DOES THE GOVERNMENT DOMINATE PARLIAMENT?

An abridged version of this article appeared in House Magazine on 03 October 2008

 

Labour has had large Parliamentary majorities at the last three elections, but in terms of the reforms we have introduced and the way we manage business, there has in fact been considerable opening up of time to backbenchers’ initiatives and for scrutiny of the Executive.

First, let’s look at the way time is used in the Main Chamber. On an average day, we sit for 8 hours, of which the first two are given over to questions (ie scrutinising the Executive) and then statements, Urgent Questions and 10-minute rule Bills. Looking at the statements this session, about half have been policy initiatives and half give the House an opportunity to scrutinise the Executive’s handling of issues and problems which have arisen “unbidden” such as Northern Rock or Bovine TB. In addition, this year we have introduced topical debates, based on suggestions from across the House (90 minutes per week) and topical questions (which Ministers must answer unsighted). There is also 30 minutes for PMQs and 60 minutes Business Questions each week, and at the end of every day a 30 minute adjournment debate on a topic requested by a backbencher. So on average 25% of the time each day is scrutiny, or business not initiated by the Executive.

In evidence to the Modernisation Committee inquiry on the role of the Backbencher, the Clerk of the House pointed out how little has changed in terms of the set piece debates – where the subject matter is not under the control of the Executive. The current pattern is broadly as follows: 

 

Â	Days	Â
Queen’s Speech Debate	6	Subjects chosen by Opposition
Opposition days	20	Subjects chosen by Opposition
Estimates days	3	Subjects chosen by Liaison Committee
Budget	5	Â
Defence	5	Â
EU	2	Â
Public Accounts Committee	1	Subjects raised in the PAC reports
Wales	1	Â
House Business (free votes)	2/3	Â
Private Members’ Fridays	13	Â
Total	59	Â

 

 
So, taking the daily routine and these debates together, out of an average total of 155 full sitting days, it is clear that the Executive in fact controls about half of the time on the floor and has around half left for its legislative programme and other business. This is not excessive. Governments are elected, at least in part, on the basis of their manifestos. It is right therefore that they should have time to deliver on them.

The Government believes that more time should be given to the Autumn pre-Budget Report and the Leader of the House said at Business Questions on 3 July this year that she would look further into the matter. Clearly some rebalancing with the Budget debates would be the best way forward, if the opposition parties would agree.

In addition, we have established Westminster Hall. Business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays is primarily devoted to debates selected by backbenchers under ballot arrangements conducted by the Speaker. These debates are valued highly by backbenchers. Thursday afternoon slots are mostly in the hands of select committees, with subjects chosen by the Liaison Committee. The Government would welcome more scrutiny of business in Westminster Hall, rather than in Committee, but the Opposition have so far resisted this.

Turning to programming, there is a consensus across the House that the 2001 reforms have improved the management of the legislative process. None of the main parties are proposing to return to the status quo ante, because of the tendency previously to spend hours on early clauses and guillotine later ones. For all bills there is an opportunity to vote and debate programme motions which set out the initial timetable, and in the last session the Opposition called divisions on these in only a quarter of cases. Between the early years of programming and the last complete session, the number of groups of amendments not reached at Report has been falling and the number of Public Bill Committees coming in to time without knives has been rising.

The Labour Government believes it is better to have a more diverse and representative Parliament. We have made far more progress on improving the gender balance than the opposition parties (27% of Labour Members are women, as opposed to 9% of Conservatives and 14% of Liberal Democrats): ending unsocial hours was part of the programme to make this sustainable.

Lord Norton of Louth has pointed out that it is not just the rules and processes, standing orders etc which matter: it is the way Parliament uses them. And Professor Phillip Cowley’s research shows that the current Parliaments are more assertive than any in the past hundred years.