know what is going on that is, "If we can move this all around - pre-legislative scrutiny, less time in standing committee, get these second readings through in a day, cut down report and third readings - hey! What's the result? We're getting more bills through every year!" - which is what a government obsessed with legislation wants to do.

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 Laws 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 mollification.

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 hearing, 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 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?

Q120 Mr Swayne: Yes, within the programming.

Barbara Follett: I know that the minority parties would say that they are not catered for because I have heard them say this. I do not have any particular experience of it, but they definitely feel that. With backbenchers - Mr Forth is completely right - at the moment the average number of times a Labour backbencher can hope to speak is about 4.5 or 5 times a year. And I really do not mind: you then decide where you are going to use that limit. But sometimes, when your constituents feel very strongly about something, it is a problem. I know that some changes have been made to how people are called but in fact they are still called really in hierarchical fashion. The system does not, I do not think, work terribly well for backbenchers, but I do not really know how to make it work better.

Q121 Mr Swayne: Might I suggest a programme to educate backbenchers and, indeed, the spokesmen of minority parties as to how they table amendments to secure the head of a group and then they will be called first.

Barbara Follett: That is true.

Mr Forth: I think there is always a difficulty in a parliament of 650-odd - sometimes very odd! - members, where 610 of them belong to the three major parties. It is very difficult for us to find a satisfactory way to cater for the other 40 members who are distributed over, what, seven or eight parties, including one very distinguished independent member of parliament currently - and one whipless one as well, now that we are mentioning it! How you cater for that diversity is the real problem. I do not think we have ever really got round to tackling it. Even picking up the consensus dreamer's point and saying, "Can't we all sit round in a cosy sort of consensus and hash these things out?" again it is difficult to see how you could resolve these sort of numbers in that respect - because, with the governing party with 400 out of 600 and something, and the main opposition party with a paltry 160, how do you deal with the Scottish Nationalists or Plaid Cymru or the SDLP?

Q122 Chairman: Ulster Unionists?

Mr Forth: I will not go through the whole list, Sir Nicholas, but I think this is a very real problem. For a long time, as I recall, the Liberal Democrats were given the responsibility to speak on behalf of the so-called minority parties. That broke down because I think in the end even they were not, it was felt, able satisfactorily to represent that interest because putting together all the minorities in one did not do justice to each of the minorities. So I do not have an answer to it. I think what Mr Swayne has said is a positive suggestion but I think in our parliament it is difficult to cater for these small minorities when you have such an overwhelming number from the major parties.

Mr McWalter: Order B currently sets out a provision of having a programme committee for report stage and third reading. In practice, the provisions of Order B are disapplied unless there is a committee of the whole House, so you do not actually get a programming committee to allocate the time for those stages. You have both indicated - and we are grateful for that - in response to earlier questions, that you think actually those later stages are more important than currently they are evaluated as being. Do you think the Programme Committee could have a role in trying to ensure that there is an appropriate portion of time and that it does give members, particularly those who have not had an opportunity to speak at second reading or at standing committee, an opportunity to contribute to the formation of the bill?

Q123 Chairman: Tony McWalter has asked a very serious and, I think, a very, very sensitive and important question.

Barbara Follett: I am inclined to say yes, much as I do not like over-regulating situations, but just because of the problems that Desmond Swayne raised, we do have to give chances for the multitude of views there are in this House. I would just like to correct Eric Forth: there are two whipless ones at the moment. Mr Galloway.

Mr Forth: Ah!

Barbara Follett: We have to make sure they are heard and their points of view heard, so I think there is a case for it. But it is something we would have to approach with extreme caution.

Q124 Mr McWalter: The Member for Bromley does not like programming of committees, so presumably he is going to think that there is no role for the Programme Committee, even though it is trying to achieve an end with which I suspect he would agree.

Mr Forth: How well you know me, sir!

Q125 Chairman: You had better answer him, Mr Forth.

