What Sort of Parliament?

A week in which political controversy is muted in mourning for the greatest parliamentarian of the age is an appropriate moment to reflect upon the essential character of the House of Commons and its role and purpose. Some MPs are at present urging a radical change in the working pattern of the House: others argue that the proposed change would dangerously weaken the independence and effectiveness of MPs. The two points of view are here stated by a Labour and a Conservative member.

Office Hours for MPs?

By ARTHUR BLENKINSOP, MP

THERE is nothing new about the proposals for morning sittings of the House of Com-

mons that some of my colleagues and I have tabled for discussion. We had morning sittings during the war, and it has for long enough been the regular practice to meet on Friday mornings. The proposal to extend this practice to the other sitting days has been made from time to time as, for example, in proposals to the Select Com- mittee on Procedure which reported in 1959.

What do we hope to gain from bringing the sittings of Parliament more into line with normal business hours? I thihk we want to make two main reforms. First, we want to try to make sure that parliamentary debates should end at a reasonable hour of the night, and, secondly, we want extra time for parliamentary Questions and for other work too. It is quite ridiculous that today a member has to put down a question to a minister some six weeks in advance to be sure of getting it answered orally. Of course, members should not waste so much time with long-winded parades of their knowledge, but the Speaker has. so far had little support in his efforts to stop them. Then reports from the Public Accounts Committee or the Estimates Committee rarely get debated and quite often there is a serious blockage of important govern- ment business.

Why •should the member get his chance of raising some constituency or other question only at a ridiculously brief Adjournment Debate at 10 p.m. if he is lucky, or possibly well after mid- night? Why should members deny themselves th' opportunity of organising their work in a logical way? What masochistic urge drives us to this folly and pain when the remedy of re- organised sitting times is available to us? Of course, morning sittings should not be allowed to stifle other important reforms in procedure that have been needed for years, as, for ex- ample, the need to take most, if not all, of the detailed discussion on bills, including the Finance Bill, off the floor of the House. This whole case has been well argued in Bernard Crick's recent book on the reform of Parliament.

It is said that it would be impossible for ministers, who need the mornings to get on with their departmental work. This really does not stand up to examination. After all, the number of ministers needed in attendance would depend on the business that was to be taken. If legislation were taken in the latter part of the day, the morning session could in- clude an extended Question Time and debates on reports as suggested earlier, making little call on ministers. Ministerial work and meetings can and do take place in the House of Commons as it is and ministers would have greater free- dom in the evenings.

Then it is argued that morning sittings might interfere with the normal business of Parliament.

Standing Conuuittee., normally discuss the detail of bills on the committee stage on two mornings

a week --Tuesdays and Thursdays. If we were to continue with the present small number of committees, then the difficulty would be slight; no greater than what is accepted at present in the afternoons when there are clashes between the meetings of the Estimates and Public Accounts Committee (and, indeed, other impor- tant committees of the House) and the debates that are proceeding in the Chamber. I grant that if we were to move all the detailed work on bills, including the Finance Bill, from the floor of the House, then there would be a big increase in work in the mornings and this would be bound to affect the length and timing of morning sittings: But this important change would only be practicable in present conditions, where the Government has such a small majority, if the Government could be assured an effective majority on committees.

No, the main objection to morning sittings is not the interference that this .would cause to ministers, nor to the other business of Parlia- ment, but rather its interference with members' other interests outside Parliament. The 1959 report of the Select Committee phrased the matter very delicately: The Committee agree unanimously that the claims of the House must be always paramount and that therefore the business of the House and the duties which membership imposes upon all who are elected to Parliament must alwayS take precedence over all other demands upon a member's time. Nevertheless, there arc bound to be diffc:-ing views as to whether member- ship of the House of Commons would be served better by retaining members within her ranks who bring to her deliberations the benefit of their knowledge and experience derived from other fields during such hours of -the day as their attendance can be spared from the pre- cincts of Westminster.

What a lot of humbug! So parliamentary duties are supposed to take precedence, but not, of course, over other business and professional in- terests that involve regular absence from Par- liainent in the mornings! In fact, the procedures

of Parliament have been forced into the strait- jacket of the present unnatural timetable to suit the convenience of members who have never recognised the precedence of their parliamentary duties. Members in the past have been unwilling to serve on Standing Committees that meet in the mornings, and membership of these com- mittees has for years been largely restricted to those who are stigmatised as full-time, or pro- fessional, members. I believe that in recent years no more than seventy members have attended morning committee meetings at all frequently and not more than about 200 have attended at all. Indeed, it was in part to meet this difficulty that the size of these committees was reduced. The financial difficulties that forced many mem- bers to find additional income from other part- time work have now been overcome. It should therefore now be possible to look at the matter afresh.

But it is argued that the contacts from regular outside work invigorate Parliament and prevent members becoming isolated. What hypo- critical nonsense this is, at least when it is advanced in defence of members earning their major income from work outside Parliament! Of course regular outside contacts are valuable, indeed, vital, for members if they are to be effective. But this does not necessitate other paid employment. Very many of our so-called full- time, professional politicians give voluntary service to a host of organisations, both statutory and voluntary. Surely membership of hospital management committees, for example, can be as valuable to the House as highly paid posts on the boards of one or other of the finance houses or industrial concerns that today seem to pro- vide an automatic home for defeated ministers. I am not arguing that outside interests, whether paid or not, should be prohibited. Simply that the present position should be recognised for what it is and that those who in fact give only part of their time to Parliament should not claim any special virtue.

I feel it is ridiculous, when we are all anxious that we should look afresh at our old-established customs and practices in industry, that we should tolerate arrangements in Parliament that tend to bring the whole institution into some public contempt when the reforms are in our own hands.