1

Monday 2 March 2009

THE WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

Speakers: Professor the Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative; Professor of Government,

University of Hull)
Mr Robert Rogers, Clerk of Legislation, House of Commons

Chairman: Rt Hon. Kevin Barron MP (Labour)

The Chairman introduced the session.

Professor the Lord Norton of Louth explained that he would provide a conceptual overview of the
Westminster system of Government. Westminster was often described as the mother of all
parliaments, but this was a mis-quotation. The original quote stated that England was the mother of
all parliaments. A parliament had existed at Westminster long before it began to use what was
known as the Westminster parliamentary system. The Westminster system was one of three main
systems of Government. There were also presidential systems and continental parliamentary
systems. A presidential/premier hybrid could be considered a fourth type.

The features of the parliament in Westminster were not necessarily essential features of the
Westminster parliamentary system. Not all were bicameral and others had an elected second
chamber. They varied in size from a handful of members to 1400 over two chambers. The
Westminster system was a type of parliamentary system which was characterised by a lack of a
separate election of the legislature and the executive. It was majoritarian. The executive dominated
and operated in the legislature, as well as leading it. Parliament was crucial to the legitimisation of
the political system. Key factors are that a Westminster-style parliament governs with consent, with
the capacity to endorse the action of the executive and it was effective since it was exclusive in the
sense that it was autonomous and had sole capacity to legitimise the executive. A parliament of the
Westminster system was detached from outside interests with no mandate.

Scrutiny maintained the legitimacy of a parliament. In the Westminster system there was a
distinctive system of scrutiny with the concept of the official opposition. This phrase was first used
in Canada. Parliaments using the Westminster system operated on the basis that the Government
was entitled to its business and that the opposition was entitled to be heard. The system was
chamber-orientated with the chamber being the arena in which deliberation occurred. Parliaments
operating on the Westminster System tended to have relatively weak committees. Select
committees were a slight exception to this but were a recent innovation in Westminster and have
had trouble establishing themselves and gaining influence. The first chamber dominated and the
powers of the second chamber are often unused or used with reluctance.

The shape of the chamber in Westminster was historical and a legacy of previous meetings in St
Stephen’s chapel. Other parliamentary systems often had semicircular chambers. Parliaments in
which the Westminster system was used tended to have a more adversarial chamber design.
Another feature of Parliaments using the Westminster system was that they had a neutral presiding
officer which was rare under a presidential or continental system. This provided an even playing
field and ensured the fair application of the rules. Clerks, the library and other support staff were
also neutral. Transparency was the final feature of a Parliament of the Westminster system.
Debate occurred openly in the chamber and there was therefore no need for secrecy. Continental
parliaments often concentrated on efficiency and used committees to make bargains.

The Westminster system coped well when there were two parties and the first past the post electoral
system facilitated this. A third and other smaller parties were hard to accommodate because of the
majoritarian nature of a Westminster parliament. Parliaments using the Westminster system
provided little scope for compromise and little specialisation since the chamber was the focus. The
select committees, appointed in 1979 had been the first opportunity for specialisation in
Westminster. The Executive dominated and government MPs therefore had a conundrum. They
were obliged to support the Government but should also support parliament by scrutinising the
executive.

The advantages of the Westminster system were that it allowed effective government.
Governments were able to deliver a programme. It also correlated with political stability. The even
playing field for debate with stable rules and a neutral presiding officer meant that both sides of the
debate could be put and all sides heard. Accountability was provided by the system because at an
election the executive was an identifiable body. Those who were responsible for governing were
easily identified.

Not all Westminster style parliaments exhibited all these features all the time and there was
variation, for example the executive would not always get its way if the system was a federal one.
Some parliaments deviated enough from the model not to be recognised as Westminster-style. For
example, New Zealand had a system of mixed member proportional voting.

Mr Robert Rogers explained that he would begin by identifying the drivers which made the
Westminster Parliament work as it does. The first of these was the building which was designed as
a Victorian palace in which there were no offices or research facilities. The common spaces such
as the division lobbies and tearoom encouraged informality and free exchange and led to a volatility
in the way in which views were transmitted, which for example, could foster rebellions. Another
driver was the design of the chamber. There had been a chance after its destruction in 1941 to
change it. Churchill had redesigned it as an arena for free, easy and conversational debate. There
were seats for 420 Members which meant that 50 people made the chamber feel full and 200 could
provide chemistry and drama.

