16 May 2006 : Column 131
House of Lords
Tuesday, 16 May 2006.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
Parliament: Accountability of Executive
Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, parliamentary accountability is at the heart of our constitutional arrangements. The Government are accountable to Parliament for all their actions.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her very courteous reply, which is helpful as far as it goes, but is it not a very serious matter that, while there is talk of reducing the powers of this place, nothing is being done to restore to the House of Commons its ability to hold the executive to account and scrutinise legislation properly? Is it not shocking that, because of the guillotine, the Communications Bill should have come to this place with 101 clauses and five schedules entirely unconsidered in the Commons? Is it not really rather scandalous that, after the Prevention of Terrorism Bill had been extensively amended in this place, it went back to the Commons and all the amendments made in this place were weighed off in one three-hour debate—most of which, incidentally, was taken up by replies from the Secretary of State? Can we therefore have an assurance that, before there is any further messing about with this place, the Government will make changes to allow the House of Commons to do its job properly?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I think that programming has its benefits. In another place, the Government work through the usual channels with the opposition parties to ensure that the critical issues are debated fully. In your Lordships' House, we have always had the privilege of debating a lot of issues, and we should continue to do so. As my right honourable friend the Leader of the Commons said this morning, the ambition is to ensure that this House is complementary to another place.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was the Leader of this House, what he describes happened to us on several occasions? Surely we are just continuing what he started years ago.
16 May 2006 : Column 132
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was not here, so, unfortunately, I cannot comment on that. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, did his best.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, do the Government accept that scrutiny of their actions is central to accountability? Will the Government therefore co-operate in setting up a Select Committee to scrutinise the treaty-making process before treaties are agreed and signed?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that issue needs to be considered. I know that the noble Lord feels strongly about it. I will, of course, ensure that his comments are referred to those who are considering the matter at the moment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, the Minister is not quite right—is she?—when she says that all of the Government's actions are subject to scrutiny by Parliament as a whole. The Finance Bill is still not subject to proper scrutiny by this House. Given that the Finance Bill has now doubled in size to, on average, 445 pages; given that vast swathes of it are simply not debated in the other place; and given the Government's fascination with the powers and role of this place, would it not be appropriate to consider giving this House a proper role in scrutinising Finance Bills?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, which will be absolutely no surprise to him. It is not beyond the ability of those in the opposition parties in another place to determine precisely how they wish to scrutinise legislation. I am sure that they will be able to do that.
Lord Soley: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that debates in Westminster Hall were introduced in 2000 partly to aid greater scrutiny of the Executive? Does she also recall that the Prime Minister answers questions before a Select Committee, which was never previously done? Are there not many other examples of that type? Would it not be better if parliamentarians both here and in the House of Commons sat down and asked how they could improve the system which we operate and did not wait for governments to do things to us? It is supposed to be parliamentarians, not governments, who drive Parliament.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Soley. It is important to recognise all the changes that we have made to ensure that we are able to deal with scrutiny appropriately. It is indeed for parliamentarians to make their voices heard, which I believe is what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was seeking to do in this case.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me and many on this side of the House that to talk of reform of this House means reform of Parliament and indeed of the whole of our constitution?
16 May 2006 : Column 133
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would refer the noble Baroness to my comments earlier about my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons, who said on radio this morning that he saw the role of this House as complementary. Therefore, he is thinking across Parliament in that way.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, are not Bills that arrive from the other place without proper scrutiny a testament to the incompetence and the stupidity of the Opposition?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure of the parliamentary language in this context, but it is very important that scrutiny of legislation is carried out in another place and in your Lordships' House. I accept, however, as I said, that programming has its role in making sure that critical issues are dealt with properly.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, if a committee of this House were to suggest that evidence should be taken in committee on the basis of subpoenaing Cabinet Ministers and taking their evidence on oath, would the Government support that?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not going to get into the idea of subpoenaing Cabinet Ministers in your Lordships' House today.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that this Question refers to parliamentary accountability? That is the accountability of both Houses of Parliament. Does my noble friend recall that, until their removal in 1999, the hereditary Peers, the majority of whom were on the Conservative Benches, held their Government to account in the Commons not once?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is very important that proper and effective accountability takes place in your Lordships' House and in another place.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I think that one of the members of the Public Administration Committee in another place said this morning that his Select Committee was the pre-eminent court in the land. Alas, that is not strictly true, is it? I believe that Erskine May has made clear in all its editions from 1859 to the present day that there are clear limitations on the powers of our Select Committees to send for persons, papers and records. Therefore, would we not be better off on the accountability that my noble friend and, I am sure, all of us seek if our Select Committees had more powers of the type given to US congressional committees? Those powers include, as my noble friend Lord Kingsland said, the awesome power of subpoena and the fact that a false statement before a committee counts as perjury.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we had a long and interesting debate about the powers of Select
16 May 2006 : Column 134
Committees during the passage of the Inquiries Bill. I hope that the noble Lord might look at that. Indeed, I spoke with the chairman of the Select Committee in question, Mr Wright, about the issues of concern. I think that the noble Lord will find that the powers of Select Committees are wide and varied, and I do not recall any Minister refusing to attend.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |