House Business Committee

Debate between Peter Bone and Graham Allen

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the creation of a House Business Committee.

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Pritchard. It would probably be hard to think of anything more technical, boring or dry than a House Business Committee—that is what people would like you to think. But it is actually the heart of political power in respect of Parliament’s relationship to Government. It is amazing that in this day and age, at least 200 years since Montesquieu wrote “The Spirit of Laws”, which talked about the separation of powers, the good old United Kingdom still does not have a written settlement. It does not have something that we can all refer to so that we know what Parliament does, what Government do and what the judiciary does, and that keeps them separate.

The lesson learned at great cost in the French revolution, and enacted with some blood in the American revolution, has bypassed the United Kingdom. We still have a system that Charles I would recognise, in which the Executive have supreme control and what they say goes—only Charles I would see that instead of a monarch, we have a Government. They are benign, because we live in a democratic culture, and people are normally very nice to each other and quite polite. The reality, however, is that power is exercised by Government over Parliament, rather than Government seeing Parliament as a partner. That makes our system dysfunctional and incapable of providing a serious process of reconciliation or holding to account.

[Mike Gapes in the Chair]

Of course, many people have vested interests in keeping the system exactly the way it is. I put it to the Government, at both ministerial and official level, that that is an immature way of viewing our politics. It weakens our politics and our governance, particularly in this day and age when people are so turned off by politics in general. This is a moment where we can win people back, and say, “You know what? We are going to listen to people. We do not always want to do what they tell us, but we will listen to them and their elected representatives because that is part of the warp and weft of our democracy.”

By doing that, we could bring people together and command greater consensus on our decision making. The decision-making process would be less arbitrary and much stronger if we had that level of maturity in our politics—if the Government did not cynically laugh up their sleeve and say, “We are going to ram this through if we possibly can, come what may, despite what people think,” rather than, “I wonder whether any of these people in Parliament who are not in government have a contribution to make. Shall we listen on the off-chance that they have?”

Perhaps if we had a proper Report stage in the House of Commons, we could find a way of making better law. Perhaps it would save us time, because we would not have to come back to things, as we infamously did on, I think, five occasions during one Parliament on a criminal justice Bill. If we listened to people, we would not have to swallow, give in or U-turn, but we could distinguish the good from the bad and help to make our system better. Doing so would make our politics and our democracy stronger, and it would certainly make our Parliament and governmental relationship stronger.

That is not the way we have chosen to do things so far, however. The Wright Committee suggested that we should have a House Business Committee. Why would we want such a thing? It would bring to the table Parliament and the respective Whips. In addition to those who work for the Government and the alternative Government, it would bring to the table some people from the institution—perhaps the leader of the 1922 committee, the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, a couple of people elected from the Back Benches, someone from a minority party and a nominee of the Speaker. The committee could have a majority from the Government so that, having heard all the voices, the Government could still, if they wanted, ram through whatever they felt was convenient to their long-term interest, whoever was in power.

We would not lose a lot by having such a meeting once a week, and we would risk gaining an incredible amount. For instance, the 90 minutes allocated for the debate in the main Chamber tonight, which everybody seems to feel is incredibly important, on whether there should be a legally binding obligation on deficit reduction could be extended. We could use parliamentary time more effectively. Perhaps, Mr Gapes, someone of your distinguished history on that committee might say, “We are going to clear off early if we possibly can on Tuesday, and we will have only four people in the Chamber. Why don’t we use that time effectively to discuss important issues?” It would not be necessary to find a clerkly device to wangle one’s way on to the agenda and squeak in a few words to heckle the Executive steamroller; instead, we could have a proper debate on refugees, on the Redcar steelworks or on tax credits. We have just had such a debate in Westminster Hall, which is a well-attended but none the less secluded venue for something so important.

I do not raise this matter—yet again—in anger; I raise it in frustration at the fact that our governance is such that we would rather keep control than find a sensible way to conduct a modern and mature democracy.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me why in May 2009, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made a powerful speech about fixing broken politics, in which he said that there should be a business of the House committee; why he committed in the coalition agreement to establishing such a committee within three years of the Parliament; and why it never actually happened? What evil forces behind the scenes are stopping this?

[Mr Allen]

I do not believe that there are any evil forces. There is a desire when in government not to be bothered with explaining things any more than one has to. Governments want to get on and do business. There is a feeling that parliamentarians can be treated with contempt, because Parliament is a holding pen for the sheep who will troop through the Lobby to enact measures that have been in a manifesto or on the Government’s agenda, and that is the way things are done. I do not think that people are evil, unpleasant or malicious; I think that they are simply missing an opportunity.

I want to mention the two most powerful people in the House of Commons: Roy Stone, the principal private secretary to the Chief Whip, and Mike Winter, the head of the Office of the Leader of the House. They are decent civil servants, but they could be told by an incoming Prime Minister, “This is simply not good enough. We are a laughing stock compared with other legislatures.”

We are elected on election day and the electorate give us legitimacy, which is sucked out of us by a Government who have no legitimacy of their own. They are not directly elected, so they have to get legitimacy from somewhere. It is rather like a scene from a science fiction film in which people are tied to a wall and pipes attached to their veins, so that they can give sustenance to a beast that sucks their blood. Government suck out the legitimacy that the electorate give to Parliament and leave us a shell, and we are the worse for it. Government stride off, pumped up with the legitimacy that is rightfully Parliament’s, because they have none of their own.

I do not blame any of the civil servants or incumbent Ministers, because that has been a feature of governance in this country—this includes Labour Governments and Labour Prime Ministers—for as long as I have been in Parliament. I am simply trying to put on the table yet again the fact that there is a better way of doing things, as a result of which we would not be held so much in contempt. If the Government involved Parliament and listened to people, they would act as a symbol to people out there that we are doing things in a different way.