Thursday 25 October 2007

Modernisation of the House of Commons Debate

The Leader of the House of Commons (Ms Harriet Harman): I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the First Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member (House of Commons Paper No. 337) and approves the proposals for changes in the procedures and practices of the House set out in the Government's response to the report (Cm. 7231), including the proposals for topical questions.

This is my first opportunity to respond to a Modernisation Committee debate. I pay tribute to previous Chairs of that Committee: the late Robin Cook, my right hon. Friends the Members for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), for Neath (Mr. Hain), for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who chaired it more recently. I also pay tribute to the many Members who have served on that Committee and continue to do so, including the current Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), and the Modernisation Committee's most senior and longest-serving member, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). This House is more effective as a result of their work.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): My right hon. and learned Friend has left one name off that list. He was not a Minister at the time, but Bob Sheldon, now Lord Sheldon, when he published the second part of "Shifting the Balance", did a lot for the modernisation of the Select Committee system and for what happens in the House. There was an interview with the then Prime Minister. Lord Sheldon did most important work. I hope that she recognises that.

Ms Harman: I absolutely agree with that point. The Modernisation Committee has done important work. The work that was done by Lord Sheldon and by many others has contributed to taking forward the way in which the House operates and is able to hold the Government to account through the Select Committee and other systems.

Today there are five motions before us, covering the recent report from the Modernisation Committee "Revitalising the Chamber: The Role of the Back-Bench Member", and the recent report from the Procedure Committee on public petitions and early-day motions, and there is a motion relating to European Standing Committees. I would like to say a few words about the context of those measures.

I think that we would all agree that we need to be prepared to re-examine many aspects of how the country is governed, in order to reinvigorate our democracy and how our Government are held to account. We all know now the statistics of election turnout and the underlying evidence of voter disengagement. That needs to be addressed in many different ways. In his statement to the House in July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed to the Speaker that a Speaker's Conference be established to look further at some of those issues.

The Modernisation Committee agreed earlier this week that it would take forward short inquiries on the publication of the draft legislative programme, departmental annual debates, regional accountability, and recall and dissolution. I hope that all hon. Members will contribute to the Committee's inquiries. As I said, they will be short inquiries, and they will come forward with proposals.

Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the things that was welcomed in the north-east region was the proposal to create regional Select Committees? It is disappointing that they have not come into being yet.

Ms Harman: It is important that we have regional accountability for the north and other regions. I pay tribute to the first Minister for the North East of England, who is carrying out his important duties. We intend to press ahead with regional accountability, but we must get the processes right. We must ensure that the Committees are practical and work properly and effectively, that the House supports them and that in the regions concerned they are recognised as making a legitimate and important contribution to strengthening accountability.

Mr. Jones: I do not draw much encouragement from what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. If there is a retreat from having a Select Committee for the north-east, not only will there be a lot of disappointment within the region but there will be a lot of unhappy Labour Back Benchers.

Ms Harman: I reassure my hon. Friend that there is no intention to retreat on anything and that we intend to discuss fully with colleagues on both sides of the House how we go forward in that respect. I know that he would agree that we need a practical solution that enables Members in the region to hold public agencies such as the regional development agency to account effectively. We will work together to ensure that we deliver that. We want to go forward with it as promptly as possible and the Modernisation Committee inquiry will be the first opportunity to look at that.

Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the concern that has been expressed about the resource implications of creating regional Select Committees should not lead to a retreat from that commitment, and that the answer to that concern is to make those resources available?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is right. One of the issues that we need to look at is how the resources of the House are allocated between the different functions of the House. That is one of the things that we need to discuss. I can tell from the response already that there will be a lively, open and transparent debate on those issues. There is no suggestion that the matter should be left in the long grass.

Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): I thank my right hon. and learned Friend because I believe that she is looking favourably at the amendment that I and other members of the European Scrutiny Committee have tabled to item 5 on today's agenda. However, on topical debates, it is always a concern to Select Committees that not enough time is given on the Floor of the House for debates on topics that are of importance to those Committees. Can we have an assurance that topical debates will not force out debates that have been requested by a Select Committee after serious scrutiny? They are obviously seen as matters of such concern that the request is made that they be debated here in the Chamber.

Ms Harman: The Modernisation Committee will look at departmental debate days. Topical debates are intended to give Back-Bench Members an opportunity to ask questions without having to table them in advance. The intention is to make the work of the House more topical and to have more topical debates. I hope that they will be welcomed. I think that we all agree that we should improve scrutiny of European matters. My hon. Friend, who is the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, has made strong representations about how the system needs to be improved, and I intend to accept his amendment. We will seek to sort this matter out within three months of today, rather than 12 months. The Modernisation Committee reported on this issue in March 2005, so an additional 12 months would be unsatisfactory. Three months should be long enough for us to find a solution that he and others will agree to. I thank him for tabling the amendment.

