Memorandum submitted by Democratic Audit
1. For the purposes of this paper Democratic
Audit has re-ordered the three matters on which the Committee
will deliberate as it is our view that the executive's formal
and de facto control of the business of the primary legislative
chamber is a crucial issue in itself; and that the opportunity
for reform is most probably now at its highest point, given the
House's commitment to "put its house in order" and the
public interest outside Parliament in how this can be achieved.
While there is no clear popular consensus about what the
central elements of a reform agenda might be, people need
to be reassured that MPs have the capacity as well as the
integrity to represent them and restore public confidence in our
democracy.
2. In the longer run, proposals that will
enable the public to initiate debates and proceedings in the House,
and to participate in them, will deepen the quality of democracy
in the United Kingdom. But that deepening can only take place
if Parliament has first regained a real measure of self-government
and with it, the ability to respond to the public.
Bullet points
3. We have the following observations to
make on the three matters, (i) the scheduling of business in the
House; (ii) the appointment of members and chairs of select committees;
and (iii) enabling the public to initiate debates and proceedings
in the House:
THE SCHEDULING
OF BUSINESS
— The Government's control of the parliamentary
agenda is at the heart of the undue dominance of the executive
over Parliament that discredits and damages our parliamentary
democracy;
— The House of Commons should therefore
take control of the parliamentary agenda, placing a limit of two
days a week on government time on the agenda and establishing
a similar period for House business, in addition to allowances
for adjournment debates; Private Members' Bills; and debate on
select committee reports;
— In consequence, governments should modify
their approach to law-making (see below);
— In consequence, Standing Order 14 should
be abolished and a business committee of cross-party backbench
MPs established to determine the allocation of House business;
— The business committee should be established
independently of the whips and to consolidate this principle,
it should have no role in the determination of government time;
— The House should have a vote on the business
committee's proposals;
— The House of Commons Liaison Committee
proposal that six days a session should be set aside for debates
on select committee reports should be adopted.
THE APPOINTMENT
OF MEMBERS
AND CHAIRS
OF SELECT
COMMITTEES
— It is unacceptable from the perspective
of both democratic principle and practice that the appointment
of committees charged with overseeing government activities should
be dominated by government whips;
— It is also important to the independence
of those committees that opposition whips should play no part
in their establishment;
— A selection committee to allocate places
on select committees should be established early in the Parliament
on the same basis as the business committee;
— The chair of the committee should be
elected by the House in a secret ballot;
— The overall composition of select committees,
as recommended by the committee, and the party division of chairs
should require the approval of the House;
— Select committees should elect their
own chairs by secret ballot;
— The Committee should consider making
it normal practice that all backbench MPs would serve on select
committees, in order to strengthen the capacity of committees
and Parliament as a whole to hold governments to account;
— The Committee could also consider the
possibility that opposition chairs of select committees could
become the norm (as is the case for the Commons Public Accounts
Committee) in order to assert their independence.
ENABLING THE
PUBLIC TO
INITIATE DEBATES
AND PROCEEDINGS
IN THE
HOUSE.
— At present the means by which the public
may initiate debates and proceedings in the House are limited—even
if a substantial number share a particular concern. The Commons
should be required not merely to receive, but to act meaningfully
upon, petitions;
— The current arrangements for petitioning
should be liberalised and extended so that a reasonable fixed
number of people outside Parliament should be enabled to initiate
debates and committee inquiries;
— To facilitate this practice, a committee
akin to the Public Petitions Committee in the Scottish Parliament
could be established, to ensure that full consideration is given
to petitions and to recommend an appropriate course of action,
from a range of possible options including a response from the
executive, a parliamentary debate, or substantive consideration
by another parliamentary committee or committees;
— As well as their initiation, consideration
should be given to means of involving the public more widely in
the proceedings of the House as they take place, including pre-legislative
scrutiny on-line.
OTHER MATTERS
— The Committee should make use of its
time after 13 November to conduct further research and analysis
on matters of reform and make further proposals designed to right
the balance between the executive and Parliament, as well as commenting
on—and if necessary taking up issues within—any government
responses to its proposals;
— The Committee should consider recommending
a parliamentary self-assessment exercise on the model of the International
Parliamentary Union's for the continuation of its work in a future
Parliament.
The scheduling of business in the House
4. As members of the Committee will be aware,
the Government's control over the House of Commons does not rest
solely on its majority in the House. Standing Order 14 gives the
government, regardless of whether it has a majority over a given
issue or not, a mandate to decide every day what the agenda of
the Commons should be, except for 20 opposition days, 13 Private
Members' Bill days and three days for select committee business.
