| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
We proposed to the Government that there should be timetabling of the devolution Bills. It was quite controversial at the time. Many of my colleagues in the House were quite cross that we should co-operate in that way, but we calculated where the knives should fall during the Committee stage to ensure that the really important bits of the Bill were discussed and debated at least in some form. I am bound to say that my experience of that was
not entirely satisfactory. Often, a new amendment would be moved. The former Father of the House, that great opponent of devolution on the Labour Benches, Tam Dalyell, would start a debate on a new group on an aspect that none of us had thought of and the motion would be closed off instantaneously.
The purpose of a business Committee is to manage the business on behalf of the House and that includes managing the Government business. That was an important concession to extract from the Government. Its purpose is not to prevent the Government from obtaining their business, least of all their manifesto commitments, but to ensure that the House as a whole, including Back Benchers and the minority parties, have their say on Government proposals. Its purpose is also, if necessary, to provide the extra time by lifting the 10 o'clock rule and proposing changes to the business of the House-
Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jenkin: I must press on, unless my hon. Friend thinks that it is an urgent matter.
For that reason, the business Committee must be composed of Back Benchers. There is a great temptation for the Government to insist that the Committee should deal only with non-Government business, that it will only deal with Government business because non-Government business impacts on Government business and that there must be a Whips majority from the Government on the Committee to ensure that the Government's business is obtained. That misses the point and misunderstands the spirit in which the hon. Member for Cannock Chase and his Committee will want to set up the Committee. It should not have a Government majority. It should be like a Select Committee. Perhaps it should be like the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which does not have a Government majority, to ensure that it does not become another means by which the Government control the business.
The Committee needs to discuss a lot of other matters. Why is it that only the Government can propose a business motion? Surely if we are going to control the business, either the business Committee or any Back Bencher should be able to put down a business motion. If there is sufficient support, it should be called for debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said, why should the Government have a monopoly on proposing changes to the Standing Orders? If the business Committee is going to obtain control of the business of the House, it should surely be able to make proposals on Standing Orders. Indeed any Back Bencher should be able to put down a motion to change the Standing Orders.
There are some positive proposals on Select Committees. Anybody could provide a shopping list of things that need to be done. I think the Select Committees need to consider taking more business under oath. If we want our Select Committees to be respected, why do we treat our witnesses so casually? Why do we not ask them to swear in before they give evidence so that they respect Parliament and there is respect for what is said? In particular, those who serve in Government but are not
Ministers should realise that they are answerable to this House and not to the people who provide them with the line to take.
I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). It is quite a simple matter to bring Members of the other place to the Bar of this House, or, indeed, to the Dispatch Box, to account for themselves. The advantage of allowing more Ministers to sit in the other place-of allowing more GOATs, or more representatives of the Government of all the talents-is that we may finish up with fewer Members of this House on the Government payroll. I reminded the House a short while ago that before the second world war there were perhaps as few as 50 Members of this House on the payroll. Today, there are more than 140. If we want this House to be more independent, perhaps we should look at how many Members of it are on the Government payroll.
Just as with the Kelly inquiry, we should generally be minded to accept whatever proposals arise from the Cannock commission-if I may call it that. I realise that that puts a heavy responsibility on that Select Committee, but I believe the Government should appoint this Committee in good faith and we should do our best to make sure its proposals are implemented-and there should certainly be no whipping of either Back Benchers or Front Benchers on votes on those proposals.
11.2 pm
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab): There have been a number of occasions in the past few weeks when some of us have actually seen a glimmer of what it might be like to be in a proper House of Commons. There were the debates on the Parliamentary Standards Authority. Anyone who sat through, or has read the record of, those debates would know that there were high-quality contributions from throughout the House that will stand the test of time. There have also been debates on the matter we are discussing now: the creation of a Select Committee to look at the reform of Parliament. We have had some unusual procedural niceties and some strange, quirky, individual additions to the democratic process, but there has also been an honest and open debate between colleagues-parliamentarians first, rather than members of the Government or the alternative Government. The quality has been there for people to see: it has been a glimpse of what the House could be.
The election a few weeks ago of the new Speaker was another such occasion. Regardless of which horse we had our money on, there was a sense of the House taking a decision, and of individuals not being whipped or being pushed in a particular direction. There was a sense of excitement about that decision being made. That should be our prerogative every single working day in this Parliament if, indeed, we are to be a Parliament worthy of the name-and, boy, we need to become that institution.
