Rebuilding the House - House of Commons Reform Committee Contents


Memorandum submitted by Michael Meacher MP

  In response to the letter inviting comments on the three issues mentioned regarding House of Commons reform (leaving aside the separate inquiry into the appointment of the chairman and deputy chairmen of Ways and Means), I would like to offer the following views:

THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS AND CHAIRMEN OF SELECT COMMITTEES

  I would propose that at the start of each Parliament the Speaker should call for nominations for each select committee, and any Member may nominate any other. From those nominated for each committee the Members should be elected by secret ballot, with each Member of the House having one vote in regard to each select committee. Those elected will be those with the highest number of votes for the number of places allotted to each party in accordance with party strengths in the House. The minority parties (ie other than the three main parties) will collectively be entitled to one Member on each committee, to be determined by themselves according to their numbers. The select committee thus elected will then elect its chairman from among its members.

  I also believe strongly that if select committees are to fulfil effectively their main function of holding the executive to account, it is essential not only that the appointment of the members and chairman is kept free from the influence of the party managers so far as possible, but also that the main recommendations of at least some of the major reports from select committees in the course of the year are able to be debated and submitted to voting on the floor of the House. Only in that way can it be ensured that some of the key reports have access to exercise real influence over government thinking to the degree they perhaps deserve.

  I would therefore propose that the Liaison Committee should have the right once a month when Parliament is sitting to select from those select committee reports which have been completed one or two (either for a whole-day or half-day debate) which are to be debated, with a vote at the end, on the floor of the House. In each case the relevant select committee would then draw up the substantive motion for debate based on the main conclusions of their report.

  Where the Liaison Committee has not chosen a select committee report for debate on the floor of the House, I would also propose that in some cases chairmen of select committees should have the opportunity to make a statement introducing their committee's report on the floor of the House, and to take questions for, say, half an hour. As with the earlier proposal, the Liaison Committee should allocate a predetermined quota for this purpose.

SCHEDULING BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE

  I strongly support the call that has been made that Members should elect their own business committee to control the agenda of the House. Over time the executive has encroached more and more on the rights of Members until the House has now become little more than a rubber-stamp for proposals previously determined by the executive without any prior consultation with the legislature. The purpose of the House as a debating and voting chamber is to act as a forum for the public representation of the concerns of the electorate, and that must entail Members collectively taking control of the agenda of the House and the manner in which it is conducted.

  That does not of course mean procedurally preventing the Government from getting the business through the House on which has been elected. The Government, in negotiation with the business committee, must be allotted adequate time for this purpose, though the timetabling of all business would remain ultimately in the hands of the elected business committee.

  The business committee should be elected by secret ballot of Members of the whole House in accordance with the strengths of each party. It should consist of 15 Members and would then elect its own chairman who should be one of the Members from the opposition parties.

  The role of the business committee would be to prepare a rolling fortnightly programme for the future business of the House which would be renewed weekly and put to the House for decision. Notice of the proposed business programme should be given at least three days before it is put to the House (though be subject to amendment in the light of urgent matters arising). The business statement would then be formally moved by the chairman of the business committee, replacing the statement currently given by the Leader of the House. It could be subject to questioning and on specific items put to the vote, though not on the basis of a debate which should be the purpose and prerogative of the business committee itself.

ACCESS FOR THE PUBLIC TO INITIATE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE

  It has traditionally been the practice that members of the public can petition Parliament, but it has largely fallen into desuetude because there is currently no guarantee that such petitions will receive proper consideration or indeed any consideration at all. I therefore wish to support the call that has been made that a Public Petitions Committee should be established, elected by secret ballot of Members of the whole House. It would then elect its own chairman, and its function would be to respond to all petitions received (other than those that are vexatious, offensive or litigious).

  The committee would be empowered, in the light of their discussions, either to refer the matter to the appropriate select committee for their consideration, or to the appropriate Minister for necessary action to be taken, or to the business committee with a request that time be given for a debate on the floor of the House. The petitioners should then be informed as promptly as is feasible of the action that is being taken and of the eventual outcome. To improve the public's sense of engagement in the parliamentary process, it would also be desirable that the petitions committee should rotate their meetings around the major cities across the whole country (which is already the practice of the Petitions Committee in the Scottish Parliament).

  I also believe (as again happens in some other countries) that there is a strong case for allowing petitions that have attracted the signature of a certain significant proportion of the electorate (say 5%) automatically to have the right to be debated on the floor of the House with a vote at the end of the debate. That does not of course prevent the tabling of amendments or preclude the House from reaching whatever conclusion it may collectively decide. But if the petition were approved, either in its pristine or amended form, it would be strongly incumbent on the Government to respond accordingly, and failure to do so, or to do so adequately, could have serious electoral consequences.

OTHER MATTERS

  I appreciate that colleagues' views are not being sought on other issues, but wish to indicate disquiet that the proposal that Parliament should adopt the right to set up its own commissions of inquiry, where it considered this necessary and appropriate, has been omitted from the ambit of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. It has already been explored and recommended by the Public Administration Committee and reflects practice that was regularly followed by our Victorian predecessors. Ironically in setting up this select committee the House has accepted a restriction on its deliberations which it was the whole purpose of this committee, if it so chose, to seek to sweep away. I think this is regrettable and hope that this particular very much needed reform, as well as others, will not be lost in the current discussions and that the Committee may so recommend.

October 2009





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 24 November 2009