Полная версия
The Times Guide to the House of Commons
Perhaps the final symbolic motif for this grim Parliament came just before the election was announced, when Mr Hoon, Ms Hewitt and the former minister Stephen Byers were each caught out by undercover journalists posing as lobbyists. The former ministers appeared to be cashing in on their influence. Ms Hewitt explained that, for a fee of £3,000 a day, she could help “a client who needs a particular regulation removed, then we can often package that up”. Mr Hoon was heard saying that he was “looking forward to…something that, frankly, makes money”.
Above all, the crass remarks made by Mr Byers seemed to sum up the previous five years. “I am a bit like a sort of cab for hire,” he explained to the fake lobbyist. “I still get a lot of confidential information because I am still linked to No 10.” His trump card came close to self-parody: “We could have a word with Tony”. Mr Blair was long gone from No 10, but his potential earning power lingered on.
At the start of the 54th Parliament, public confidence in politicians was already crumbling; by the end it was radically eroded. The perception that MPs lined their own pockets at taxpayer expense was widespread in 2005; by 2010 it was universal conventional wisdom. Unfairly, but understandably, Parliament had come to be seen as one large rank of cabs for hire. The tumult, sleaze and political skulduggery left the public jaundiced and angry, and many MPs traumatised and exhausted. Contemplating her own retirement, Ann Widdecombe spoke for many when she remarked: “I find that my uppermost sentiment is one of profound relief.”
Like Oliver Cromwell, surveying the Rump Parliament, the public’s patience had run out: “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately…Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!” And they went: in addition to the 149 MPs who stood down before the 2010 election, 76 were voted out of office in May of that year. In some ways, both the level of interest in the election, and a result giving no party an overall majority, were also an accurate reflection of the rancour and uncertainty of the five years that preceded it.
The unhappy 54th Parliament was, perhaps, a necessary trauma. Wholesale political reform became inevitable. Closer scrutiny of parliamentary expenses began. The gravy train hit the buffers, making a fantastic mess that will take many years to clear up.
Britain has a new Parliament, a new form of government and a large new crop of MPs. They will make their own mistakes and commit their own sins, but only this can be predicted with absolute certainty: no MP in the 55th Parliament will ever buy a duck house. Ben Macintyre was parliamentary sketch writer for The Times from 2002-04
The growing powers of the humble backbencher
Peter Riddell
Chief Political
Commentator
One of the great paradoxes of the House of Commons is that just as its public standing has hardly ever been lower, MPs have seldom been more hard-working or potentially more effective. Procedural changes over the past dozen years have given backbench MPs more chance to play a creative role at Westminster.
The “declinist” view of Parliament has, of course, been reinforced by the expenses scandal (as discussed in an accompanying article). There is nothing new in such complaints. There never was a golden age. Every generation has had protests that the executive is too strong and the legislature too weak but, as the Hansard Society’s Annual Audit of Political Engagement showed in March 2010, while the expenses row did not create a problem of trust, which has existed for many years, it did reinforce public scepticism. Less than two fifths of the public believe Parliament to be one of the two or three national institutions that have most influence on their everyday lives.
The counter view has been put most eloquently by Jack Straw, a former Leader of the Commons and closely involved in constitutional reform during his 13 years in the Cabinet. He argued, in a lecture to the Hansard Society in March 2010, that “the view that Parliament is irrelevant or powerless is complete nonsense”. He acknowledged that the institution was far from perfect, and the balance remained tilted in the Government’s favour, but changes in recent decades had strengthened the legislature. As Mr Straw pointed out, in the three decades from the mid-1940s until the mid-1970s, the executive was all powerful. Backbench MPs seldom rebelled: there were two whole sessions in the 1950s when not a single Conservative backbencher defied the whip and voted against the Government. There were few select committees. Those that did exist were mainly weak, apart from the Public Accounts Committee. Admittedly, many newspapers until the mid-to-late 1980s did carry full reports of what was said on the floor of the Commons, but radio broadcasting did not arrive on a regular and continuous basis until April 1978, and television cameras not until November 1989.
Select Committees
Since the 1970s, a number of far-reaching changes have been introduced, most significantly in 1979 with the creation of 12 broadly departmental select committees. Each big department is monitored by a select committee to examine its policymaking and performance. There have been variations in the number, titles and remit of committees to match changes in the machinery of government, but the principle has remained. This has created wideranging opportunities for MPs to question ministers, civil servants and interested bodies, and has unquestionably broadened the range of public debate. For instance, the opening up of decisions on setting interest rates, both in the mid-1990s and then with the creation of the Monetary Policy Committee in 1997, has meant that the Governor and senior directors of the Bank of England appear before the Treasury committee at least once a quarter.