Mr. Sheerman: On resources, I support the principle of regional Select Committees and regional Ministers; the ministerial team is already proving its effectiveness. However, we must address the pressure that is put on MPs in this House. As Chairman of a Select Committee, I am finding that there is a small group of MPs who are free to accept membership of a Select Committee. We have a growing number of Ministers, paid and unpaid, and growing shadow ministerial teams who discount themselves from Select Committee work. We also have a proliferation of Parliamentary Private Secretaries who have, up to now, been prevented from being members of Select Committees. It is becoming difficult to attract Members on to Select Committees.

Ms Harman: Whatever change we make to ensure proper regional accountability, we must make absolutely sure that we do not undermine the very important work of the Select Committees. Those involved, particularly the Select Committee Chairmen and the Liaison Committee, will need to be involved in the discussions of how we take forward regional accountability.

Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): On European scrutiny, it is nonsense to have Select Committees doing serious work and producing reports that are not debated more widely before the Government come to a final view. A couple of days ago several Public Accounts Committee reports were debated. In the same way, there ought to be periodic opportunities to debate Select Committee reports by Department before the Government have come to a final view. That would make the work worth while, not just for parliamentarians but for all those who give evidence, orally or in other forms. It would show that we took that work seriously if we had a chance to debate it.

Ms Harman: Our view is that it is a good idea for the House to be able to debate Select Committee reports once the House has had the opportunity to see the Government's response. Otherwise, the House would have an opportunity to debate the Select Committee report proposals, but not to debate the Government's response unless further time was set aside for debate.

Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): The Leader of the House has been most generous with her time. I am grateful to her for indicating that she intends to bring forward proposals to improve the scrutiny of European legislation, on which the Government, sadly, have been dragging their feet for some time. May I commend my proposals, which include making the scrutiny reserve statutory so that Ministers could not go to Brussels without the House giving its view on their proposed position, and to enable, say, 150 Members to require an issue that is going before the European Scrutiny Committee to be subject to a full debate in this Chamber?

Ms Harman: I warmly welcome proposals from the right hon. Lady, who is a member of the Modernisation Committee and shadow Leader of the House, and we will consider them in the short period before we come back to the House with proposals on European scrutiny.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I favour the Leader of the House's proposals for more topical debates and questions. But before we get muddled up about regional accountability—with which some of us do not agree—could we have some national accountability? One of the frustrations that many of my electors have about this place is that when MPs ask perfectly sensible, intelligent but tough questions of Ministers, there are no answers. We then have "Groundhog Day" with the recital of idiotic banalities of a political kind, instead of Ministers actually trying to answer the question. If they answer the question the first time, we will have rather more accountability.

Ms Harman: The right hon. Gentleman will have to come and see me to explain further what he is talking about, as I do not recognise his description. I try to ensure that I give as clear and full answers as possible.

The reform measures before the House today reflect work that began before I became Leader of the House and will contribute to this House remaining at the centre of the nation's affairs; not just being at the centre, but being seen to be at the centre so that the important role of the House is clearly understood by the public.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): The Leader of the House has mentioned the public, who are very important. It is three and a half years since the Modernisation Committee made recommendations about European scrutiny and the Government have done nothing to implement them. She has now said that she will bring forward some proposals. Does she agree that the European Scrutiny Committee should meet in public in the meantime? That would help the public to understand what we are doing on their behalf. It is monstrous that that Committee meets in secret; I know, because I am a member of it. It is not surprising that the gap between us and the public on European issues has widened in recent years. Will she look favourably on an early change to Standing Orders to permit that Committee to meet in public?

Ms Harman: It is for Select Committees to decide what deliberations between Committee members will take place in private and what they choose to regard as a public session.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory rose—

Ms Harman: Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that I must press on with my speech. One of my proposals is that Front-Bench speeches should be restricted to 20 minutes. I feel that I am running out of that 20 minutes and I am only on the third page of my speech. I dare not tell the House how many more pages I have.

John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): Although I welcome the Government's willingness to provide for more topical debates and public interest debates, I am concerned that the character of the process is rather top-down. It appears that the intention is that these matters should be determined principally by the Government Whips, probably with a bit of consultation with my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, but not much more. Given that the Select Committee inquiry was into the role of the Back Bencher, may I exhort the Leader of the House to consider the merits of the evidence given by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), who, supported by the Hansard Society, argued that there should be a Back-Bench trigger in the form of a number of signatories of an early-day motion automatically resulting in a debate taking place, whether the Government and Opposition Front Benches liked it or not?

Ms Harman: I need to press on with my speech. Some of the answers are set out in a deliberated form further on.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Ms Harman: I will not. I hope to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Harman: All right, I will answer this one, but I really must get on—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. A point of order from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House, quite unintentionally, has misled the House by asserting that it is up to Standing Committees whether they meet in public or not. In the last Parliament, the European Scrutiny Committee voted for its weekly deliberative sessions to be in public, but the Leader of the House did nothing to change the Standing Orders. What she said was incorrect and I invite her to correct the record.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but the Leader of the House may wish to address those concerns in her reply.

Michael Connarty: We must clarify the record, because it was not under my chairmanship but under a previous chairmanship, when a motion was moved and carried that the Committee should meet in public. The Chairman was, unfortunately, ill at the time, but when he returned, he raised the matter again. It was thoroughly debated and the reasons for the feeling that the proposal was inappropriate were explained. That was felt particularly by our advisers, who give confidential advice to the Committee in their deliberative sessions, and it was explained why the proposal would compromise their position. The Chairman took a fresh vote and the decision was overturned. As it stands, the Committee's position is that it does not wish to meet in public.

Ms Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. I shall press on with my speech clarifying why we have brought these motions before the House. If the trigger were simply a number of Members signing an early-day motion, we might find that this House would debate the football results. Someone such as myself would need to provide a filter so that that did not happen.

The Government accept most of the recommendations in the two Modernisation Committee reports before the House. They are particularly valuable in placing reform firmly in the context of how Members, in particular Back Benchers, manage the different aspects of their work. Any changes must reflect the priorities of individual Members and their need to devote time both to this House and to their constituents. Those demands have been ever increasing, and particularly marked for many hon. Members has been the growth in constituency work. That has been followed by a necessary increase—almost a doubling, in real terms—in the financial support provided to Members for this work since 1997 in the form of staffing and allowances. In my view, that is a good thing. The Government will publish the Senior Salaries Review Body report on pay and allowances for the House to consider shortly.

Mr. Sheerman: No one denies that extra resources have been provided, but the level of work in a major Select Committee is onerous in terms of the amount of research, reading and so on, and a small extra contribution towards the research budget for Members who choose to join one would make a big difference. Sometimes it would make the difference between someone choosing to serve on a Select Committee or choosing to become a Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Ms Harman: Perhaps my hon. Friend can raise that when this House discusses the SSRB's report on allowances. That will take occur shortly.

John Bercow: Very shortly.

Ms Harman: Very shortly. I must work out what comes next, after very shortly. Perhaps it is very, very shortly.

Hon. Members have an important role in their constituencies, but they also have vital work in this Chamber and in Select and Public Bill Committees. It is a timeless characteristic of our system that Members arrive at the general from the particular. The different roles that make up a Member of Parliament's work are not separate and competing, but interconnected and interdependent. That is why it is important, as the Modernisation Committee report highlighted, for Members' to be able to organise their time as effectively as possible. Thus Chamber debates have to be organised in a way that allows hon. Members to know that they can contribute.

I shall deal first with the Modernisation Committee report on promoting interest in the Chamber. Its central theme is to promote the work of the Chamber by providing greater opportunities for Members to bring issues swiftly into the Chamber while they are still topical and maximising the opportunities for Back Benchers to participate in the Chamber. The Government have accepted most of the recommendations. Some of them—for example, those relating to new topical procedures and speaking times, are quite far-reaching, so it is proposed that in the first instance, they should run for a trial period during the next session.

The Modernisation Committee proposes that business managers and the usual channels should seek to promote greater topicality in the first instance through trying to find opportunities to bring more topical issues to the House in two ways: by rebalancing the regular slots currently recognised by the House for such matters as the Queen's Speech, defence debates, the Budget debate and so on—I would welcome a debate in the House with contributions from all parties on the overall shape of those annual debates—and by being readier to hold half-day debates rather than full-day debates. That is not in the gift of the Government, and if we are to secure those changes, we will need the co-operation of the official Opposition and the whole House.

The Modernisation Committee proposes that debates should be seen to be more significant, both to Members and to the outside world. That could be done by holding more such debates on substantive motions—on a form of words enabling the House to express a specific view—and in other cases, through ending the practice of holding debates on the historic motion, "That this House do now adjourn", when in fact the House intends to proceed to a full debate. The Government have accepted the Committee's recommendation on that latter point. Accordingly, where the House does not seek to express a specific view on a subject, it should use a standard motion of the form, "That this House has considered the matter of...". The specified subject matter for such motions, as with Adjournment motions, would be expressed in neutral terms and would not be amendable, but what is going on in this House would be much clearer to colleagues and to the outside world.

