Heath and Harris on the Procedure votes

• [Mar 04] David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat): ' . . MOST importantly, I hope that amendment (a) is passed. This is the key vote to give control of the timetable of debate in the House back to Members of the House, taking it away from the Executive. If we cannot achieve that, we will have failed as a House in our debates on this matter. I hope that the House is up to the task of agreeing to amendment (a) today . . ' [It was!]

I listened to what the Leader of the House had to say about her own tactic in providing time for others, which was to speak allegretto. I will maintain a more stately andante, but I hope to be brief. I repeat the point that today's debate is not about what we say from Front-Bench positions; it is about what right hon. and hon. Members have to say on the recommendations. We have already had the debate on many of these issues.

I will briefly give an opinion on the points before us today. I find it difficult to get really worked up about motion 3, but it is better to refer to the position as "Chair" rather than "Chairman". I note in passing that those who are most adamant that they will never accept the word "Chair" are quite happy to refer to "the Crown" on the ground that a hat is somehow more appropriate than a piece of furniture for describing a position. I am not sure that I understand that distinction.

I hope that we will be able to support motion 4 and all the amendments. The position of the Chair of the Procedure Committee is important and I am glad that that amendment has been tabled. The Public Accounts Committee should be chaired by a Chairman from the official Opposition. That is a sensible provision within our Standing Orders.

I agree with motion 5. I also agree with motion 6. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee brings forward an important point about non-attendance at Committees. Whether this is the right way to deal with it I do not know, but it has been notable that some major departmental Committees have struggled to reach a quorum on too many occasions. If this is not the answer, we must find another. I would support this because it is a permissive power, not a requirement, and I hope we might consider that today.

The most important matter is motion 7 and the amendments to it. I heard what Sir George Young said in supporting his amendment (b). I am not persuaded that it does not provide for a more restrictive solution than amendment (c). The two are in direct opposition. If (b) is passed, (c) cannot be put. Therefore, I invite hon. Members to oppose amendment (b) and support amendment (c), which is a more satisfactory solution. If proof of that is needed, Members need only look at the collusion between Members of the two Front Benches here to see where the Executive would like us to vote. I invite the House to vote for amendment (c).

However, most importantly, I hope that amendment (a) is passed. This is the key vote to give control of the timetable of debate in the House back to Members of the House, taking it away from the Executive. If we cannot achieve that, we will have failed as a House in our debates on this matter. I hope that the House is up to the task of agreeing to amendment (a) today. I support amendment (d) because those are the matters the Wright Committee considered, and which the Leader of the House for some reason would not put before the House. They should have been put before the House, they have been now and we can agree to the amendment.

Motion 8 concerns the election of the Deputy Speakers. I know how hard the Procedure Committee worked on this, and it came forward with cogent views on the election. I have just one caveat, which is that if we are successful in the early amendments-I say "we"; those who think like I do that we need a business committee of the House-the Chairman of Ways and Means will have a new and important full-time role in organising the business of the House. That suggests a need for an additional Deputy Speaker. I made that point in evidence to the Wright Committee, but today's change in Standing Orders will not provide for that eventuality, and I regret that.

1070)

[11026

Greg Knight (East Yorkshire, Conservative): The Procedure Committee considered that very point, and we are of the view that the matter should be revisited in the next Parliament.

1071)

[10269

David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. If we agree to that new role for the Chairman of Ways and Means subsequent to today's votes, however, we will need to prepare for that, so that in the new Parliament we can deal with it as a first instance.

I need not detain the House any longer. Some have described today as an historic day of reform-I am sorry, but I cannot bring myself to think that way. An Everest of reform is necessary if we are to bring this House and our politics generally up to speed-into the 21st century-and make it fit for purpose. Evolution is a slow process at the moment, and we still do not fit the ecological niche that we need to fit. If we were climbing Everest, we would simply be at base camp, but if the House cannot even get to base camp we will have failed the people who have elected us and want us to make this House fit for purpose.

1071)

2:46 pm

• . . Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat): I rise to speak to amendment (c) to the motion on the Back-Bench business committee and to put some questions to the shadow Leader of the House, Sir George Young, about his amendment (b). The right hon. Gentleman was a worthy member of the Wright Committee-initially, until he found his new home on the Conservative Front Bench. We all congratulated him on that at the time. Two weeks ago, I thought he played a statesmanlike role in our proceedings, but I would be grateful if he could answer a number of questions about his amendment in order to keep that title untainted, if I can put it that way.

There are several problems with the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. First, this House elected the Wright Committee to represent its views, consider the relevant matters and bring recommendations. It is not binding; no Select Committee report is binding. It gives rise to pause for thought when an elected Committee comes along with very strong recommendations, yet an amendment is tabled in the name of one party to ride roughshod over those recommendations.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that amendment (c), with which his amendment (b) is competing, endorses and flexibly implements the recommendations of the Wright Committee. His amendment does not do that. Thirdly, his amendment says that this can happen only

"in the light of further consideration by the Procedure Committee".

As already noted-I intend no slight on the people serving on that Committee who I am sure do a very good job and have done so on the report about Deputy Speakers-the Procedure Committee is not an elected Committee; it is still appointed by the Whips. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for the Back-Bench business committee's terms of reference and relevant Standing Order to be determined by a Committee that is presently appointed by the Whips. Furthermore, how does he envisage that being done in the two weeks we have before Parliament is dissolved? His amendment says that it will be established

"in time for the beginning of the next Parliament"-

that is good-

"in the light of further consideration by the Procedure Committee".

I would be grateful if he would address that concern about the timing.

1079)

[10659

George Young (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Parliament; North West Hampshire, Conservative): Someone will have to change the Standing Orders. Someone will have to draft the provision-I do not mind who does it, but I suggested that the Procedure Committee was the best body to do so and report back before the end of this Parliament so that we can get things up and running at the beginning of the next one.

1079)

[10261

Evan Harris : I trust the right hon. Gentleman would have no objection to an elected Committee of the House doing that. I am glad that he indicates assent from a sedentary position. The Wright Committee may be well placed to do that work, as I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it has given considerable thought to the changes to the Standing Orders that will be required, so it will not be making a standing start.

1079)

[10095

William Cash (Stone, Conservative): Margaret Beckett talked about wrangling over this extremely important House business committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, just as we are having a free vote on implementing the proposals before us, the result of any such wrangling must also be subject to a free vote? Otherwise, the Executive will prevail on all occasions when the House business committee takes its own view in negotiations with the official Committee.

1080)

[10261

Evan Harris : The hon. Gentleman asks an important question about the House business committee, which is covered by amendment (a) to motion 7 and various recommendations in the report. I was not dealing with that, but the hon. Gentleman makes some important points, which the Wright Committee debated at length, about how one ensures a consensual approach to agreeing the agenda; otherwise, regardless of what he says about free votes, the Government of the day will be able to get their way, which would wreck the whole process. I urge him to read what the report has to say about the need to have the House business committee working consensually when it is set up. As long as everyone has time to do their stuff, these should not be matters of dispute. Proper consideration on Report and of Lords amendments should be agreed, and the Government can then use their majority to get their business through. Amendment (a) provides guarantees that the Government have time to do that.

I ask the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire to address what I view as the fundamental problem with his amendment (a) to the motion on the Back-Bench business committee. Amendment (c) specifies support for recommendation 18 of the Wright Committee report-probably the most important of the subsidiary recommendations, as it talks about a Back-Bench business committee being elected. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment leaves out any recognition of that recommendation and makes no reference to a Back-Bench business committee being elected. As the shadow Leader of the House knows, unless we specify in the Standing Order, and unless whatever Committee is involved has the time, the default will be that it would not be elected, which would wreck the whole proposal. If a Back-Bench business committee is not elected by the House, I cannot see why he should accept that any other Committee should be.

As long as the concerns about time are met, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, and the Leader of the House, will accept that the amendment concerned will do the trick. His amendment refers to "15 days allotted"-I presume he means currently allotted-to set-piece debates. That is less than half a day a week. The Wright Committee, however, was clear that if we tot up those 15 days, and the 12 days in the last Session-this might be a variable feast-subsequently allotted for general debates, which he says will subsequently come our way, plus the topical time, which should be for the House, plus other House business that must be moved in Government time, it amounts to a day a week. Amendment (c) refers to non-ministerial business. If the system is introduced, it cannot be right for crucial House business still to be moved in Government time, because we will still have problems when we debate setting up important Select Committees and making Standing Order changes. Although it could be argued that the proposal is in the spirit of the Wright Committee, amendment (b) is flawed. The Leader of the House's support should have given the shadow Leader of the House pause, since she is not supporting other elements of the Wright Committee.

The right hon. Member for Derby, South was concerned that we might be moving too fast towards a House business committee. However, the terms of amendment (a) are clear: only after the establishment of a Back-Bench business committee, which we think will be at the beginning of the next Parliament if amendment (c) is passed, will the House move towards the establishment of a House business committee. That gives plenty of time to see how the Back-Bench business committee is working and how Government and Opposition Whips-business managers, we should say-should work with that Back-Bench business committee to reach agreement to solve the serious problems of Report stage.

I did not understand how the Leader of the House could say that she opposed amendment (d) because it should be left "to the next Parliament". Amendment (d) would add the words

"and also looks forward to the following recommendations of the Committee being given further consideration in the next Parliament".

How can she oppose a motion in its own terms, by its own terms? It does not make sense. I hope that she will reconsider that, as she has reconsidered her position on a number of such matters, which we have welcomed.

By supporting amendment (c) to motion 7, and amendment (a), we have an opportunity to show the electorate that we recognise that now is the time to make such decisions. We will never again have the coincidence of all the forces that have led us to recognise that reform is necessary. If we are ever to crack the problem of the House having control of its agenda, and of making sure that it can debate and vote on all the legislation that the Government put before it, we must support amendments (c) and (a) to motion 7.

..........

• Motion 7: That this House approves recommendation 17 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, Session 2008-09, HC 1117, and looks forward to the House being offered the opportunity within 10 sitting weeks of the beginning of the next session of Parliament to establish a backbench business committee and a new category of backbench business, in the light of further consideration by the Procedure Committee. -(Ms Harman.)

Amendment (a), at end add: 'and approves the establishment during the course of the next Parliament of a House Business Committee comprising the backbench business committee and representatives of Government and Opposition which, while guaranteeing that the Government has the time and first choice of dates to get its legislative programme through, and to make whatever statements it wishes, would improve scheduling of business to ensure more effective scrutiny of legislation at Report Stage and consideration of Lords Amendments.'

............

Amendment proposed to motion 7 : (b), leave out from 'opportunity' to end and add: 'in the light of further consideration by the Procedure Committee, to establish in time for the beginning of the next Parliament a Backbench Business Committee and a new category of backbench business, comprising initially the 15 days allotted to set piece debates; and subsequently days allocated for general debates.- (Sir George Young.)

Question put, That the amendment be made. The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 221. Question accordingly NEGATIVED.

............

Amendments made to motion 7 : (c), leave out from 'opportunity' to end and add

'to establish, in time for the start of the next Parliament, a backbench business committee, constituted in accordance with the principles set out in recommendation 18 of the Committee's Report, to schedule non-ministerial business as described in recommendations 22 (select committees), 23 and 28 (backbench substantive motions), 30 (protected time for backbench business) and 39 (Estimates days) of the Committee's Report.'.

Amendment (a), at end add: 'and approves the establishment during the course of the next Parliament of a House Business Committee comprising the backbench business committee and representatives of Government and Opposition which, while guaranteeing that the Government has the time and first choice of dates to get its legislative programme through, and to make whatever statements it wishes, would improve scheduling of business to ensure more effective scrutiny of legislation at Report Stage and consideration of Lords Amendments.'.

Amendment (d), at end add: 'and also looks forward to the following recommendations of the Committee being given further consideration in the next Parliament:

(a) 19 and 20 (Ministerial business);

(b) 21 (Opposition business);

(c) 26 (notice and flexibility);

(d) 27 (timetabling);

(e) 32 (sessions and carry-over);

(f) 35 (Ministerial statements);

(g) 36 (general committees);

(h) 37 (public bill committees); and

(i) 40 (Private Members' bills).'.- (Dr. Tony Wright.)

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

............

• RESOLVED ,

That this House approves recommendation 17 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, Session 2008-09, HC 1117, and looks forward to the House being offered the opportunity to establish, in time for the start of the next Parliament, a backbench business committee, constituted in accordance with the principles set out in recommendation 18 of the Committee's Report, to schedule non-ministerial business as described in recommendations 22 (select committees), 23 and 28 (backbench substantive motions), 30 (protected time for backbench business) and 39 (Estimates days) of the Committee's Report, and approves the establishment during the course of the next Parliament of a House Business Committee comprising the backbench business committee and representatives of Government and Opposition which, while guaranteeing that the Government has the time and first choice of dates to get its legislative programme through, and to make whatever statements it wishes, would improve scheduling of business to ensure more effective scrutiny of legislation at Report Stage and consideration of Lords Amendments, and also looks forward to the following recommendations of the Committee being given further consideration in the next Parliament:

(a) 19 and 20 (Ministerial business);

(b) 21 (Opposition business);

(c) 26 (notice and flexibility);

(d) 27 (timetabling);

(e) 32 (sessions and carry-over);

(f) 35 (Ministerial statements);

(g) 36 (general committees);

(h) 37 (public bill committees); and

(i) 40 (Private Members' bills).

More at: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-03-04a.1095.2

Related Links

• • Full Debate in Parliament