There has been a similar opening up in other areas of policy. The banking crisis was examined frequently from autumn 2007 onwards by the Treasury Select Committee, when all the main players appeared at often uncomfortable hearings. The Defence Select Committee also pursued allegations that British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were inadequately supplied and supported. The public gathering of evidence and the questioning of ministers has often been more important than the recommendations in the final reports.
There were three waves of reform during the Labour years: when Robin Cook was Leader of the Commons from June 2001 until March 2003; when Jack Straw was Leader from 2006 until 2007; and, finally, in the aftermath of the expenses scandal, when a special committee was set up under the respected Labour MP and political scientist Tony Wright to examine ways of strengthening the influence of the Commons and of backbenchers.
Among the changes have been a strengthening in the role of select committees in 2002 by giving them ten core tasks, including examining annual departmental reports and expenditure plans, aided by the creation of a central Scrutiny Unit to provide expert support in addition to the clerks and advisers to particular committees. But each committee has its own distinctive style, priorities and approach, notably reflecting the personality of the chairman. Additional pay for select committee chairmen was introduced from October 2003, while from 2007 the committees were given the additional role of holding pre-appointment hearings for those chairing a variety of public bodies. This is not, however, a veto power, as was shown when Ed Balls brushed aside the objections of the Childrens, Schools and Families Select Committee to an appointment in his area. In 2009, eight new regional committees were set up, despite the protests from the main opposition parties.
The Prime Minister was, for a long time, above this process, but, since July 2002, he has given evidence for about two and a half hours twice a year to the Liaison Committee, which consists of the chairmen of the main select committees. This enables a wide range of topics to be raised, but at times it can be too wide since neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown, in their very different ways, was ever discomfited during an appearance.
Wright committee
After the expenses scandal there was widespread agreement that the Commons not only needed to sort out this specific issue but also to address wider questions about the role of MPs. This led to the formation of the cross-party Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, generally known as the Wright committee. This was different from the Modernisation Committee, which had discussed most big changes since 1997 but had become dormant under Harriet Harman’s leadership of the Commons. Whereas the Modernisation Committee had always been chaired by the Leader of the Commons, the Reform committee was chaired by a leading backbencher. Its remit was limited to what were seen as the most pressing problems: appointments to select committees, the arrangement of business in the House and the possibility of direct public initiation of issues in the chamber. The committee’s report, Rebuilding the House, published in November 2009, concentrated on giving backbenchers more control and reducing the role of the party whips in determining the membership of select committees and the non-governmental business of the House.
The reform committee recommended that the chairmen of most select committees should be elected by the House as a whole and other members should be elected within each political party, with the basis of election being decided by each party. The party balance of committees and of the chairmen will continue to reflect the proportion of seats that each party holds in the House. The Speaker will determine what the balance should be between the parties and they will negotiate about which party will provide chairmen for which select committee. Nominations will be sought and candidates will submit manifestos. There may be hustings and elections will then take place.
The intention is that the chairmen and the members should be more independent than in the past, when there had been occasional rows on the floor of the House over attempts by the whips to prevent independent-minded MPs from being re-elected to chair committees. In addition, the size of departmental select committees was limited to 11, in the hope of ensuring greater attendance and higher commitment from MPs.
The most contentious proposal would involve ending the Government’s exclusive hold on the agenda of the Commons. The reform committee proposed that a backbench business committee should be appointed to schedule backbench business and that, in time, a House business committee should be set up to schedule all business before the House. In March 2010, the Commons agreed with these proposals and with the establishment of a House business committee during the course of the following Parliament but the Labour Government and the party whips ensured that no time was available before the dissolution of the House and the election. Even the creation of a backbench business committee would represent a significant shift in the balance of power within Parliament, allowing backbenchers, rather than the party whips, to decide whether to have an increased number of short, topical debates and to give more time for discussion on select committee reports.
Legislation
The Commons scrutiny of legislation has commonly been regarded as one of the least satisfactory aspects of Parliament. The formal procedures are unchanging. A Bill is introduced without discussion, its first reading, then about ten days later it is debated in principle on the floor of the Commons in its second reading. Most Bills then go “upstairs” to be scrutinised line-by-line in what used to be called standing committees and are now known as public Bill committees. (Exceptions are constitutional Bills, the committee stages of which are always taken on the floor of the Commons, and the most controversial parts of the Finance Bill, which are again taken on the floor.)