The House of Lords had 745 Members of whom an average of 411 turned up daily. In the House of
Commons there were 646 Members. Matching opportunities to take part in proceedings to the
number of Members was difficult, leading to many things being balloted for and raffled. This
included Oral Questions and Prime Ministers Questions, of which 300 were tabled for 15 spaces,
Private Members’ Bills of which 20 were selected by ballot to get priority, and Adjournment Debates.
In the 19th Century there were over 700 Members. Constituencies were small with an average of
67,000 electors and 90,000 people. Each had specific characteristics, for example a city, fishing or
farming constituency. This was an influence on the parliamentary activity of MPs.

3
Another driver was the role of the Government in Parliament. As Lord Norton stated, MPs of the
governing party faced a dilemma since they were obliged to support the Government as part of the
electoral majority but were also obliged to hold the Government to account as MPs. There was little
ring-fenced time in the House of Commons. Twenty days each session were reserved as opposition
days, there were half hour adjournment debates at the end of each sitting day and question time.
Otherwise, the Government controlled the time available. The House of Lords was very different. It
was often considered odd by outsiders that the Leader of the House in the House of Commons was
able to give details of the next fortnight’s business each Thursday and that the House did not debate
its own agenda.

There was considerable complementarity between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Robert Rogers did not believe that increasing the powers of the House of Lords would necessarily
mean removing powers from the House of Commons. Each had a different character and did a
different job and the effect would be to increase the power of the parliamentary component of the
constitution. The select committee systems of the two Houses did not clash since House of
Commons select committees shadowed individual Departments of State (a vertical specialisation)
whilst House of Lords committees were focussed on a particular subject such as economic affairs (a
more horizontal specialisation). The impartial parliamentary service, separate from the Civil Service
was of enormous practical value. Ministers and officials were often in the sights of select
committees and therefore it would be inappropriate for staff of a committee to take instructions from
a Minister. A similar issue arose in respect of the scope of Bills. For example, the Government had
not wished to see abortion included within the scope of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill
but Robert Rogers had advised that it was within the scope of the Bill.

Legislation was one area in which the House of Commons did not do things well. Only 40% of the
House’s time was spent on legislation. Most of these were Government Bills. There had been
about 100 Private Members’ Bills over the last 25 years and on average 10% of them had been
passed. In 1993 there were 2645 pages of primary legislation but in 2006 this had risen to 4911 and
another 11700 pages of secondary legislation. Legislation was now prepared faster than before so
that in the previous year 5000 Government amendments had been made to Government Bills.
There had been a number of changes to procedures over the last few years. One recent innovation
was programming of Bills. It was sensible to apportion time so that it was not all spent upfront on
the early provisions of a Bill but programming caused disputes. Select committees carried out
scrutiny of draft bills. Other recent changes included a shorter notice period for Oral Questions and
the introduction of Topical Questions and Debates as were already held in other parliaments. Over
his 37 year career the biggest changes had been the increase in Members’ staff, the increasing
importance of the constituency to Members and the lower attendance in the chamber of the House
of Commons.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked how the number of Members in each House was
determined, how the select committees of the two Houses complemented each other and what the
levels of attendance in the House of Commons were.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) asked what would happen if the Government lost
the confidence of the House and about the relationship between the Head of State and Parliament.

4
Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) asked how Committees were formed and how Members could
take leave from the House, and if they did, whether they retained their salary.

Professor Lord Norton explained that there was a difference between the relationship between the
Head of State and Parliament in the UK and the Governor General and Parliament in Canada. The
Governor-General had reserved powers and could act independently whereas the Head of State in
the UK was more constrained. The Governor General could be dismissed on the recommendation
of the Government but could also sack the Prime Minister as happened in Canada. The advantage
therefore lay with whoever acted first.