I turn to the question of topicality: urgent procedures, topical questions and topical debates. The Government are accepting a range of proposals to maximise the opportunities for the House to consider the pressing issues of the moment, including two key proposals: having so-called "topical questions" and weekly topical debates. Topical questions will mean that most of the major Departments will have a period of their Question Time similar to Prime Minister's Questions, in which open questions will be allowed. The period will be 15 minutes of topical questions for Departments answering for a full hour and 10 minutes for those answering for 40 minutes. The precise rules, and the calling of Members after the initial open question, will operate as with other questions under the Speaker's direction, and will allow topical matters to be raised.

Topical debates will be weekly 90-minute debates on a topic of the day that is of international, national or regional importance. The selection of topic will, as proposed by the Modernisation Committee, be announced by the Leader of the House, following representations received and contacts through the usual channels. Some flexibility must be preserved as to exactly when the debate should take place each week. When the House does not sit for a full week, there would generally be no such debate. I would envisage announcing the slot for the topical debate during Thursday's business questions—I would be able to hear from hon. Members from all parties at that point—and if the slot were for the coming Monday or Tuesday, I would envisage announcing the subject at that time too. To ensure proper topicality, if the slot was to be for the following Wednesday or Thursday, I plan to give notice of the subject not before the Monday afternoon.

I would be happy to receive representations on the subject for topical debates from Members through any route they choose, including business questions. This innovation may be the most significant of all the measures proposed today. It will enable the House to hold the Government to account more effectively and to air issues of topical concern.

The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) tabled an amendment drawing attention to parts of the Modernisation Committee report that were not in the bold recommendations and were not fully reflected in our response. She asks for the subject for the topical debate to be announced by the Leader of the House following consultation with business managers. As I have stated, that is indeed what we envisage happening, and that would include consultations through the usual channels.

The right hon. Lady also proposes a fortnightly written ministerial statement listing the subjects proposed by hon. Members. I am, of course, willing to see how best the system can operate in terms of representations and how the process can be as open as possible, but the precise mechanism proposed may not be the best one. We do not know how the process will work in practice. Dozens, or even hundreds, of suggestions or requests might be made, given in all sorts of different ways, so it might not be straightforward to compress all such representations into a written statement. Indeed, we would not want to encourage a situation in which Members sought opportunities to manipulate the process by setting up campaigns. It may well be that in practice most representations come through Thursday morning business questions anyway, in which case everyone will be able to hear them at first hand. The whole arrangement is, of course, experimental and we will be able to review it in a year's time.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her generosity in giving way. The Modernisation Committee report proposed the fortnightly written statement as a way to ensure that hon. Members can see the subjects that have been proposed and make judgments about the decisions made by the Leader of the House as to which are chosen for topical debates. I accept that there may be questions of practicality, but the process must be open. The Leader of the House, in consultation with the usual channels, must not be left to choose subjects, with hon. Members having no idea whether they genuinely reflect the views of the House.

Ms Harman: I agree that we want a process that is both open and practical. We will have to consider in some detail how to achieve both objectives.

The Committee has also proposed that there should be substantive debates in Westminster Hall on motions on Select Committee reports and on balloted private Members' motions. I think that we have to look at these proposals in the light of how individual Members now prioritise their work. Let us be clear: substantive motions, with the potential for amendments to them, will inevitably bring with them increased whipping into what is at the moment unwhipped business. That would change the character of that business, and would also require the attendance of hon. Members at many more Divisions. I wonder whether hon. Members would consider that a good use of their time.

However, the Government have agreed with the proposals in the Procedure Committee report that relevant EDMs and petitions, rather than being the subject of any direct debate, should be capable of having a "tag" on the Order Paper if they are the subject of a debate selected by an hon. Member.

The Modernisation Committee has also proposed a regular half-hour Select Committee slot in Westminster Hall, in addition to the existing regular Thursday afternoon debating slots, to discuss recently published reports, perhaps in a very short debate or in the form of a statement. The Government have considered this proposal, but as I said earlier, in our response we have indicated that we do not think it particularly helpful for the House to hold formal exchanges of this kind on reports before the Government have had a chance to consider their response to those reports. Opportunities are already in place to raise such matters in other ways—whether outside the House or inside, for example at Question Time—but questions about the kinds of business to be taken in Westminster Hall, and how it can be handled, may be appropriate for further review in the Modernisation Committee.