This is the most criticised part of the process because government backbenchers are whipped to toe the line and constructive debate has been discouraged. Until a few years ago, the committee stages were allowed to run for a certain number of hours (often about 80) before the Ggovernment put down a guillotine motion limiting the time for further debate. This often left large parts of the Bill undebated before it got to the Lords. After a committee stage, a Bill returns to the floor of the Commons for a report stage, when further amendments can be made. This is often the stage at which controversial changes are debated. There is then a, usually short, third reading before the Bill goes to the Lords, where it follows similar procedures.
The main differences in the Lords are that there are seldom votes or divisions on the committee stages of Bills, which are increasingly taken in the Moses Room or a similar committee room. So the Lords allows votes on amendments on the third reading of Bills as well as at report stage. Each year some Bills are introduced in the Lords rather than the Commons to even out the workload between the two Houses. Money Bills, such as the Finance Bill, cannot be changed in the Lords and receive only a formal debate before being passed.
There have been a number of changes in these procedures. First, more Bills are being published in draft form, which allows time for examination either by a select committee or by a special committee (often a joint one of both Houses). These inquiries can lead to changes to Bills before they are formally introduced and it becomes a matter of the government’s authority. The practice has been disappointing, however, with a marked decline over the past six years in the number of Bills published in draft form.
Secondly, the need for post-legislative scrutiny is now increasingly accepted, with Acts being examined five years after their passage. This is still in its early stages. Thirdly, Bills are now subject to formal timetables from their second reading onwards, with a programme motion stating when a committee stage has to be completed and how long there is for the report and third readings. This has led to complaints that opposition parties and backbenchers have been deprived of their rights to scrutinise, and occasionally, hold up Bills. Fourthly, standing committees were replaced in 2003 by public Bill committees, which permit brief scrutiny sessions when expert witnesses can give evidence immediately before the line-by-line examination of any measure. While, in theory, this offers scope for improving the scrutiny of Bills, the time allowed is often too short and the process needs to be reviewed.
Private Member’s Bills
Most legislation is put forward by the Government, but in every session a few Bills sponsored by backbench MPs become law. Most of these emerge through a ballot held at the beginning of each session. A total of 13 Fridays in each session are allotted to Private Member’s Bills, which go through the same stages as government Bills, but only seven Fridays are allotted to second readings: the other six are for later stages.
An MP who is lower than seventh will have to put their Bill down for a Friday on which it will not be the first to be debated. This involves astute tactics to judge which Bills will be controversial and therefore face opposition. Debates on important Bills often last most of the Friday sitting (from 9.30am to 2.30pm). Sponsors of Bills have to mobilise support among their fellow MPs since a closure motion to end the debate and have a second reading vote requires the support of 100 MPs, quite a high hurdle for a Friday when many MPs like to be back in their constituencies. Without a closure motion, a Bill can be blocked by a single MP shouting, “Object”, in which case the debate is adjourned. The same happens to Bills that have not been debated. In practice, they then have virtually no chance of becoming law.
Bills introduced under this procedure vary enormously in importance, from highly controversial subjects such as hunting and abortion to minor adjustments of existing law. The Government sometimes offers backbenchers high in the ballot fully drafted Bills that have not found a place in the Queen’s Speech programme. Pressure groups and constituents will also bombard MPs with ideas.
Another way for a backbencher to introduce legislation is under the ten-minute rule, which allows an MP the chance to make a brief speech in favour of introducing a Bill. Another MP can speak against and the proposal can then be voted upon. Even if successful, however, the Bill then has to take its chance for a second reading on a Friday. In practice, most ten-minute Bill debates, held in prime time twice a week after Question Time and any statements, offer a chance for an MP to get publicity for an issue. Bills can be introduced without debate by any backbench MP but they also have to compete for time on Fridays coming after the ballot bills. So they have very little chance of becoming law unless they are uncontroversial.
The chamber
It is a commonplace that the chamber of the Commons is not what it was. Debates are no longer reported in the press and most are poorly attended, but that is partly because there are now many other ways in which MPs can raise issues. The introduction of Westminster Hall as a secondary chamber has taken some of the pressure off the floor of the Commons. Westminster Hall holds debates from Tuesdays to Thursdays on constituency issues as well as national policy questions, with time regularly allocated for debates on select committee reports. In each case, a minister has to be present to give the government’s response to either a narrow grievance or a broader policy issue.
