Memorandum from Mr Peter Bone MP (M38)
Thank you very much for inviting me to give
evidence at the Modernisation Committee on Wednesday of this week.
I was very grateful to be given the opportunity to relate my views
as a new backbencher to the Committee and hope that my evidence
was helpful.
As discussed, following on from my oral evidence
I have prepared a note on some of the issues that I think need
to be addressed if the role of a backbench MP is to be strengthened.
I would suggest however that it is not just
the power of the backbench MP that needs to be strengthened but
that more power and influence needs to go to Parliament and less
power and influence needs to be held by the Executive.
When I was first elected to Parliament, I was
sent the book "The Last Prime Minister: Being Honest about
the UK's Presidency", the author being the Honourable Member
for Nottingham North.
I think that book describes accurately the growth
of power and influence by the Executive. I do not accept the conclusion
that we have to accept a UK presidency and in effect a different
role for Parliament. However I do recognise the reality of the
situation that if power is not brought back to Parliament then
we will drift inextricably towards what is in effect a UK presidency.
Annex
STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF BACKBENCH MPs
1. THE LEADER
OF THE
HOUSE AND
A BUSINESS
COMMITTEE
One of the problems that frustrates me most
is the way the Business of the House is selected and debated.
It appears it is done to maximise the Government's position irrespective
of whether it is good for Parliamentary debate or not.
The most recent example of Government manipulation
of Business refers to the Equality Act Sexual Orientation Regulations
2007. It appears to many people that the usual channels stitched
up the arrangements for dealing with these Regulations to minimise
debate. It was done without regard to what backbench Members of
Parliament thought. It has become clear that whatever side of
the argument you might have been on the procedures used to deal
with these Regulations were wholly unacceptable.
The phrase "usual channels" fills
me with dread. It undoubtedly means a decision made between the
two front benches without taking into account backbench opinion.
If we look in detail for a moment at the process
relating to the Sexual Orientation Regulations. They were laid
and re-laid twice within the space of a week. The Joint Committee
on Statutory Instruments had less than a day to consider the final
version. Members of the public were unable to get those Regulations
on the website.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
normally has a week to consider regulations that are often non-controversial
yet for one of the most controversial regulations the Committee
was given less than a day to consider them.
Within an hour of the Joint Committee approving
the technical detail of the revised Regulations, a Committee of
Selection was formed to nominate a Delegated Legislation Committee.
That Committee was given less than 16 hours notice to consider
these Regulations. The Committee was forced to meet in a small
committee room with no television coverage, officials sitting
on the floor and not enough seats for Members of Parliament.
The so-called debate on the Regulations lasted
for one and a half hours and only front bench spokesmen were called
to speak. Not a single backbench Member of Parliament was able
to contribute to the debate.
The Delegated Legislation Committee, having
considered the Regulations, the vote on the Statutory Instrument
was scheduled for Monday of this week. The day chosen was when
there was a one-line whip for the main business and many MPs would
not even know the vote was taking place and would not be in the
Palace of Westminster. It is my contention that if there had been
a Business Committee of the House such a farce would not have
occurred.
Therefore I would recommend that your Committee
considers recommending the creation of a Business Committee.
The current Leader of the House of Commons is
highly respected and his integrity is beyond doubt. However he
has to split himself into two. He has to protect the interests
of Parliament and in particular the interests of backbench MPs.
But at the same time he has to be a full Cabinet Member with collective
responsibility and the need to be politically partisan.
I do not think that this position is tenable.
I believe that the Leader of the House's sole responsibility should
be to uphold the interests of Parliament and backbench MPs.
Therefore I recommend that your Committee
considers whether it would be appropriate to have an independent
Leader of the House who acts in a similar way to the Speaker but
to protect the interests of Parliament and who should be elected
from MPs at the beginning of a Parliament to serve until the end
of that Parliament.
2. QUESTIONS
One of the tools a backbench MP has to hold
the Government to account is the use of oral and written questions.
In relation to oral questions, it is to my mind an abuse of Parliament
the way some Ministers deliberately do not even attempt to respond
to questions asked. In particular I recently remember a question
from the Honourable Member for Somerset and Frome where he asked
the Secretary of State for Health "What percentage of NHS
Trusts have a) deferred operations, b) made redundancies and c)
restricted provision of treatment in 2006-07 on the grounds of
reducing cost and what percentage plan to do so in 2007-08?"
The Secretary of State for Health replied "As
set out in the most recent financial report, it is now clear that
the NHS will achieve the three financial targets set for this
year while maintaining key service standards. Achieving financial
balance this year means that the NHS will be in a far stronger
position in the new financial year and, in particular, will be
able to make substantial progress towards achieving the target
of 18 weeks maximum from GP referral to hospital operation."
This was in Health Questions on 13 March 2007.
I would contend that that answer was not even
an attempt to answer the question posed.
Therefore I recommend that the Leader of
the House should have the power to reprimand a Minister if they
do not attempt to answer Honourable Members' questions.
Another way questions could be made more relevant
and strengthen the role of the backbench MP is by having part
of the oral question session reserved for open questions. This
would allow topical issues to be raised and be more relevant both
for Parliament and the public.
Therefore I recommend that your Committee
considers that part of each major oral question session be open.
Business Questions I believe is the most useful
session scheduled each week for backbench MPs. It enables them
to raise issues both relevant to their constituency and nationally
without notice. However far too often the Business Question session
is cut short because of a Statement being made. I would like to
see Business Questions given a specific minimum time allocation.
Therefore I would recommend that your Committee
considers whether it would be appropriate to allow Business Questions
to run for a minimum of one hour if Members of Parliament still
wished to ask questions.
With regards to written questions it is exceptionally
annoying that many of the questions are not answered either because
a) the Government claims it has not got the answer, b) they choose
to answer a different question to the one that was asked and c)
they just do not bother to answer it at all. It seems of little
point to ask a named day question as you very rarely get an answer
within the time period, even if the question is very simple.
Therefore I recommend that your Committee
considers giving power to the Leader of the House to formally
monitor the speed, accuracy and content of answers to questions
made by Ministers.
3. DEBATES
Like many other Members of Parliament I have
sat through debates where I have wanted to speak and have not
been called. It seems to me that there ought to be a better method
of allocating time limits to speaking. In particular it is the
length of the front bench speeches that often restrict severely
the time available for backbench MPs to speak. The other factor
that causes a reduction in the time for backbench MPs to speak
is the imposition of a Statement during the day's Business.
Therefore I would recommend two matters to
be considered by your Committee in relation to debates. One to
impose a time limit on how long front bench speeches can be made
and two, to add on time at the end of the day to correspond with
the time lost because of a Statement.
4. STATEMENTS
Oral Ministerial Statements should be a high
point of a Parliamentary day. A Minister coming to the House of
Commons to announce some important measure or to clarify some
urgent topic is what Parliament should be all about. It gives
backbench MPs the opportunity to quiz Ministers in person about
an important, current topic. However what happens in reality is
that the details of the statement are given to the media at least
a day in advance so that the Government gets an additional news
cycle from the Statement.
I am fed up being telephoned early in the morning
by a newspaper or local radio station for my comments on a statement
that is going to be made later that day in Parliament. They have
full details of the statement yet as a Member of Parliament I
have none.
Therefore I recommend that your Committee
considers making it a breach of Parliamentary Privilege for Ministers
or Departments giving details of a statement prior to it being
made in the House. An additional benefit of this would be that
the media would have to attend the press gallery to find out what
important issue was being discussed.
5. HOLDING THE
GOVERNMENT TO
ACCOUNT
One of the key roles of backbench MPs whether
they are in Opposition or in Government is to hold the Executive
to account. It is Members of Parliament that should be holding
the Executive to account, not the media. The media has a role
to play in challenging the Government but the primary holders
of the Government to account should be Members of Parliament.
I fail to see how having an eleven week recess of Parliament can
be justified in regard to holding the Executive to account. I
strongly believe that Parliament should not have such a long recess.
Equally I am not arguing that in September Parliament should convene
in the way that it does for the rest of the year.
Therefore I recommend your Committee considers
whether it be appropriate that during September and the first
two weeks of October that Parliament sits for the basis of scrutiny
only with question time including Prime Minister's Question Time
and ministerial statements being made.
6. MINISTERIAL
PRONOUNCEMENTS FROM
THE DISPATCH
BOX
One of the things that has been most frustrating
for me as a backbench Member of Parliament is that when Ministers
speak at the Dispatch Box and use facts that are incorrect, there
is no easy way to challenge this.
May I give you an example. On 30 November 2005
the Prime Minister claimed at the Dispatch Box that nobody waited
more than six months for an NHS operation. This statement was
repeated by many other Ministers and the Prime Minister again
at the Dispatch Box over the coming months.
At no time has that statement ever been factually
correct and yet using every Parliamentary procedure that I could
muster it proved impossible to stop what most people would call
a misleading statement, even if inadvertently made being repeated.
Therefore I would recommend that your Committee
considers whether it be appropriate for the Leader of the House
to have a specific responsibility to look into complaints from
backbench Members of Parliament about the accuracy of statements
by Ministers at the Dispatch Box with the specific power to make
Ministers correct their statements.
The other issue relating to Ministerial pronouncements
is when they realise after they have said something that what
they said was incorrect. I remember the Deputy Prime Minister
in answer to an oral question from myself giving the wrong information
relating to how far people were from a Post Office. He very promptly
wrote to me and apologised for the error and gave me the correct
information. However only I and the Deputy Prime Minister knew
of the correction.
Therefore I would recommend that your Committee
would consider printing in Hansard the corrections to answers
that are inadvertently incorrect given by Ministers at the Dispatch
Box. Backbench MPs would therefore have their roles strengthened
in relation to the Executive.
6. VOTING
As I said in my oral evidence I am very concerned
about the ever-increasing power the Whips want to exert. I would
certainly welcome any measures that could create more free votes.
However there are occasions when I may not wish
to support the Government's position nor the other view that is
being expressed. It would be most helpful on those occasions that
a positive abstention was available.
Therefore I would recommend that your Committee
considers a procedure for positive abstentions in voting to be
provided.
7. CONFIRMATION
OF CABINET
MINISTERS
A radical way in which more power could be brought
to Parliament and therefore backbench MPs is regarding the appointment
by the Prime Minister of Cabinet Ministers. I see no reason why
the Prime Minister should not propose someone to be a Cabinet
Minister but I would like to see a Committee of the House carry
out confirmation hearings similar to those held in the US. This
would be a check on the power of the Executive.
It would also be a check on the Executive stopping
them from firing well qualified senior Ministers such as Foreign
Secretaries for political reasons rather than in the interests
of the country.
Therefore I recommend that your Committee
considers recommending appointing a Committee to scrutinise and
confirm senior Cabinet Members.
March 2007
| 