5. The damaging repercussions of this power
over the legislative are apparent in two aspects of parliamentary
governance. First the growing number of clauses of primary and
secondary legislation squeezed through Parliament, often ill-prepared,
badly thought out and insufficiently scrutinised; and it is important
that governments should not try and squeeze a similar amount of
legislation through should more limited time be at their disposal.
(As such, the Committee could perform a valuable service by re-examining
the legislative process as a whole and considering whether it
remains "fit for purpose"). Secondly, it prevents MPs
from being able to debate and vote on key issues, such as the
"third runway;" and ongoing military operations in Afghanistan.
Even the Speaker has no power to overrule the government on its
determination of topics for decision by vote.
THE APPOINTMENT
OF SELECT
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
AND CHAIRS
6. It has long been appreciated that current
arrangements for the appointment of select committee members and
chairs are unsatisfactory. The most blatant attempt by the executive
to abuse its patronage in July 2001, when it sought to remove
the chairs of two select committees, was rejected by the House.
But Members are aware that a broader ongoing problem exists, in
terms of principle, perception and practice. The lack of independence
from the Government (and Opposition) Whips enables both ministers—and
on occasion even the Prime Minister—and opposition front
benches to promote or block particular appointments. It is time
to act on the report of the Committee on Modernisation, in response
to the July 2001 debacle, endorsing the statement by Lord Sheldon
that: "the executive, via the Whips, ought not to select
those members of select committees who will be examining the executive".
We trust that the Committee and the House as a whole will take
advantage of this "reform moment".
ENABLING THE
PUBLIC TO
INITIATE DEBATES
AND PROCEEDINGS
7. The most effective means of involving
the public in initiating debates and proceedings in the House
would be through the introduction of a petitioning process that—as
in Scotland—serves to encourage and build-in citizen initiatives
rather than to inhibit them as at Westminster. As well as giving
people opportunities to instigate parliamentary debates and proceedings,
consideration should be given as to how the public could be engaged
in deliberative fashion in proceedings as they take place, using
modern communication facilities, involving citizen participation
for example in pre-legislative scrutiny and the work of select
committees. Another improvement could be mandatory annual meetings
between MPs and constituents, including a report-back session,
to give the local public opportunities to make recommendations
for the future. But Parliament and Members should take measures
to ensure that such openings to greater participation do not widen
the "participation gap" within society and thus further
disempower already marginalised groups within society.
Other reform matters
8. We will deal with these matters in bullet
point form to facilitate consideration by the Committee:
— The Committee should consider whether
and how far current government proposals for reform of Royal Prerogative
powers place those powers on a statutory footing so that Parliament
has a fuller say in the conduct of government;
— Select committees, the main instruments
of scrutiny in the House, do not have the resources or time to
do their job properly. The Committee should consider how best
to give these committees adequate research resources, powers to
subpoena ministers and officials, and more powers to oblige government
to respond fully and in good time;
— In addition to our proposals to integrate
time for select committee reports into the parliamentary timetable,
we also recommend that they should be given the power to introduce
their own Bills;
— Select committee chairs often find it
very difficult to muster sufficient members to keep their committees
quorate, and especially to hold meetings during the long recesses.
The Committee should consider proposals that would make the House
a modern committee-driven chamber and bring to an end the pernicious
`case-work' ethos that does more to shore up MPs' incumbency than
to bring real redress to their constituents; as well as looking
at ways of introducing a rolling parliamentary calendar where
work does not grind to a halt over long recesses;
— Other issues that would bear consideration:
(i) the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments;
(ii) applying the same procedures for determining
the composition of select committees to the choice of members
of public bill committees;
(iii) bringing the choice of Prime Minister and
ministers into the House prior to their appointment at Buckingham
Palace;
(iv) finding ways to ensure that government initiatives
are announced first in Parliament, not the media;
(v) giving Parliament its own legal counsel;
(vi) making pre-legislative scrutiny of draft
bills the norm;
(vii) giving MPs more space to introduce their
own bills;
(viii) strengthening the role of the all-committee
Liaison Committee.
Parliamentary self assessment
9. The Select Committee—while focussed
on certain specifics at present and subject to serious time constraints—could
consider the idea of at least recommending a full self-assessment
exercise as a continuation of its work in a future Parliament.
We have identified above a particular need to consider the legislative
process, but our democracy would benefit from a comprehensive
assessment of the work and performance of Parliament. The Select
Committee could be an ideal body to facilitate such an urgently-needed
assessment, using the model put forward by the Inter-Parliamentary
Union.
September 2009
|