Mr Forth: Yes, I had better.

Q126 Mr McWalter: I have been entertained by you many times.

Mr Forth: Mr McWalter is half right. I will concede that the existence of the programming sub-committees is a step in the right direction, in that it provides a vehicle potentially for discussion and debate, and that does happen. One is aware of that. But let's not forget, Sir Nicholas, in the end the government has a majority. In our parliamentary system, the government always has a majority and the government will always get its way. Therefore, in that sense, I do not think we should look too much to the Programming Sub-Committee process to resolve many of these problems because, quite simply, in the end the government will decide and it will have its way. I think we can say that they are an attempt to move us forward, and on some bills and with the chemistry between some members they will achieve a result, but I do not think they are the answer because, in the end, if there is a government determination to push a bill through in a particular time, at whatever stage, the government will have its way anyway.

Q127 Mr Illsley: Just to come back to the suggestion I think, Eric, you made in your submission, that programming is squeezing the amount of time that outside bodies have to input into a committee stage of the bill, could I ask for a comment from you both on how we can enhance that or protect it under the programming system. Do you think it is the case that outside bodies are getting less time? Other than, say, the special standing committee or the draft and pre-legislative scrutiny, is there any way we can maintain that outside input into a committee stage?

Mr Forth: My contention would be not whilst the system at the moment is determined to constrain standing committee time to the extent it now is. Committees are now shockingly brief compared to what they used to be, and of course I concede that in the old days a lot of time was wasted by filibustering - and, frankly, low-grade filibustering, Sir Nicholas, if I may say so: I like to see a bit of quality filibustering, but the low grade stuff is pretty offensive! If one just thinks in one's mind through the process - putting aside pre-legislative scrutiny for the moment, and I fully concede that that is or should be an opportunity for a very full consultation of legitimate outside interests and I would welcome that - once one gets into the parliamentary stage, if you get a fairly rapid succession between the first reading of a bill, its second reading debate, moving into standing committee, very brief standing committee and so on, then the opportunity for government backbenchers/opposition members to consult with the interest groups, to receive their possible draft amendments, to have the debate in committee, see the amendments debated and so on, becomes very limited indeed. And my fear is that, at worst, that may either discourage the outside groups from wanting to take legitimate part in the parliamentary process and/or it may shunt their participation from the Commons to the Lords. If members of the Committee are satisfied or relaxed about the burden of the parliamentary scrutiny and consultation process going to their Lordships' House, that is a very interesting and very important decision to make. But if we, as members of this House of Commons, want to continue to regard our role as being prime, then I think we have to look at all this very seriously indeed.

Barbara Follett: I think our role should be prime, and is prime. We have to make sure that we guard it - which is why I am glad that this Committee is conducting this investigation. I think Mr Illsley's question is a very good one because this is rather difficult to do. I suspect it was difficult well before programming came in because governments of any kind want to move their legislation through fairly quickly: with or without programming, they have to get it all through by the summer or all through by Easter. I think that we probably have to look to pre-legislative scrutiny for most of the input. For example, the Housing Bill, had an enormous amount of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I have not looked at the amendments recently but there were not as many as usual on a bill of that size and of that interest because they had had so many representations beforehand. I think there are going to be one or two things that are suddenly thrown up, but with firms and with interest groups now employing lobbyists who look ahead, look at what the Queen's Speech is going to bring - I am already getting lobbied on potential legislation in the next Queen's Speech, stuff which, frankly, I had not even realised we were going to think about, and probably we are not or possibly we are not - people are ahead of the game. I think we are probably going to have to look at front-ending for a lot of that consultation process, with only one or two bigger glitches coming up later. I know this is a difference between how Mr Forth and I look at it.

Q128 Chairman: Could I pose a simple question to both of you (again, a yes or no answer): Is it your view that successive governments have sought to put through too much legislation?

Mr Forth: Yes.

Barbara Follett: Yes.

Q129 Mr Illsley: At the moment, if a division is called during a programmed committee stage there is no facility whereby we can add on injury time. Would you agree we can extend the amount of time taken for the division? In other words, do you agree injury time for divisions, even where there is a programmed motion?

Mr Forth: I would have thought that would be a very helpful, if relatively minor, improvement.

Barbara Follett: My only caveat is the number of divisions that may occur. But, I think, in principle, yes, as long at it was not abused.

Chairman: Could we now pass on to the role of chairman. Barbara Follett has referred to this in some of the answers she has given.

Q130 Mr McWalter: I was interested in the view, I think of both, of you that, in a way, chairmen of committees could potentially be much more proactive about the management of the business and trying to gather the sense of the committee when it is clear that it wants to spend a bit more time on a particular event. Certainly, I was in a Northern Ireland committee at one stage, at a very sensitive part of the evolution of the Belfast Agreement, and we were guillotining some stuff that actually meant that people were potentially were moving into a situation where they might have agreed, the guillotine came down and they both ended up on opposite sides of the division bell. I think it actually did some damage to the peace process, so I think these things can be quite important. The question is how we get the chair to do that kind of work. I suppose, as the Procedure Committee, we are looking to see if there is some way in which perhaps it should be formalised in standing orders so that they have some responsibility to seek to protect the interests of all backbenchers or all parties, or however you put it, in the conduct of proceedings. Then there is still an issue about how they do it. The suggestion we are entertaining at the moment - and it may not come to this, and I am sure Mr Forth will not like it - is the thought that the chair could actually convene the Programming Sub-Committee and say, "Look, it is clear there is much more interest in this clause than was previously thought. It is vital we give it an extra day." Do you think that some formalisation of what you are admitting to be the responsibility of the chair, an enhanced responsibility for the chair, is appropriate. How would we do it? Would that compromise the impartiality of the chairman if in fact he or she was seen to be proactive in making changes to the timetable in that kind of way.

Mr Forth: I suppose I have to declare an interest as a relatively new member of the chairman's panel on this, and the Committee should be aware of that. I would be rather attracted by the thrust of Mr McWalter's question, Sir Nicholas, because I see no problem with giving a chairman a greater and more positive role. After all, there is a convention, is there not, that the chairman, if he knows the committee that he is going to chair will not participate in the divisions at second reading, and that the chairman is, in a sense, the representative of Mr Speaker and must therefore have a strictly impartial role. That I think is well understood and I am sure it is completely observed. Going forward from that, I would have thought that if there were a general agreement about it, it maybe would be worth, for an experimental period, seeing if giving standing committee chairmen a greater role would work. The chairmen already have very considerable powers, as Sir Nicholas knows and exercises, to seek to prevent abuse, repetition or whatever it may be within the committee, but maybe that could be extended; that, if a sense emerged that a particular matter deserved further attention and yet a knife or a guillotine was going to intervene, a degree of flexibility could be introduced. Maybe the committee could even interrupt proceedings, having taken informal soundings, convene a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee there and then, and seek to get an agreement for some sort of extension or relaxation of time limits. I find that a rather attractive idea.

Barbara Follett: I do too. I think it might have even happened on the Fire and Rescue Services Bill at one point.

Mr Illsley: That power is available too. It actually happens. It is usually through the usual channels, where the usual channels would realise that a guillotine is likely to fall and preclude debate. They would agree with the Programming Sub-Committee.

Q131 Mr McWalter: Where the usual channels work, I do not think any of us have a problem with it. We all have a feeling that usual channels often do not work. Indeed, we all know government whips, when they put you on a committee, say, "We'll put you on a committee but you will not speak, will you?" They do not say that to me but I hear they say it to other people. There is a sense in which getting the business through quickly is often given such a large priority that the efforts of somebody to influence the way the debate goes is given shorter shrift than it should be. There are two potential custodians of that. One certainly is the usual channels, but I suspect that that is not a very good custodian in a lot of cases, and the other is someone representing the Speaker who is there to represent the interests of parliament that a full examination of the legislation be held. That is the thinking we have behind thinking that the chair really does need to be given a stronger role. It becomes accepted it will be normal and more unusual than it is now. You are both nodding; that is good.

Barbara Follett: I would like to see that happen; I think it is a very good idea.

Mr Forth: That leads me into making one extraordinarily risky observation and that is, following that point and again agreeing with it, that the Chairman of Ways and Means might want to look even more carefully than I am sure he presently does at the appointment of chairmen of certain committees to ensure that the chairmen, because, these days, we invariably have co-chairman, were of suitable weight and experience to grip what could be a difficult committee. Although I have said over and over again that the Government cannot and should not seek to anticipate the length of deliberations, I think we all have a fairly good feeling for when a committee is likely to be relatively uncontroversial or likely to be a real hot potato and I would have thought that, following Mr McWalter's very interesting and positive suggestion, the appointment of chairman would have to reflect that in order to make it work effectively.

Chairman: I am very encouraged by what the witnesses have said because, though I should not say it from the chair, it happens to meet my own view because I do believe that chairmen of committees can have a major influence on the way in which the Committee is conducted and the way in which they proceed with their responsibilities and I think that the House should recognise that in a more positive way. Can we now come to David Wright who is going to deal with the annual programme.

Q132 David Wright: I did manage to sneak my question earlier on in the session in part. My final part of the question was about carry-over and you have mentioned carry-over briefly. Do you think that carry-over is a successful or will be potentially a successful device in terms of improving opportunities for contributions and improving opportunities for opposition? One example that I can think of recently is the Planning Bill which was carried over. I managed to speak in second reading in committee and on both report days and there was quite a significant amount of time available for contributions. Does carry-over not mean better scrutiny?

Mr Forth: No. It is a mirage! I will show my hand at this stage because I think that the Government are fooling themselves. What carry-over does is buys time and more legislation in year one and probably year two but, come years three and four of a parliament, if the Government are not very clever and very self-disciplined, the congestion of legislation will have been pushed towards the back end of the parliament. I am actually rather relaxed about it as a member of the opposition currently. The Government may well benefit in the early years of carry-over through lack of self-discipline or running into time difficulties in one session or another but I do not think that, in the longer term, it will benefit the Government or indeed the parliamentary process. To that extent, I think it is a fiddle.

Barbara Follett: I could not disagree more with Eric Forth on that. I think that carry-over is part of trying to get the proper scrutiny of legislation and also to get proper legislation through. Quite a lot of legislation over the past 50 years has been too rushed, has not been thought through and governments of all colours have had to retract or wished they had never put it through. I like carry-over. The Planning Bill is an absolutely good example. It is very complex, people have strong feelings about almost every clause of it, your constituents about strong feelings about and people have different attitudes in different regions. I do think that, if it is used wisely, it is an immensely helpful tool. If it is used badly and in a disorganised fashion, what Mr Forth said may come to pass and an inefficient government would rue it, but I think that carry-over is useful.

Q133 Chairman: Can I just put to you the question that, while a case could be made out for the carry over of government business announced in an election manifesto or at the beginning of a parliamentary session, do you think that carry-over should also apply to private members' bills which have not appeared in either a government programme at the beginning of the session or of course inevitably in an election manifesto?

Barbara Follett: I have never considered that, so I am thinking about it carefully. My instinct is probably "yes". There have been some really good private members' bills such as high hedges and the one on gang masters. There have also been some seriously wacky ones.

Q134 Chairman: Where do the wacky ones as against the other ones produce the balance?

Barbara Follett: You can hear me weighing this up. My instinct is to look at it very carefully and say "possibly". I am afraid that I am going to sit on the fence here because I do not know enough about it but I can see that there are virtues.

Chairman: I think you are a considerable politician with that last response! Are there any other remarks that either of our excellent witnesses, Eric Forth and Barbara Follett, would like to make to the Committee before we conclude our deliberations?

Q135 Mr Illsley: It is a question in relation to the annual programme and it is question for Eric Forth. What would be your reaction to a system perhaps - and I am thinking of a rough and ready system off the top of my head - where we agreed through the usual channels at a Queen's Speech that we have a system whereby the length of time available to a bill is determined on the size of the bill, the number of clauses and whatever, and you had a start date and an end date but the opposition were allowed to determine how the time in between was dealt with? Could that be acceptable as a form of programming to you or is the end date the crucial aspect?

Mr Forth: The end date is crucial. If I can give away another trade secret, I actually think that knives are helpful to the filibusters, if there ever were any such people and if they managed to escape the eagle eye of the Chair of the Committee. No, it is the end date that is absolutely crucial to this. The opposition gains very little if the Government say in a spirit of rare generosity, "Having set a very tight ending, you can decide how much time is used up on different things in the Committee" because the opposition will say, "Fine, but if it is not enough time for the whole bill, all we are doing as the opposition is taking the blame for parts of the bill not being scrutinised."

Q136 Chairman: Following up Eric Illsley's very sensible and constructive point, do you think that if there were more meaningful discussion between the government of the day and the usual channels of the government and Her Majesty's opposition and other opposition parties that an end date or an out date could be agreed that was acceptable to all parties or a majority of parties in the House?

Mr Forth: I do not see how the opposition can know how long a committee stage will take either. The criticisms I have made of the government would apply equally to the opposition. I, for the life of me, cannot see how a responsible and effective opposition can predict before the Committee even starts deliberating how long proper scrutiny is likely to take and, worse than that, what we are saying potentially is that the Government will start with a hugely ambitious legislative programme and then come to the opposition and say, "Given that we are going to want 35 bills this session, we want you to agree now how we are going to shoehorn that in."

Q137 Chairman: Both you and Barbara Follett have indicated that, in your views, there is too much legislation being sought by successive governments. We have taken that on board and, if we can control that, is the question I put more relevant?

Mr Forth: Yes. If your Committee can constrain the Government's excessive legislating, then we will all cheer!

Mr McWalter: I am not sure that is quite the point. If, for instance, there was an out date and it was agreed and, without filibustering and in view of complications during the course of the bill including obviously very often large numbers of government amendments and so on, the chairs had the powers we were talking about earlier, it would not be too bad to have an indicative out date that people were working towards and, where it had become clear that that was unrealistic, that that could be shunted for a couple of weeks or whatever. It might be possible to combine the idea of having some form of constraint with some sort of discipline in the process with also having a degree of flexibility about how the actual need to debate the matter properly can be incorporated into the system. So, I would hope that we might find a way forward on that. Without that, you end of course with an opposition saying, "Yippee, you want 35 bills but you are going to be lucky to see five of them" and that cannot be right either. That is the constraint that I think we are all under.

Q138 Chairman: Do you want to comment on that?

Mr Forth: I think that would be a step in the right direction and would be worth trying.

Barbara Follett: I agree.

David Wright: The difficulty is whether the opposition to a bill comes from the Government's own benches!

Chairman: Maybe that is a point on which we should conclude!

Mr McWalter: The opposition then say, "They're taking our time!"

Mr Swayne: Can we bring this community love fest to a conclusion!

Chairman: We were just about to do that. I thought you were interrupting my deliberations and my decision to do that. Can I, on behalf of the Procedure Committee, thank the right honourable Eric Forth and Barbara Follett for, I think, the most enlightening and the most invigorating and the most exciting and, in a way, the most provocative evidence that we have so far received. I am confident that it will form part of the recommendations that we ultimately produce in our report and can I thank you both very much for the very lengthy responses you have given and the very positive responses that you have given to the questions put to you.