Question Time, traditionally seen as the epitome of adversarial politics, has changed in a number of largely unappreciated ways. Each departmental Question Time now has a period for topical questions asked without any prior notice to the minister, while there is also a reduced notice period for tabling oral questions. MPs also table more written questions. Since 1997 Prime Minister’s Questions has been a 30-minute session each Wednesday, later moving to noon, rather than two 15-minute sessions at 3.15pm on Tuesday and Thursday.
That has also reflected a series of changes in the timing of the parliamentary day. Monday and Tuesday sessions now begin at 2.30pm and last until between 10.30pm and 11pm, depending on the number of divisions at the end of the main business. The Wednesday session starts at 11.30am and ends at about 7.30pm; the Thursday session begins at 10.30am and ends at 6.30pm; and the much less frequent Friday sessions start at 9.30am and end by 3pm. This has had the effect of concentrating the parliamentary week from Monday evening until, usually, Wednesday early evening, and only occasionally Thursday.
John Bercow, elected as Speaker in June 2009, and reelected in May 2010, has made a priority of strengthening the chamber and empowering the backbench MP. He has sought to speed up parliamentary business and ensure that more questions are asked of ministers. He has also allowed many more urgent questions, roughly one a sitting week compared with two in the 12 months before his election. Urgent questions allow any member to seek to compel a minister to come to the Commons to address an issue of importance. This has put pressure on the Government to volunteer statements of its own.
Opposition days
In each parliamentary session, the opposition parties are given the right to initiate debates on 20 sitting days. These days are allocated according to the strength of the parties in the Commons, to give the smaller groups such as the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the Democratic Unionists a chance to have debates. The timing of such debate is in the hands of the Government but the subject for debate is entirely determined by the opposition party. The topics are normally urgent and controversial issues where the Opposition wishes to challenge or embarrass the Government.
These set-piece debates attract little media attention and often few MPs are in the chamber even for the opening or closing speeches. There have been suggestions in the past few years that the Opposition might exchange some of their time for shorter and more topical debates just after Question Time when a minister has to justify their policy and decisions. This possibility is likely to be explored in the current Parliament when a backbnech businss committee is set up to allocate time for non-government business.
Direct public involvement
The Commons has been slow to give voters a greater direct say. Proposals for direct e-petitions have been accepted in principle but nothing has been done to implement them, partly because of a lack of political will. The Wright committee made only vague suggestions for a new agenda initiative whereby a proposal attracting a certain amount of support would trigger a debate. There are two related, but separate, issues here: first, agenda-setting petitions that could trigger debates on a topic or even a Bill (although not binding MPs on how they should vote); secondly, more general e-petitions, as adopted in the Scottish Parliament, where members of the public can raise anything from individual cases of maladministration and local grievances to broader public policy problems requiring fresh legislation.
Conflicting roles
Any discussion of Parliament is complicated by the multiple loyalties of MPs: to their constituents, to their parties (locally and nationally) and to the House of Commons. That is partly because, unlike the United States, we do not have a separation of powers. So MPs have loyalties to either support or oppose the government of the day, which can conflict with or supersede their more parliamentary roles on, for example, select committees. This need not, and did not, prevent committees with a Labour majority in the last Parliament from publishing critical reports on the Brown Government’s policies and performance. It is all a question of balance.
Peter Riddell is the author of six books on British politics, including two on Parliament. He has chaired the Hansard Society, a non-partisan charity for promoting understanding of Parliament, and is a Senior Fellow of the Institute for Government.
New intake foots bill for the old
Sam Coates
Chief Political Correspondent
It was designed as a punishment to fit the crime. Having hustled, exaggerated and bullied at least £1 million out of the expenses system to which they had no right, the eventual response of MPs in the last Parliament was to strip those in the next of the power to administer their own affairs. So MPs who returned to Parliament after the general election found themselves subtly but crucially disenfranchised. Theirs is the first generation of representatives with powers to make the laws of the United Kingdom, but banned from having input into the rules governing their own behaviour.
To its critics, Parliament and its centuries-old sovereignty was, at a stroke, subjugated beneath the control of an unaccountable quango. For those who witnessed repeated pitiful displays of self-interest by a Parliament unable to face up to the outrage caused by its own behaviour, however, there seemed to be no other route. Twice in the last Parliament, in 2008 and 2009, MPs debated changing the rules only to decide to cling on to as many of the perks, privileges and loopholes as they could. And twice they attempted to block or alter freedom of information laws to keep as much information about their claims secret as possible. Instead of agreeing to change, MPs would blame a hostile media and public misunderstanding for their predicament.