Reform is needed now more than ever. I see in the Chamber many of the old lags who have pursued the reform agenda along with me, but we are now joined by Prime Ministers and leaders of political parties, and the only reason why members or putative members of the Executive are queuing up to talk the talk about parliamentary reform is that Parliament itself has been exposed for what it really is in recent weeks. That is a
result of the revelations about allowances and such like. In themselves, they have not destroyed Parliament's reputation, but they have uncovered in the British people a contempt for Parliament because we are not relevant. What we are doing tonight by, I hope, allowing the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) to chair this Committee is allowing Parliament to take the first few faltering steps towards becoming relevant once again.
If we become relevant, people outside will forgive many things-they will not forgive everything-about this House. They will understand that we have a job to do and that we are not just here to claim the cash. They will say, "They are holding the Government to account and scrutinising law effectively, as they are meant to do." Throughout my 20-odd years in the House, try as I might I, like other colleagues in the House, have never been able satisfactorily to carry out those functions in the House of Commons. It is about time that we did so.
What we must do to establish those capabilities in the public mind is get the mechanics of how this House works right. We need to do two key things in that regard, both of which are addressed in the Government's motion. I congratulate them on tabling it, even though they did not do so because they wanted debate. They did not put the motion forward for debate, but they wanted the work to start, and they deserve credit for having put it that way. The only people who have held up the work starting are those who have found procedural niceties to get in the way. I am sorry, but that is the truth of the matter.
Let us not forget that people were elected to be members of the Select Committee, not Whips' narks, safe pairs of hands or people who have been lobotomised. They were elected by their own colleagues-that was certainly the case in the parliamentary Labour party and in the Conservative parliamentary party-and had their names put forward on behalf of their colleagues. Those who have wished to slow the process down are not so much acting on principle as flying in the face of their colleagues, who elected colleagues for the first time to a Select Committee. I say for the first time, because it is an important principle that colleagues can be elected to a Select Committee.
Mr. Allen: I shall return to that point once I have taken the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
Mr. Harper: I cannot let that point pass. The work that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) did in objecting has achieved significant changes to this motion. The original motion talked only of non-Government business and did not allow the Committee the power to look at the election of the Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means. The Government accepted that only-
Barbara Keeley indicated dissent.
Mr. Harper:
We all know this, so I do not know why the Minister is insisting otherwise. If all the Labour MPs who signed my hon. Friend's amendment had voted for it, they would have defeated the Government. That is the only reason why they accepted it-the Minister knows that and we know that. The hon. Member
for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is gallantly preparing some great covering fire for her, but she knows that it is not true.
Mr. Allen: My objective is not to defeat a Government of any political persuasion; it is to allow Parliament to exercise its rightful duties. That is why I want the Committee to be established, as we hope it will be at the end of the evening. The two main foundations that need to be put in place can be regarded as boring or technical, but they are fundamental-Governments know that, which is why they will fight hard unless it is put over in a very sensible and sophisticated way that change needs to take place.
The first foundation is the election of Select Committees. As I have mentioned, colleagues in this House have, without civilisation as we know it or the Government falling, managed to elect their own colleagues to a Select Committee. One tiny link in a very strong chain may just be breaking as a result of that precedent. In addition, very recently we have all been allowed to elect our own Speaker in this House, which again established a precedent. Why on earth can we not be treated as mature individuals who can elect our own Select Committees and who have the sense, as individual Members of the House, to make a decision about whom we regard with respect and who we feel could do a good job for us without the Government and the alternative Government making our minds up for us? It is up to us to seize that opportunity and to exercise that right. Unless we do that, we will continue to play the game in which the Government dictate every movement in this House, instead of individual Members of Parliament.
Mr. Chope: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to participate in this debate. Does he have any insight into whether the Government will accept the result of the Committee's work when it reports? Surely that is the fundamental issue.
Mr. Allen: I would have thought that the Government will accept the recommendations of the Committee only if, first, its work is focused on its terms of reference and, secondly, it accepts that one of the fundamental tenets of this place is that the Government need to get their business. We need to consider the balance between Government business and non-governmental business. If we are silly enough to fail to make proper provision for Government of any colour to get their business, the Government will always command a majority and will blow out the recommendations of the Committee. Our responsibility is to reform the House-and, in so doing, to push the envelope as far as is humanly possible-but also to accept the practical and political realities of this place. Without a written constitution, if we challenge the Executive, they have the majority to overturn any recommendations, whether in November or December.
