Memorandum submitted by Hugh Bayley MP
SELECT COMMITTEES
I have been a member of a departmental select
committee while my Party was in opposition (Health Committee 1992-97)
and in government (International Development Committee 2001 to
present). Departmental select committees exist to hold the Government
to account and the executive should play no part in deciding which
party should chair each committee, or selecting the chairs or
Members of committees.
I believe it is fair for the allocation of chairs
and Members between the parties to reflect the party balance in
the House after each general election. The Clerk should calculate
the shares for each party. Thus, if there are 20 Committees, and
the party balance is calculated to be, say, 12, 8 and 2, the allocation
of chairs should be determined by drawing "party labels"
from a hat and applying them to committees listed in a pre-determined
order.
I reject the idea that the usual channels should
negotiate which party chairs each committee. It would be invidious
to give this role to the Speaker and Deputy Speakers so I suggest
the allocation is made by ballot.
Once the vacancies for chairs and committee
members open to each party are decided, Members should indicate
if they wish to be considered as a chair or member of a committee.
Elections should be held if there are more candidates than vacancies.
Voting should be restricted to MPs from the same party as the
vacancy to be filled. It would be wrong, for example, for the
governing party—who are likely to have a majority in the
House—to be able to influence which opposition Members should
chair or sit on a committee scrutinising the executive. It used
to be the practice that front benchers (on both sides) were not
members of select committees. This is a good practice which should
be re-established, and I think it would be best to restrict voting
to back benchers, on both sides.
I see no reason why Members should not stand
for election for more than one vacancy at a time (say to chair
a committee, and to be a member of the same committee, or to be
a member of more then one committee) but I not think it would
be right for a Member to hold more than one select committee post
at the same time. A Member selected to two posts would have to
choose one job and the vacancy should go to the runner up.
Casual vacancies should be filled by by-elections.
SCHEDULING BUSINESS
IN THE
HOUSE
Westminster Hall has increased the opportunity
for back benchers' adjournment debates, but far too much time
in the main chamber is taken by the front benches for Government
or opposition day debates, In particular there is too little time
for Private Members' Bills. The worst aspect of this problem is
the lack of committee time for Bills which have had a second reading.
I should like your committee to recommend increasing the number
of Public Bill Committees listed to consider Private Members'
Bills so that there is sufficient committee time allocated to
ensure that all Bills which receive a second reading have as good
a prospect as Government Bills of returning to the House for report
and third reading.
This, of course, would also require more time
for Private Members' Bills on the floor of the House. This additional
time should be provided on days when the House has whipped business,
rather than Fridays when MPs from constituencies far from London
usually give priority to constituency meetings. One possible time
would be between 7pm and 10pm on Wednesdays.
ENABLING THE
PUBLIC TO
INITIATE DEBATES
The amount of mail I receive from constituents
on behalf of lobby groups has increased during my seventeen years
in the House. There is certainly an appetite from members of the
public to seek to put things on Parliament's agenda. This is a
healthy part of our democracy. It shows that the public believe
that parliament is relevant and well organised lobbies have had
a major impact on legislation and Government policy over the years
(Action on Smoking and health campaigning for a ban on tobacco
advertising, Make Poverty History, Friends of the Earth promoting
a Climate Change Bill and commercial lobbies on all manner of
things).
However, it is necessary to have some checks
and balances. Parliament needs to decide whether the interests
of a lobby coincide with the public interest. There are examples
of groups with apparently conflicting interests lobbying to get
Parliament to back their side of the argument rather than seeking
a compromise with other interests (I recall canoeists and anglers
lobbying to restrict each others access to inland waterways).
As well financed groups are better able to mobilise support for
their causes, I would suggest that the public and the lobby groups
are not able to place items directly on Parliament's order paper.
If the House wants to encourage the public to
nominate topics for debate, I suggest they do so via their MPs.
However, for this to be meaningful back bench MPs would have to
have access to time on the floor of the House for general debates—a
back bench equivalent of Opposition Days.
A mechanism would be needed for deciding which
of the hundreds of subjects nominated by the public and sponsored
by MPs are selected for debate. The options would be a cross party
"Committee of Debate Selection"; or asking the Speaker
to make selections, as is done for adjournment debates; or a ballot
as with Private Members' Bills. I would like as much transparency
as possible (because transparent decisions are accountable and
therefore likely to be more rational), so I would personally favour
the first option over the second, and the second over the third.
October 2009
| 
