Baroness Murphy mentions that there were behind the scenes discussions concerning the Henry VIII powers embodied in the Banking Bill. I can confirm that there were, as I was involved in them.
The Constitution Committee published a report drawing attention to the Henry VIII powers embodied in the Bill. Though recognising there were occasions when such provisions may be justified, the committee questioned the broad terms in which the powers were drawn. As a result, there was a meeting last Thursday involving several members, led by the chairman Lord Goodlad, and the minister and his officials. The minister recognised the force of the arguments that we advanced and he and his team agreed to look again at the provision to see if it could be amended to meet our concerns. The result was the amendment moved yesterday on Third Reading.
As some of the responses to Baroness Murphy’s post have noted, the amendment was far from generally accepted. The amendment did not adequately meet the committee’s concerns. As Lord Goodlad noted, the minister did not receive any support. Members who spoke, from different sides of the House, were highly critical. However, Lord Goodlad decided not to press his own amendment, which was tabled in his name and that of Lord Morris of Aberavon, Lord Pannick and myself. Rather, he expressed the hope that the Government would seek to use the opportunity of Commons consideration of Lords amendments to make some adjustment to the provision.
The principal point I want to make is that such meetings, to discuss with ministers and Bill team officials provisions of a Bill, are far from unusual. I have been involved in a number. Given the constructive nature of work in the Lords, it is not uncommon for a minister to indicate a willingness to meet one or more members to discuss particular concerns and to see if some amendments can be made to meet those concerns. Often agreement is reached, more so than was the case on this occasion.
A great deal of the work of the House takes place away from the chamber, be it in committee or private meeetings. The work in committees is generally recorded, certainly in terms of attendance and evidence that is taken, but the interaction that takes place with ministers – be it in arranged meetings or more informally in the corridors or division lobbies – is not. The work of the House encompasses far more than is formally measurable.
Straight to the point, is this the best or worst of democracy?
I am referring to your principal point where you comment on agreements being reached, sometimes recorded, sometimes not, if I may sum up your words for the sake of this comment.
After watching much of the Bankers vs. Committee today, I am more than a tad irritated that the bankers were coached for a substantial bag of swag – what did we really learn from this TV event?
As we’ve discussed before, so much more productive work is done for a fraction of the cost and time a full meeting costs, without the tedious recording of who said what. Yet only one bad apple spoils the harvest.
The whingeing about police officers having to spend so much time filling in forms, teachers having to grade rather than teach, and so forth is commonplace.
Just how far can a parliamentarian have a ‘private’ conversation these days?
ladytizzy: I take your point. Such meetings are esential to complement the more formal work of the House. They are often highly detailed or technical, but help to improve the quality of legislation. The meetings I refer to usually take place only after members have demonstrated a prima facie case for considering change and the Government are persuaded that there may be merit in pursuing the issue. The meetings generally involve the minister and several officials in the Bill team – officials who are naturally well versed in the provisions of the Bill. One therefore has to be in a position to make a persuasive case in order to get them to agree to look again at a particular provision. If they do, then of course the amendment has to be put before the House for debate and approval. The consequence of the meeting is on the record.
I was fascinated by the insights Lord Norton gives us here. I take the point that not everyone was happy with the outcome of the debate; I was wrong when I said the final outcome ‘was to everyone’s satisfaction’. Indeed I was sitting next to Lord Pannick when he spoke and the body language was pretty clear. But I was puzzled as to why Lord Goodlad did not press his amendment to a vote, to indicate the strength of feeling and to ensure the Commons gave it more thought. I thought he would win with the LibDems supporting and many crossbenchers like me also sympathetic. As a backbencher I got the impression the decision had been taken behind the scenes not to press it further and I didn’t feel the Government were likely to introduce any changes. I felt rather frustrated by the outcome.
The amendment was not pressed as apparently the opposition parties were unlikely to support it. The issue itself is likely to be pursued by the Constitution Committee.
baronessmurphy: I’m glad you raised this as I’m sure to the public this is one of those matters that seems to defy obvious explanation. I’m sure we’ve all seen coverage where a reasonable case for an amendment seems to be made, it seems to get some/general support across the chamber, the minister gives a non answer as to why it can’t be included and then the proposing member goes and withdraws the amendment without real explanation.
I appreciate that you can’t and shouldn’t vote on everything proposed even when there is some support but members do at times seem almost apologetic about pressing matters to a vote. If you have a good argument and the existing measure is unreasonable/irrational then, even if you lose, isn’t there something to be said for forcing the government to at least win the vote?