Examination of Witnesses (Questions 83-99)
JOHN BERCOW
24 MAY 2006
Q83 Chairman: Good morning. I gather
that this is your debut as a witness before a select committee.
John Bercow: It is.
Q84 Chairman: I have just been told
that you are a member of the Chairmen's Panel.
John Bercow: That is true.
Q85 Chairman: You are very welcome. You
have been asked to give evidence to this inquiry into the legislative
process. I think you have been chosen to give evidence from a
Conservative perspective because of your interest as to what happens
in the House. What I would be interested in from you, as somebody
who has been in for quite some time and has been very active,
is for you to give your sense of where you think the legislative
process at this end is okay and where you think it could significantly
be improved.
John Bercow: Thank you very much
for inviting me. I am privileged to give evidence. It seems to
me that the overriding task is to try to combine efficiency, that
is to say getting through the business without taking an excessively
long time about it, with effectiveness which means rigorous scrutiny
of legislation and, in some sense and on a number of occasions,
putting the interests of the House, of scrutiny, of the public,
very much before our own personal convenience if there is a clash
between the two. I am one of those who think that some of the
changes that the Government have made over the last nine years
are perfectly justified. I do not think that we are at our best
at 3.00 in the morning. We might think that we are at our best
at 3.00 in the morning but that is a very different thing. So,
some of the reforms that have been made which have streamlined
the process and ensured that we do not sit all hours of the day
and night are justified and you look pretty anachronistic if you
argue against them, for the very good reason that you are! On
the other hand, I do think that it has been a series of reforms
which has tended to be dominated by the wishes and interests of
the Executive and not by the wishes and interests of backbench
Members with no higher ambition. I think there is a long way to
go. I think there are a number of fascinating issues: pre-legislative
scrutiny, post-legislative scrutiny and the way in which standing
committees and, if I may say so, colleagues, select committees
are constituted. One could have an interesting discussion about
the Committee of Selection and the extent to which there would
be a good argument for saying, "Let's have much more backbench
influence on who goes on committees".
Q86 Chairman: Do you mean on standing
committees?
John Bercow: On standing committees
and indeed on select committees. There is a very interesting question
as to whether people are just picked to serve on committees because
it is buggins's turn and they all have to do their quota or whether
actually they have a particular interest, knowledge, expertise
or passion. Time limits are perhaps worthy of discussion in speeches.
The question of secondary legislation and how we scrutinise it
and again whether people are just turning up because they have
been put on it and have a note from the whips at the last minute
that they are supposed to turn up at 4.30 for some what they consider
to be obscure, archaic and uninteresting statutory instrument
or whether actually they can make something of it and maybe the
person on the Committee could not make something of it because
he or she is not frankly very interested but there may be other
Members of the House who would like to sit on it. We all know
that anybody can turn up at those committees but, in practice,
unless you know about it, you will not and, if you cannot vote,
you feel very much a second-class citizen. Sunset clauses I think
are something that the Government once trumpeted but for which
they seem know to have lost enthusiasm. I do try, particularly
in what I would call Bercow 2006 as opposed to the very abrasive
and callow youth who entered in 1997—
Q87 Chairman: Never!
John Bercow:— to be as fair
minded as I can. I do not slate everything that the Government
have done. I think that some of what ministers have done is justified,
we would not reverse it, but I do think that it is still too Executive
led and I would love to see a House of Commons in which the backbench
Member was accorded a greater opportunity and his or her role
shown greater respect.
Q88 Chairman: You have talked about
one change that you would like to see in standing committee which
is time limits on speeches, but are there wider changes that you
would like to see about how legislation is scrutinised line by
line, which is after all the purpose of standing committee?
John Bercow: Yes. Incidentally,
if I did not make myself clear, I think there is quite a good
argument for a time limit on most speeches, not just in standing
committees but in Commons debates as a whole.
Q89 Chairman: Are you thinking of
the frontbench?
John Bercow: Possibly by the frontbench.
The only downside with imposing a limit on frontbench speeches
is that there is then a danger that a minister—of course
it would not happen in your case because your preference for taking
interventions and your ease in doing so are well known—might
say, "I would take the hon gentleman's intervention but I
do not have time". I am slightly uncertain about that. I
would rather all the points be dealt with and the minister go
on a little longer and leave it to his or her discretion, but
I do think that backbenchers ought to be subject to time limits
not just in standing committees but also on the floor of the House.
