Heath, Harris, Holmes, Swinson and Kramer quiz Harman on the Business of the House

10.32.09am BST (GMT +0100) Sat 27th Jun 2009

• [Jun 25] David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat): ' . . HAS she consulted before tabling the motions? No, she has not. Has she canvassed the subject matter that the Regional Grand Committees will discuss? No, she has not. Has she sought convenient places and dates to enable those Committees to meet? No, she has not.'

I am a generous sort, and I like to give credit where credit is due. I entirely applaud what the Leader of the House has just said-that from now on, she is going to consult before putting motions before the House; she is going to listen to what people say, and then react to those requests. Hallelujah! That is what we have been asking for for years. If that has happened in respect of the Committee to be chaired by Dr. Wright-I tabled a modest amendment, which was supported in all parts of the House, and the Leader of the House has now given me to understand that she will agree to it-it is very good news indeed.

When we look at today's Order Paper, however, what do we see? We see motions 6 to 13, standing in the name of the Leader of the House, setting up the Regional Grand Committees. The right hon. and learned Lady knows that I support the idea of having such Committees, but has she consulted before tabling the motions? No, she has not. Has she canvassed the subject matter that the Regional Grand Committees will discuss? No, she has not. Has she sought convenient places and dates to enable those Committees to meet? No, she has not. All she has consulted is the so-called regional Ministers, who have then decided where those Committees will meet, when they will meet and what they will discuss. What sort of scrutiny of Government is that? Will she now withdraw motions 6 to 13 and talk to me and Alan Duncan in order to move forward?

The Government need to come clean on the question of ID cards. The Conservatives changed their minds eventually, and former Home Secretaries-and there are enough of them-have changed their minds, so when are the Government going to admit that they will have to change their mind on ID cards and come to the position that we have advocated all along?

In looking at how this House scrutinises business, can we look seriously at how we scrutinise Government expenditure? As I have said before, there is no adequate mechanism for the House as a whole to look at Government spending. We have estimates days which do not involve looking at estimates; we have Consolidated Fund motions which do not involve any debate on the Consolidated Fund; and we give more scrutiny to a ten-minute Bill than to the Government's entire spending programme. Can we have some major reforms to enable us to carry out such scrutiny, so that we are not simply asked to write out cheques? If that had happened, we might not have been facing the biggest financial deficit that this country has ever seen, and the biggest seen in Europe. Can we have a debate very soon, so that we can see how the Government plan, as the Governor of the Bank of England says,

"to return to a sustainable position over the lifetime of the next Parliament"?

That is crucial. It is no good pretending that the bills are not mounting up; we have to find a way of paying them.

Finally, I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has acceded the request I made last week about reconstituting the Science and Technology Committee. I suggest that the Committee be asked an early stage to look at the recent research of Professor Tonegawa, published in Neuron magazine, which reveals that we edit our memories when fast asleep. Could that explain the difference between what the Prime Minister says and what he does?

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour): The question of what the Science and Technology Committee looks at is a matter for that Committee-if the House establishes the new Committee, as I am sure it will when we reach that part of our business this afternoon.

The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation relating to the Regional Grand Committees. I remind the House that motions will come before hon. Members later this afternoon to establish such Committees and to ensure that they sit in September, in the regions. Regional Grand Committees are Committees of all Members in a region, and they will look at how Government agencies and policies are working in that region. There was consultation, and it was with the Regional Select Committees. It is not my fault if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not sit on those Committees, or if the official Opposition do not want to join the Regional Select Committees. I think that they should join them; on behalf of the regions they represent, they should hold Government agencies to account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will attend and play a part with regard to the Regional Grand Committees, and the Regional Select Committees as well.

On ID cards, I have nothing to add to what I said to the shadow Leader of the House.

The hon. Gentleman asked about scrutiny by the House of Government spending. It is not true to say that there is no scrutiny of Government spending: we have oral questions, the pre-Budget report and debates, as chosen by the Liaison Committee, of Select Committee reports. How the House scrutinises public spending is a subject that could fall within the remit of the Committee that we hope to establish under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend Dr. Wright.

I have already said that I want to listen and consult before I table motions, and it is obviously even more necessary to listen and consult when amendments are forthcoming. There is nothing wrong, however, with the process of tabling a motion, seeing that there is a whole heap of amendments and then talking about the matter. That is not a U-turn; it is not weakness or backing down; it is about setting out a position, seeing what people like-or, in this case, dislike-about it and thinking again.

• . . Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

The House was elected above all to scrutinise legislation, especially legislation proposed by the Government. I hope the Leader of the House will accept that, while the Government have specified a date when a Bill will be introduced and there will be an opportunity for them to table amendments and new clauses, the scrutiny of that Bill is the business of the House. I welcome her wise decision-which is not a U-turn-to think again about the terms of reference of the Wright commission. I have two requests. First, will the Leader of the House consult members of the commission, who will have been elected by all parties in the House, on the terms of reference before returning the motion to the Order Paper? Secondly, will she open negotiations with the Opposition parties and interested Back Benchers on how her Equality Bill will be scrutinised on Report? It is an important Bill, and scrutiny of it is therefore also important.

Harriet Harman: I will do both those things. The hon. Gentleman's point has some validity. It is usual for Government to divide the House's work into Government and non-Government business, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that Government Bills are House business and the distinction is therefore somewhat artificial. I hope that the Wright commission will be able to examine those issues.

• . . Paul Holmes (Chesterfield, Liberal Democrat)

When the Policing and Crime Bill was in Committee in February, the two most important and controversial parts of it-on DNA databases and on anti-gang injunctions-were introduced at the very last minute during the final week, and could not be scrutinised or amended properly. On Report, we had only 40 minutes in which to discuss DNA. That makes a travesty of the idea that the House carries out democratic scrutiny of the Executive and of legislation.

In advance of the establishment of the Wright commission, will the Leader of the House make a clear statement at the Dispatch Box that in future the Government will not abuse Executive power and will not abuse programme motions, and that we shall never again see such a travesty of democratic scrutiny?

Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

It is not long until the summer recess, and we hope to establish the Wright Committee before then. I hope that its terms of reference will include the requirement on it to report swiftly, so that these matters can be considered in the context of that Committee.

• . . Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat): We have our new Speaker, we will shortly have our new reform Committee, and I hope we have a new mood for change, so can we also have a debate on how new technology can be used to help Parliament better connect with the public?

Harriet Harman: The Procedure Committee has been working on the specific question of the public being able to put items on the agenda for debate and votes in this House. It produced a report on e-petitions, so it has done a lot of the groundwork on this already. Perhaps that work can be brought to fruition by the parliamentary Committee that is now being set up.

• . . Susan Kramer: The House will be aware that foreign students who have applied to study at UK universities are now withdrawing those applications in droves because they cannot negotiate the new and impossible visa application system. As a consequence, universities will be in financial distress because of the loss of fees that they had been expecting from foreign students. Will the Leader of the House find an appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House, as this matter falls between the stools of two Departments? We must provide some triage for this year, and make sure that changes are made to guard against a permanent loss of foreign students from the UK education system.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Lady is right that foreign students are a very important part of our further and higher education system, but they are also important for our economic prospects as students from all around the world are familiar with Britain from having studied here. I am sure that action on the issues the hon. Lady has raised is already in hand, but I will get the Minister to write to her.