A Step Forward

A date has finally been set for the House of Commons to debate the Wright Committee report on Reform of the House of Commons. 23 February is not as early as some would wish but it should be early enough for the debate to go ahead before the election is announced. What is more, the Government has signalled support for some of the key recommendations, including the election of Chairs and members of Select Committees. As Jo Swinson pointed out in Questions to the Leader of the House on Thursday, it is not for the Government to accept or reject the proposals. Nevertheless their support is significant becasue they will control the wording of the motion on 23 February. They have made it clear, however, that they will not table the Resolution drafted by the Committee and some recommendations may not get through.

Further, Harriet Harman has laid a lot of stress on reaching consensus before 23 February if any resolutions are to be put into effect before the election (which is essential if progress is to be made on a reasonable timescale). So we can expect a few steps forward, perhaps, but not wholescale reform.

Many will be disappointed by this, but in the looking-glass world of Parliament progress is not always made by the most straightforward means. The key thing is for the House of Commons to take at least one step forward. We will see what then ensues.

Sleight of Hand?

More trouble over pre-appointment hearings. In a combative session yesterday with Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Education, the Children, Schools and Families Committee returned to the issue of pre-appointment hearings (see the earlier post on this blog). This time it was over the lack of an opportunity to hold a pre-appointment hearing at all for the new Chair and Chief Regulator of Ofqual. Or at least, not really new, according to Ed Balls, because Kathleen Tattersall was appointed as Head of the shadow Ofqual back in 2008 before the system of pre-appointment hearings was introduced and has simply been re-appointed now that the relevant legislation has been passed and Ofqual has a legal status. It would not be fair, apparently, on her or on the organisation to call her appointment into question now with a pre-appointment hearing.

Sleight of hand to avoid giving the Committee a chance to question Ms Tattersall? Well, it certainly seemed like it to the Committee, in spite of the conviction with which Ed Balls put his argument across. Barry Sheerman, the Chairman, used that very phrase. The Committee's conclusions on the Children's Commissioner were ignored, and now they have been "cheated" (the Chairman's word again) of a hearing with the Head of Ofqual. Ed Balls asserted that he was very much in favour of pre-appointment hearings, but the Committee were paying more attention I fancy to his deeds rather than his words. Barry Sheerman questioned the point of giving Select Committees the power to conduct pre-appointment hearings if their enquiries were blocked and sidestepped.

It is the same issue which has arisen on the Wright report (see the last post on this blog). The government say they support reform, but their inaction means backbenchers are very far from convinced that they really want to see any shift in the balance of power between Parliament and Executive.

A Matter of Urgency

No news yet on when the Wright Committee's report on House of Commons Reform will receive substantive consideration, in spite of the fact that it has been raised by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and others from all parties at every Business Questions since it was published. The Government line is that it is consulting on the wording of an appropriate motion, to which the riposte is that the Committee itself provided a draft Resolution in the report, in the hopes of smoothing the path to an early debate. The delay raises suspicions, which Martin Salter summed up in a debate in Westminster Hall on 15 December, when he said "dark forces are gathering and manoeuvrings are taking place".

There are concerns over a number of possible scenarios:
(i) that a substantive debate will be delayed so long that it will be overtaken by the election and will fall to the bottom of the priority list in the new Parliament;
(ii) that there will be an inconclusive debate on a watered-down Resolution, which will effectively consign the report to a place in the long list of failed attempts at reform; and
(iii) that the Government will cherry-pick a few minor changes to take forward, while dodging the report's main thrust which is about shifting the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. Harriet Harman seemed to signal that this might be the most likely approach when she said on 7 January "we will make progress on this matter - not in one big bang, but we will establish the direction of travel on a consensus within this House. Steps will be taken".

Does it matter if the outcome is a few minor changes only or even none at all? Well, yes. The report's recommendations, in its own words, "are designed to make an immediate and practical contribution to the enterprise of rebuilding trust in the ability of the House of Commons to act as the vigorous guardian of democratic accountability". In November, Committeewatch ("The Start of a Process") described the report as a genuine opportunity to strengthen the House of Commons and rebalance the relationship between Parliament and government. But a start must be made soon if its recommendations are to have any impact on the new House of Commons to be elected shortly and the confidence of the public in it. Mark Fisher said on 15 December: "To leave such a debate to the next Parliament would be a terrible mistake" and David Heath for the Lib Dems described it as "a matter of urgency, of massive import and [one that] cannot be delayed".

The longer the report lies on the table, the more questions will arise. It is indeed a matter of urgency.