Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-206)
MR RICHARD
SCHOFIELD AND
MS PATRICIA
BARRATT
28 JUNE 2006
Q200 Ms Butler: What product is that?
Ms Barratt: It is a Butterworths'
run one, Lexis-Nexis.
Mr Schofield: If you want more
information on that I am sure we can provide you with information
and a demonstration of how it works.
Ms Butler: That would be great.
Q201 Chairman: Our clerk is saying
we should get the Library, who run our website, or lead on the
website—it is a Byzantine organisation—to co-operate
with you and Ms Butler about that.
Mr Schofield: We would be happy
to do that.
Chairman: Thank you.
Mr Burstow: My understanding is that
is already available in the Lords and Members of the Lords do
have access to the Lexis-Nexis database in respect of the law
but it is not generally available to Members of the Commons, I
understand.
Q202 Chairman: It is something we
need to follow up here. I am sorry, I interrupted you.
Mr Schofield: I was going to refer
back to the point about digital TV. What we were looking at there
was the expansion of access to different forms of technology amongst
different demographic groups. Access to the internet affects certain
demographic groups and there is clearly high penetration. There
are other demographic groups where there is greater access to
digital television than there is to home access to the internet.
All we are saying is that there should be some exploration of
the use of digital television as a means to proactively communicate
with the public at large as well as relying wholly on the use
of the internet.
Q203 Sir Nicholas Winterton: I agree
with Dawn Butler, your paper is excellent and extremely helpful.
You have a tiny section devoted to "Programming and Carry-Over".
You have mentioned carry-over and commented on it but you have
made no comment whatsoever about programming. Is it because programming
to you is too party political or too political? Do you think the
way programming is currently implemented in the House is beneficial
to the proper scrutiny of legislation? Do you have any comment
on that?
Mr Schofield: Can I break my answer
down into two parts. The first is do I think programming to be
beneficial to scrutiny investigation? Yes, I do. Do I think the
way it is currently done creates as beneficial effect as it might
do? There are question marks over that. Perhaps it is possible
that the programming process can be affected to the advantage
of certain parties in certain situations and that might happen
in certain circumstances. Yes, the programming process can be
manipulated to the advantage of one party or another. Because
the process of programming is largely done through the usual channels
rather than through some more transparent process it is very difficult
for organisations like ours on the outside to judge whether or
not the programming has been done purely in the interests of the
best scrutiny of as much legislation as possible within a given
session or whether it has been done for other reasons.
Q204 Sir Nicholas Winterton: To be
specific, do you think it is right that a programming motion is
tabled at the same time that the second reading is tabled and
that it should take place without debate immediately after the
second reading prior to the House as a whole, with members in
all parts of the House expressing views on that legislation which
might well affect ultimately the terms of the programming motion?
Would it not be better to have it 48 or 72 hours after the second
reading debate?
Mr Schofield: I think probably
the answer to that is yes. Whenever the House votes on any motion
it should do that on the basis of having as much information and
the time to evaluate information before it makes such a decision.
Ms Butler: Did you get the answer you
wanted?
Chairman: I think you are probably leading
the witness. You are entitled to.
Q205 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Patricia
Barratt, would you like to comment?
Ms Barratt: It would depend on
what kind of committee you were talking about. If you were talking
about a committee that was taking evidence from external users
then you might want a longer time than if you were talking about
a committee that was just focusing on line by line scrutiny. I
wonder whether the programming motion could have a little bit
more leeway built into it so that it says "We will have six
to 10 sittings" as opposed to six sittings.
Q206 Mr Knight: Mr Schofield, a few
minutes ago you said that programming as we presently do it can
be manipulated for the benefit of one party or the other. I am
trying to think of any occasion when the present system of programming
could be used by an opposition party for their benefit. It is
always in the government's favour, is it not, always?
Mr Schofield: I cannot think of
an example when it could be used otherwise.
Chairman: He is right about that. Any
other questions? Could I thank you both very much indeed for that.
| 