Mr. Redwood: Will the Leader of the House give way?

John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ms Harman: I think that I shall press on, if I may. I have answered a great many questions, and there are Back Benchers who have speeches to make. I do not want to run out of time. We had two statements today even before we got to this business, and I must protect the rights of Back Benchers who want to make speeches.

I turn now to the question of petitions, and to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) and others. However, before I move on to the Procedure Committee report on petitions and EDMs, perhaps I could just mention the Modernisation Committee's recommendation that the absolute bar on the use of hand-held devices for keeping up with emails should be lifted—provided, as the Modernisation Committee noted, that that causes no disturbance. The hon. Member for Congleton and others have tabled an amendment proposing that this change should be rejected.

That is obviously a matter for the House, but my own view is that it is a sensible proposal. The Modernisation Committee, following representations from a number of hon. Members, took the view that it was a sensible measure to accommodate hon. Members' practical needs if they were to be expected to spend considerable time waiting in the Chamber to speak and listening to the debate. I think that the proposal is realistic and would be genuinely helpful. Hon. Members will note that if the House agrees to the terms of the Government response by agreeing to the motion tabled, and as explained in the explanatory memorandum, the change would come into force only when Mr. Speaker has approved the necessary arrangements.

As we will all recognise, petitions have come increasingly under the spotlight as interest has grown in different forms of direct engagement with the public. Our own petitions procedures have gradually been brought up to date over the years. For example, the top copy no longer has to be handwritten, the rules for eligibility of petitions have been simplified, and the Clerks in the Journal Office can always assist Members in ensuring that petitions are in order. The time is now right to develop the procedures further, to make more apparent the opportunities that people have to address this place directly.

The latest report from the Procedure Committee has been a balanced study of what further steps might be taken. It proposes the retention of the Member link to an incoming petition, but makes a number of proposals to make petitions more visible in the House's procedures. They include proposals that petitions be published in Hansard, that the Government respond to petitions and that Select Committees specifically include on their agendas the petitions that have been forwarded to them. Another possibility is that there should be a dedicated debate slot for petitions in Westminster Hall.

The Government have accepted most of those recommendations, as outlined in our response document. In respect of Westminster Hall debates, we think it better that existing processes for Back Benchers to procure debates should be used, but that it should be possible to "tag" any relevant petition on the Order Paper for the debate.

When it comes to responding to petitions, it is important to note that the Government have now given an undertaking that

"provided that Members continue to give careful attention to a proposed petition before sponsoring it...substantive petitions should normally receive a response from the relevant government department."

The Committee has also indicated that it will be looking further at whether some form of e-petitioning—in particular for gathering signatures—can be incorporated into the petitions process, on the basis that the Member link to a petition should be retained. The Government look forward to this second report in due course. The Government have agreed with all the specific recommendations addressed to them concerning EDMs, which continue to perform a valuable role in allowing Members to raise a variety of local or national issues in a measured way.

I turn now to European Standing Committees. The motion relating to European Standing Committees is designed solely to allow the present temporary system for the appointment of European Standing Committees to continue. The appointment of the Committees on a one-off basis as and when there is a need, rather than appointing three permanent Committees as envisaged under Standing Order No. 119, has existed as a temporary measure until any more comprehensive reform of the European scrutiny system is put in place.

I am well aware that neither the system envisaged by the Standing Orders, nor the temporary system currently in place, is satisfactory. The 2005 Modernisation Committee report on European scrutiny identified failings, and I think that many hon. Members here would agree, but we have yet to identify the precise solutions.

The Modernisation Committee report contained several recommendations relating to the European Standing Committee process. My predecessors as Leader of the House and I have all been looking at the matter closely. I agree that we need to identify improvements to the European Standing Committee process. We are actively looking at ways in which this might be done.

I come now to the amendment in name of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and other members of the European Scrutiny Committee. In the meantime, the power to appoint Committees in the way set out under the temporary arrangement—which is what allows the system to work effectively at all at present—will expire at the end of this Session unless we renew it. My hon. Friend and the other members of the European Scrutiny Committee have tabled an amendment to provide that the extension would be for three months only into the next Session.

While I cannot guarantee that we will be able to bring forward alternative proposals within that time, I will be working hard with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe to bring forward proposals that command the support of the whole House, including the European Scrutiny Committee. I am therefore content to accept the amendment.

The Modernisation Committee and other Committees of this House have done us a favour in bringing forward some very sensible suggestions about how we could do our business better. I hope that all hon. Members will support the measures, as they will provide greater topicality for our debates, enhance and strengthen the role of Back Benchers, and improve our scrutiny of Government.

Several hon. Members rose —