In terms of the process itself, looking at some of the evidence,
I see that there has been a suggestion that perhaps instead of
a preoccupation with the tradition of line by line scrutiny, there
ought to be more debate in standing committee on the principles
of a bill, the purpose of a measure, the justification of a policy
itself. . . I have doubts about that.
Q90 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Is that
not the purpose of the second reading?
John Bercow: Yes. I am in favour
of change where I think it is justified. I think that one ought
to try and build on what is good and not try to create something
on the strength of some sort of abstract theory and if you ask
me, do I think we should change the whole basis on which we scrutinise
in standing committee, the honest answer is, "No, I do not".
I think we should have a very, very, very thorough exploration
of the principles of the policy and broad content of the bill
at second reading. Some second readings frankly should probably
be longer but, equally, I am not one of those who says as a matter
of principle that it is an outrage if a second reading is given
only three or four hours. I do think it depends on what the issue
is. I think if an issue is very important—and we all have
some antennae politically—and controversial, it is a little
unfair to have a very short and truncated second reading and one
point that I would suggest to colleagues is that, on the day of
second readings, I think ministers ought to exercise a self-denying
ordinance unless there is an overwhelmingly good reason why they
have to make an oral statement that day. Can it not wait? On the
day of the second reading of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform
Bill on 9 February of this year, which I think was a Thursday,
there were three statements: there was a business statement, there
was a statement on the Child Support Agency and there was a statement
on offender management. We all now know that the Legislative and
Regulatory Reform Bill has proved to be controversial but I think
it was a fairly safe bet then that it would be. Was it really
necessary to smother the parliamentary day with all that stuff
before we got on to the main business?
Q91 Sir Nicholas Winterton: John,
you are a member of the Chairmen's Panel and you chair standing
committees and secondary legislation in committees. How do you
see the performance of the House in dealing with standing committee,
ie the line by line almost word by word scrutiny of legislation?
If you could wave a magic wand and change the situation—and
you have commented in broad terms about the standing committee
stage— how would you like to see the legislative process
change for the benefit of the House, not necessarily of the Executive?
John Bercow: So that I do not
come here under false pretences, I ought to say that I have so
far chaired quite a number of statutory instrument committees
and a few sessions of European Standing Committee and I gather
that a bill is about to come my way in the next couple of weeks.
I have not actually done a full-scale bill but I gather that I
am going to be asked to do so. My feeling is that, if you have
interested people on the committee, interested in the subject
or simply people with a sort of insatiable appetite, not for the
sound of their own voices but for scrutiny and probing questioning,
then those secondary legislation statutory instrument committees
can go very well. If, frankly, people are looking at their watches,
regarding it as an unavoidable evil and their duty to the whips
to avoid being summoned to a meeting without coffee, well then,
frankly, it just does not work and my feeling is that if the Executive
gives the impression that it thinks secondary legislation is not
something which should take very long when it is considered almost
bad manners to spend more than half an hour on an instrument which
could last an hour and a half, and there is a sort of informal,
sometimes not even a very informal, pressure to get it over with,
then colleagues will take their cue from that and they will think,
clearly the whips do not want me to speak, they think it is going
to be a nuisance, the minister does not want to be late for his
next meeting. I think that is a shame. I think it could be done
better. I do not think that there is something very fundamentally
wrong with the scrutiny in standing committee other than this.
Sometimes the programming—and programming is justified—is
excessively tight. I wonder whether it is really necessary or
wise, colleagues, for the Government to have their programme motion
tabled and voted on without debate immediately after the second
reading of the bill. Might it not be a good idea for there to
be a pause for reflection for a few days, an opportunity both
for negotiation between the usual channels and also for ministers
to consider not just how long the debate lasted on second reading
or how many issues were raised but with what degree of intensity
and seriousness and potentially valid objections to that form
of the bill and then have a programme motion? It seems to me that
it is too formulaic; it is too much a question of a sausage factory
with the emphasis on the number produced rather than the quality
of the ingredients.