Mr. Jenkin: On the question of the election of Select Committees, does the hon. Gentleman think that paid members of the Executive should be able to vote in those elections?
Mr. Allen:
I do not, but I am willing to listen to arguments from the Government and other colleagues on the Committee about whether that is a practical way forward. There are problems at the moment in getting
sufficient people to serve on Select Committees. It may be that one of the answers is to have smaller Select Committees, but I hope that the Committee will have a chance to look at that point.
Mr. Hayes: The nub of the issue is how the Government exercise their power. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government have not only a right, but a responsibility to get their business, but the exercise of power can be restrained by the prevailing political culture. Historically, that was a culture based on a modest, measured and moderate exercise of government, and respect for both sides of the House-and the Opposition in particular. That is the difference-the change in political culture.
Mr. Allen: What was accepted 100 years ago by gentlemen's agreement now needs to be enforced and put into writing so that we all know the rules. Clearly the Government must get their business, and that is their right, but Parliament must have its scrutiny and accountability, and that is its duty. We need to ensure a balance between the two. Both should be strong, capable partners producing better law and better accountability, as well as better value for money for the electorate. Working together as partners is something that the Government need to do, and a refreshed and re-energised Parliament would also need to play its part. Even in the best of times, it cannot be a partner if it says, "This is our view and we're going to have our way, come what may." The Government have done that for far too long and Parliament would be foolish to do that itself.
Barbara Keeley: May I clarify two points that have emerged again during my hon. Friend's contribution? Two different motions were proposed and the change to accept the amendment on scheduling business rather than just non-Government business was made first. The objection that held up the establishment of the Committee was not made at that stage but later, so my hon. Friend is right: the objections that have been made night after night have held up the work of establishing the Committee-[Hon. Members: "No."] Yes, they have. Motions were proposed on two occasions and this is the second set of amendments. Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House made the point that she will be happy to schedule a debate to consider the Committee's report.
Mr. Allen: There has certainly been a lot of game playing, which we are often reduced to in this place. We are in the play pen. Often, we are not exercising proper scrutiny and accountability so we find ways to entertain ourselves. However, this is a serious moment when some reform could take place. Many of us thought such a moment would never come, but because of other events we are now in a position where some reform can take place and I very much hope that the House seizes that opportunity. In doing so, we must look at a second group of issues in the terms of reference relating to the business Committee. I shall say a few words about that and then sit down.
Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) rose-
Mr. Allen: But first I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Stuart: As the hon. Gentleman is to serve on the Committee, I encourage him to be as bold as possible. Does he believe that if a business Committee of the House had an entrenched Opposition majority, the Government would still be comfortable that they could get their business through?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to delay the hon. Gentleman, but I have a sense that the House is getting ahead of itself and is debating matters that may, or may not, emerge from the Committee, if the Committee is set up by a decision of the House tonight. The only issue before the House tonight is whether to set up the Committee, not to start anticipating what the Committee may say. That debate will come in due time, so I counsel the House that we cannot go on having a debate about what may happen. The question that we have to decide tonight is whether or not the Committee is set up.
Mr. Allen: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We all have a shopping list of personal parliamentary reform favourites-I have at least 10 on the Order Paper most days, as do a large number of colleagues. There is a need for discipline, given that we need to report in November on a strict timetable. That is why focusing on the election by secret ballot of Select Committees is very important. So too-finally-is the creation of a business Committee, which is something I and a number of colleagues will press in the Select Committee.
It is nonsense that the House cannot influence its own agenda-that every day the Order Paper is full of stuff from the Government that the House is meant to scrutinise and hold to account. That is an affront. It renders Parliament powerless, which is why when we have a problem-as we have in the past couple of months-we are seen as pathetic in the face of what the Government bring to the party. The Government do not only control our agenda; they can introduce a Parliamentary Standards Authority that could even abolish the right to speak freely and openly in the Chamber. Such unmitigated, unmediated power is the fundamental corruption of this place. It is not financial corruption, but political corruption, where our institution of freely elected individuals is controlled by Government. That balance has to change and it can change only if there is a business Committee that works closely with the Government but is not in the pocket or the pay of Government.
It is important that we create the Select Committee. It is important that we allow it to do its business. It is important that we have the discipline to focus on some of the key issues and that we move as swiftly as possible to a vote, if that is necessary, so that we have a Committee that can get on with the job of reforming the House of Commons.
11.19 pm
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), although I do not take precisely the same position on the way in which the Government have operated in introducing the motion.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |