Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Extensively leaked, and extensively trailed, the proposals from Labour political savant Dr Tony Wright, to reform the workings of the Commons, have been published and will be debated within two months. Either just before, or just after Christmas.

On the face of it, they cover pretty arcane matters: the micro-mechanics of parliamentary life. But for those who want a stronger, more independent, more effective Commons, . Or not. The Wright Committee, as befits its chairman, was a civilised affair. But its members were deeply split over several issues...

Their most fundamental proposal is for a Business Committee. This is an issue which provokes surprising passions. At the moment, the government, in negotiation with the other parties, dictates what is and is not on the agenda for the House of Commons. That became painfully clear when a motion of no confidence was proposed in Speaker Martin. You would have thought that was a quintessential internal House matter, but MPs found themselves begging the government to grant debating time.

Decision time

Governments do not have to grant time for debates on urgent issues. Hence the call by a selection of backbenchers, including Labour awkward squad regular Frank Field, for a debate on the strategy for Afghanistan. On a more subtle level the rules make it possible for ministers to decide which parts of bills are, and are not debated on the floor of the House at the Report Stage, which may mean crucial sections are never considered by the Commons - a favourite gripe of their Lordships.

Here comes the science bit....concentrate!

Dr Wright proposes a seven to nine member Backbench Business Committee, in charge of all business which is not strictly ministerial. It would then join with representatives of the government and opposition - the leader and shadow leader of the House, plus a Liberal Democrat, in a House Business Committee, and every week they would propose a draft agenda, which would then be debated.

It would specify the subjects to be debated, the day on which they were discussed and the time made available. This is a very finely-balanced reform, especially when you get to the micro-detail. It concedes that a democratically elected government should have a priority right to put its legislation and other business before the Commons, but insists the time has come for the House to take control of its own scheduling.

The Backbench Business Committee would be chaired by the deputy Speaker (who would be elected by the whole House with this role in mind). It would work closely with the party business managers, but its trump card would be control of a clearly defined block of "backbench time", at least a day a week of Commons time. But the government would still have the initiative in scheduling ministerial business... And that's the controversial bit.

Some committee members clearly feel that too much is conceded by leaving most of the debating time under government control. The House, they argue, will be complicit in infantilising itself. Others say that too ambitious a power grab will merely ensure that the government will feel forced to seize control of the Backbench Committee, or face a loss of the ability to organise its own business.

So a theoretically independent committee will end up as a cipher, with party whips organising slates of suitably loyalist candidates for membership, to ensure it does not assert an unwelcome independence.

You can sense these two competing currents in the detailed recommendations: the government can choose the day for a debate on a bill, but not the length of time.

So no more half-digested omnibus bills getting through the Commons with important chunks unscrutinised. If necessary the Backbench Committee could even give up some of its time to allow longer consideration of a bill....

The public, the report concludes "would find it strange" if MPs didn't summon up the courage to implement these proposals. They should be amazed if a political establishment which claims to be in favour of strengthening Parliament does not concede it. This is not the storming of the Winter Palace, but a modest, perhaps too modest, claim of right on behalf of the Commons.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?