Q92 Sir Nicholas Winterton: You talked
earlier on about the appointment of the individual Members to
standing committee and you said that we should look at the selection
process and I happen to agree with you, I think we should. Often,
particularly government are going to appoint their Members to
the standing committee because they are amenable, agreeable and
are not likely on the committee to create any difficulty. That
is one point. Would you like to see a different way of appointing
people to committees, perhaps have an independent body making
that appointment and people could apply to go on a standing committee?
Secondly, why do you think that Government are so reluctant, under
whatever party is in power, not just the present Government, to
accept any amendments that are tabled by the Opposition Party,
however good, however justified or however effective those amendments
would be without detracting from the Government's objectives in
the legislation that they have introduced? Do you not think that
this is unfortunate and negative and it means that we do not get
the best and most effective scrutiny at the standing committee
stage?
John Bercow: In terms of composition
of the standing committees, I would like to see a process for
determining membership that was more driven by the backbenches
and much less by the whips' offices on either side. Let me clear
about this. I am genuinely not seeking to stir it. It is not a
question of trying to be a troublemaker. One is perfectly entitled
to make life difficult for the Government but I am not trying
to stir it in the sense that I am suggesting that it would be
a thoroughly good thing if we were to operate a system, which
would really be a form of chicanery, whereby the Government simply
could not get their business through standing committee. I do
not argue that. I do think that the Government are entitled to
have a clear majority representation based on strength in the
House on the standing committee. On the other hand, I think they
should have some regard to interest in the subject and expertise
and the balance of debate that took place at second reading and
I think what is quite unattractive is when one senses that perhaps
the Government—and not just this Government but perhaps
earlier Governments—have a punitive or admonitory attitude
to the construction of the standing committee. In other words,
simply because somebody was against, maybe on very, very good
grounds of principles sincerely held at second reading and was
not prepared to vote for second reading with reservations on the
basis that he or she would then be allowed on the committee but
insisted on voting against at second reading and the government
whips take the attitude, right, stuff you, we are not going to
put you on the committee, you did not behave, you deprived us
of your vote, you actually voted with the other side and you are
off. Just to give very briefly three examples. The Higher Education
Bill: I think there were over 70 rebels on the Tuition Fees Bill,
something like 73 rebels, at second reading who actually voted
against the Government. Only two opponents of the Bill were on
standing committee which consisted, I think, of 20 Members or
thereabouts; ID cards: over 20 rebels and not a single one of
the rebels who voted against the Government at second reading
was put on the standing committee; in the case of the Education
Inspections Bill, 52 Labour Members of Parliament voted against
the Bill at second reading and none of them, not one of them,
was appointed to the standing committee. That seems to me to be
wrong. On the second point, as to why government always say no
to amendments either good or valid if they come from the Opposition,
I think that is a rather old-fashioned practice, frankly. It is
really a question of party pride, standing on one's dignity and
not wanting to accept that the other side has a good point. I
think that is a great shame. I think that probably will not change
very radically and therefore it does seem to me to reinforce the
argument for perhaps having very much more widespread pre-legislative
scrutiny with the opportunity at that stage for the Members of
the Opposition Parties as well as Members of the Government Party,
to put forward alternative ideas and then, frankly, the Government
can beat a retreat when justified and necessary without feeling
that they have suffered a great political humiliation. I also
think—and one wants to avoid personalising what is an important
constitutional issue—that some ministers are much more gracious
about accepting when they are wrong and it massively strengthens.
Q93 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Of course.
John Bercow: I was hearing colleagues
say the other night that the new Schools Standards Minister, Jim
Knight, has a terrific manner in committee. I did not have the
pleasure of hearing him in the latter part, the very end, of the
Education Inspections Bill in committee, but I am told that he
is seriously good at it and we can all think of ministers who
are absolutely brilliant at it and those ministers who, whether
on standing committee or at second reading, are prepared to take
a gracious step, which does not mean being a pushover and giving
in to the views of the party with which he or she does not agree
but accepting that we are all trying to get a better bill, those
people are respected. That is why the late Robin Cook was so tremendously
respected and that is why a very large number of colleagues on
my side viewed your appointment as Leader of House as hugely welcome.
You are respected because we know that you have the self-confidence
to argue your case, you treat all Members, however new and inexperienced,
with respect and decency, and actually that is the way most of
us conduct our day-to-day lives.
Chairman: Thank you very much. I do not
know why people do the opposite, but there we are.
Q94 Mark Lazarowicz: I have two related
questions which I will roll together. First of all, a theme running
through our questions and evidence has been how one can draw the
best from what is seen to be the strength of the select committee
procedure and standing committee procedure, and various suggestions
have been put forward about making more use of special standing
committees and various devices of that nature. I wonder if you
have any views from your experience of what might be a way in
which we can draw those strengths from the select committee procedure
and standing committee procedure. A specific question drawn from
my experience yesterday of serving for the first time on a European
Standing Committee which was itself quite interesting, partly
because, due to some error on the part of the whips on both sides,
Members were chosen who wanted to contribute at length to the
debate which caused some consternation. One of the features of
that process about which I was not aware was that questions can
be asked in the first hour followed by debate. Is there not some
way in which, very simply, in standing committee some opportunity
could be allowed for simple questions to be put to a minister
rather than necessarily to move amendments and to probe and get
an answer to what is really a simple question and to allow then
more flexibility in debate on those issues which are really the
subjects of some real interest in debate already? The downside
of course might be that we have to try to stick to time limits.
It might mean that some clauses at the end would not be debated
and perhaps put forward on a vote for or against. Could we not
make better use of some procedures, for example in the European
Standing Committee which I attended for the first time, in standing
committees to allow a real debate on issues that concern Members
and avoid the artificial probing amendments which are simply just
a way of asking a question?
John Bercow: On the first point
of how to get the best from the select committees represented
on standing committees, I think there is a lot to be said for
a much wider use of special standing committees. What in practice
I think that would mean is putting together a list of colleagues
across the House who have demonstrated a consistent interest in
a particular issue or set of issues and regarding them as prime
candidates for appointment to such a special standing committee.
So, it should not be the case that you are put on a committee
in which you have no interest and which is going to run for ages
as a punishment, nor should it be the case that you are put on
a committee when you are frankly not very knowledgeable or interested
or capable in that area simply as a reward for good behaviour.
We should have a completely different mindset. Let us get together
groups of people who have a persistent and longstanding interest.
I think I am right in saying that a member of this Committee,
Mr Knight, has indicated that he would be very happy to serve
on statutory instrument committees and I think possibly on bill
committees on transport matters because he knows something about
the subject and can add. I would like to see that principle applied
much more widely irrespective, I hasten to add, of the views held.
It is a question of having a range of different views and not
being narrow about it. That would seem to be one way to proceed.
I confess that I myself believe that although there is something
to be said for having, as I said earlier, a more backbench influenced
committee of selection, perhaps made up of people who want nothing,
need nothing and cannot be bought off, there is another approach
to the composition of the select committees and that is to say
that those too, which have an important role and sometimes are
given pre-legislative scrutiny responsibilities, should not be
handpicked by the whips. I think there is a great deal to be said
for a system of election of members of select committees. You
can either do it across the House or you can say that only Conservatives
will elect Conservative Members and only Labour will elect Labour
Members etcetera. I think that the present arrangement is very
unsatisfactory. Do I think that there is an argument for saying
that one should have Q and A on the European Standing Committee
model before you get on to line-by-line scrutiny? I do. I would
not want to lose line-by-line scrutiny time because I think that
is important, but would it really hurt if we were to say at the
start of each standing committee scrutiny that there should be
perhaps an hour in which such questions which Members have had
a chance to consider beforehand could be put either about further
doubts on the principles of the bill or more likely about the
architecture of the bill or the means chosen or the wording, but
slightly broader issues than just line by line? My own view is
that that would be a better use of an hour than what last time
I was on a bill committee happened, which is that we had this
debate at the start on the sittings motion. The sittings motion,
frankly, is just a waste of time; it is an excuse, to be candid,
for those of us who may feel that we won the argument but we have
lost the vote on the subject of the programme motion simply to
trot out the same arguments all over again. It is much better
to have substantive Q and A on the broad contours of the bill.
Q95 Chairman: Mr Bercow, you are
almost perfect and so am I, but we both share a fault which is
being slightly prolix!
John Bercow: I beg your pardon.
Q96 Mr Vaizey: Time limits on contributions!
John Bercow: I need to be saved
from myself!
Chairman: I know the problem because
I have exactly the same one.
