Sir Nicholas Winterton MP (further submission
M 70)
ESTABLISHING A
BUSINESS COMMITTEE
I hereby make the following submission to the
Modernisation Committee's inquiry into the legislative process
using various sources to illustrate my support for the proposal
to establish a House of Commons Business Committee, a matter which
I have recently raised in the House with the Leader of the House,
the Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP:
STRENGTHENING PARLIAMENT,
THE REPORT
OF THE
COMMISSION TO
STRENGTHEN PARLIAMENT
(CONSERVATIVE PARTY,
2000), AT P
28:
"One of the most striking pieces of evidence
we received was from Dr Thomas Saalfeld, of the University of
Kent, on the extent to which the government controls the parliamentary
agenda. That control is marked compared to other countries. We
believe that the House should move closer to the practice of other
legislatures, giving itself greater control over what it discusses….
The evidence presented to us by Dr Saalfeld shows that this change
can be achieved without undermining the government's capacity
to get its legislation."
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE
CONSTITUTION, HOUSE
OF LORDS,
DEVOLUTION: INTER-INSTITUTIONAL
RELATIONS IN
THE UNITED
KINGDOM, SECOND
REPORT, SESSION
2002-03, HL 28:
Lessons for Westminster from Holyrood, Cardiff
Bay and Stormont?
146. The second feature, found in all three
assemblies and legislatures, is the business committee. This meets
regularly (once or twice a week) while the body is in session
to discuss forthcoming business and arrange the timetable. It
is usually chaired by the presiding officer or his deputy, and
includes the Minister for Parliament or Assembly Business (in
Scotland and Wales respectively), and the business managers (whips)
of the other party groups, with the clerk and other officials
in attendance. The business Committee is therefore both more formal
and more open than the "usual channels" as they operate
at Westminster. The Committee helps to develop a consensus about
the conduct of business in the chamber, and ensures that the timetable
for business is more clearly determined in advance. Again, it
is a procedure that is to be found in other legislatures in Western
Europe and has been variously proposed for adoption in Westminster.
It seems to us that the use of business committees has a great
deal to commend it, injecting a greater degree of transparency
than exists in the current arrangements at Westminster and transferring
some degree of control from the executive to the legislature.
Their use does not prevent a government from getting its business,
but it does ensure greater openness and time for the proper scrutiny
of government.
147. We recommend that the use of business committees
at Westminster be considered further in the light of the experience
of the devolved bodies.
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON THE
CONSTITUTION, HOUSE
OF LORDS,
PARLIAMENT AND
THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS, FOURTEENTH
REPORT, SESSION
2003-04, HL 173-I:
Management of parliamentary business
116. We confine ourselves to two related observations.
The first is the fact that Westminster—which, in this context,
means the House of Commons—is unusual among legislatures
for the extent to which the Government dominates the legislative
timetable. It is common elsewhere for the legislature to have
greater ownership of the timetable. Research shows that handing
over control of the timetable, or part of it, does not necessarily
prevent the Government from getting its business.
117. Various proposals have been put forward
as to how the issue may be addressed. It is common practice for
legislatures to have their own business committees. We do not
have to go beyond the shores of the United Kingdom in order to
see such a committee operating. During our inquiry into inter-institutional
relations in the United Kingdom, we looked at what lessons Westminster
might learn from the experience of the devolved bodies. All three
devolved bodies (the Northern Ireland Assembly was still in operation
when the Lords undertook their inquiry) have a business committee.
Each has followed a standard practice. The committee meets regularly
(once or twice a week) while the body is in session to discuss
forthcoming business and to arrange the timetable. It is usually
chaired by the presiding officer or deputy, and includes the Minister
responsible for parliamentary business and the business managers
of the other parties, with the clerk and officials in attendance.
118. As was noted in the Lords report:
"The business committee is therefore both
more formal and more open than the `usual channels' as they operate
at Westminster. The Committee helps to develop a consensus about
the conduct of business in the chamber, and ensures that the timetable
for business is more clearly determined in advance. Again, it
is a procedure that is to be found in other legislatures in Western
Europe and has been variously proposed for adoption in Westminster.
It seems to us that the use of business committees has a great
deal to commend it, injecting a greater degree of transparency
than exists in the current arrangements at Westminster and transferring
some degree of control from the executive to the legislature.
Their use does not prevent Government from getting its business,
but it does ensure greater openness and time for the proper scrutiny
of Government."
119. The case for a business committee has variously
been made and on a cross-party basis. It was one of the recommendations
of the Rippon Commission as well as the later Hansard Society
Commission, chaired by Lord Newton, on Parliamentary Scrutiny.
It was recommended by the authors of Parliament's Last Chance:
"A Business Committee", they wrote, "would bring
a greater degree of certainty to the parliamentary timetable and
involve the main political parties in the management of business."
It was reiterated to the Lords during their current inquiry by
the representatives of Parliament First. Sir Nicholas Winterton
was a member of the Parliament First Group. It has also found
support from Alan Beith and from a former Leader of the House
of Commons, Robin Cook.
120. "I do find it rather strange",
Mr Cook told us, "that we have no corporate body that is
responsible for considering the business of the House . . .. Indeed,
one of the ways in which the executive retains its control over
the Commons is to make sure that only it can propose the business
before the House"
Q119. As Leader of the House, he had been
keen to float the idea of a business committee for the Commons,
though, as he noted, "that did not command universal support
from my colleagues in the Cabinet" (Q 119).
121. The idea of formalising the "usual
channels" through a business committee need not necessarily
be confined to the Commons. As Lord Carter, a former Government
Chief Whip in the Lords, told us: "In the planning of the
session, the draft bills and all the rest of it, that could equally
well be done by a business committee because, in a sense, that
is not adversarial; it is not political; it is just the programme
of work. How do you organise a programme of work? That could well
be done by a business committee" (Q 172). A business committee,
as he pointed out, is essentially a workload committee (QQ 173,
193).
122. The Lords saw the argument for timetabling,
the principle of which is generally agreed, and note that the
use of business committees is common elsewhere, including in the
devolved bodies. Given that the Lords reiterated what they said
in their devolution report that there is much to commend consideration
of such committees at Westminster.
123. We recommend that consideration be given
to the establishment of a Business Committee at Westminster.
May 2006
| 
