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
|