Q97 Mr Vaizey: I do not want to get
you into trouble, Mr Bercow, but I expect we probably agree on
most things about some of the changes that should be made. I return
briefly to debates. You mentioned time limits. What would be your
view on speakers lists where Members would know whether they were
going to be called during a debate and know roughly when they
were going to be called?
John Bercow: I would not be against
the idea subject to one caveat, which I suspect would have been
and still is the traditionalist argument against, because the
main traditionalist argument against is not really the power of
the Speaker and the mystique of it all. I think that the main
argument against it is that, if you have that, people will simply
turn up for their own contributions and not bother to listen to
anybody else's. What you could do is experiment. We are grown-ups.
Let us try it for a while. Let us say that we will have a published
list on the day of those who are the top 12, top 15, top 20 to
be called and if people then turn up really for their own contribution
and scarcely stay for anybody else's, I think that frankly should
be regarded as a black mark on the record for that individual.
Q98 Mr Vaizey: You could maintain
the convention that you were present for the frontbench speeches,
present for the speech after your speech and present for the winding-up.
John Bercow: Yes. I do not think
that I am in favour of closing the list too early because I think
that we want to preserve the topicality of the occasion, if you
like, and the capacity for a Member who had not previously been
planning to speak at second reading to be struck by something,
perhaps over the weekend, to say , "Yes, I would like to
take part in that debate" and to put his or her name in quite
late in the day. Similarly, I do not favour too many privileges
for very senior Members. I think that if a very senior Member,
a former Cabinet Minister or whatever, who has something quite
serious to contribute who happens to have been away and not to
have realised and only put in his slip, so to speak, his letter
to speak at the last minute, I do not think that we should mechanistically
say, "You were late, so you are excluded". Yes, I like
the idea of a published list. Nobody could criticise the Speaker
or the Deputy Speaker because they are doing their job, but I
do think there is a certain arcane quality about the present arrangement
whereby you can try to get an idea as to where you are when you
say things like, "Can I go to the loo because I am bursting
and, if I do, will I miss out?" or "Can I have a cup
of tea?" and so on and so forth. We are grown-ups; we are
adults; let us be a little more open about it.
Q99 Mr Vaizey: On the standing committee,
I agree with what I think you agree with which is that we should
have special standing committees with membership and, in my view,
they could be over the lifetime of the party, so you would have
the Home Affairs Standing Committee and the Members of that standing
committee would know that they would be scrutinising every piece
of Home Office legislation and potentially every statutory instrument.
I do sympathise with what I would imagine is the commonsense view
of the Government that you need to maintain a certain amount of
control, partly because sometimes the Opposition may not be using
a standing committee to scrutinise a bill but may be using it
to cause trouble, to extend proceedings or to put down frivolous
amendments. I just wonder whether one of the answers to that argument
would be to strengthen the power of the chairman in the sense
that they became a sort of behind the scenes referee and were
able to sit down with the Opposition or indeed the rebel Members
on the Government benches and say, "Come on, this amendment
you have put down is not very serious. Let us go through these
amendments and say which are the ones where you generally want
to improve . . .". Is that the sort of thing you see the
role of the chairman sticking to? Does it already happen?
John Bercow: I am not aware that
this happens though I think there is a lot to be said for it.
I stand by the view that it cannot be right if one person takes
up a disproportionate amount of a pre-programme that therefore
limited standing committee time. I am not saying that I quite
have the answer as to how you stop it, but I think that you can
lead by example. You can develop a culture in which it is strongly
frowned upon for one person who rises almost to audible groans
from Members on all sides. It may well be that there is an element
of autobiography in some of these observations! I think that you
learn by experience. We have all made these mistakes. We came
on this point a moment ago: one of the reasons why there is a
lot to be said for a time limit is that otherwise speeches tend
to expand to fill the time available. We know that. I have done
it myself. We all know the old story about the person, I think
it was a minister or it might even have been Churchill, who said,
"I am sorry to have made such a long speech but I didn't
have time to prepare a short one". That is true. I think
there is a lot to be said for that. One other point very briefly
is, do we always have to follow the chronological sequence of
the bill? Is there not sometimes a case for recognising that although
something is very late on in the bill, it is important that some
time for debate on it should be protected?
|