The House of Lords fulfilled functions where the time or political will was lacking in the House of
Commons, thereby providing complementarity. House of Lords select committees were composed
of those Members most suitably qualified to be a member of the committee based on expertise and
experience. The attendance of the House of Lords was easily measured because there was an
attendance allowance paid for each day and therefore statistics were collected. The constituency
role was a feature of the Westminster system and in Europe there was often no concept of the
constituent. The House of Lords did not hold ballots and was self-regulating.

Mr Rogers said that in the House of Commons the composition of select committees mirrored that
of the House and membership was agreed by the House. Numbers of MPs in the House of
Commons was determined by legislation which determined the number of constituencies. There
were currently 646 down from 659 before Scottish devolution. The next Parliament would be
composed of 649 MPs. There was no ceiling in the House of Lords since appointments could
continue to be made by the Government and the Appointments Commission. The role of select
committees in the two Houses was different. In the House of Commons they focussed on
Government structures whilst in the House of Lords they focussed on a particular subject. In the
House of Lords Members were able to take formal leave of absence but could claim no allowance
for this. In the House of Commons Members were paid unless suspended. The Whips were likely
to take a keen interest in the attendance of Members in the House of Commons.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) asked what the meaning of Westminster was.

Hon. Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) asked how balloting worked.

Mr Pierre Lauofo Fonotoe MP (Samoa) asked about situations in which the executive dominated
and Parliament was merely a formality.

Mr Rogers said that Westminster referred to the religious building, the Minster, which had been on
the site long before the Parliament existed. The ballot for Prime Minster’s Questions worked by
allocating questions a number and then using a random number generator to carry out the ballot.

Professor Lord Norton said that where executives dominated it was often the case that the
parliament was unwilling to use powers that it possessed rather than lacking powers. New structures
were often helpful, as were increases in resources, such as providing research staff. Change
required political will.

5
Mr Askok Bhatt MLA (Gujarat, India) asked about the use of technology in Parliament.

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) asked what further changes were planned in
procedures.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked about budgeting.

Mr Rogers said that the provision of services electronically was a business priority of the House of
Commons. Notice had been shortened for Question Time and Topical Questions had been
introduced. Written Questions were being looked at by the Procedure Committee. Many questions
had lost their interrogative nature and were often not actually questions. In the House of Commons
the Chair regulated the speed of Question Time. The House of Commons was financially
independent with an estimate agreed by the House of Commons Commission but compiled by the
House staff. The House still strove for economy, efficiency and effectiveness and the National Audit
Office examined expenditure. The funding of the House of Lords was directly negotiated with the
Treasury

Professor Lord Norton said that the House of Lords was pushing boundaries in terms of
technology. E-consultations were carried out. Question time in the House of Lords was different.
The House of Lords concentrated on depth rather than breadth and only four questions were
answered during question time giving seven or eight minutes per question.

6
Monday 2 March 2009

POLITICAL UPDATE

Speakers: Mr Nigel Evans MP (Conservative)

Miss Kate Hoey MP (Labour)

Chairman: Mr Paul Keetch MP (Liberal Democrat)

The Chairman welcomed delegates and introduced the speakers. Both speakers had been MPs for
nearly twenty years and were known for their willingness to speak their mind.

Mr Nigel Evans MP said that the attention of all the political parties was fixed on the date of the
next general election. The Prime Minister, Rt Hon. Gordon Brown MP, had been tempted to call an
election in October 2007. It was likely that the Labour Party would have won an election then.
However, the Prime Minister had chosen not to go the polls after the Conservatives had announced
at their annual conference a popular policy to abolish inheritance tax on estates valued over £1
million. Since the announcement of that policy, the Conservatives had been ahead in every opinion
poll.

The Government had recently announced that the 2009 budget would be held on 22 April.
Governments usually viewed budgets as an opportunity to boost their popularity. However, the
current Chancellor was constrained in what he could do by a lack of money. Vast sums of money
had been spent to support the banking system. Now the Treasury was empty. The number of
unemployed had risen to two million. That total would increase sharply over the next few months
and would cause misery to many individuals and their families. Not only was unemployment a
personal tragedy, on a wider scale it placed financial pressure on the economy because tax receipts
would fall and welfare benefit payments would increase.

Mr Evans said that bankers were currently very unpopular. Sir Fred Goodwin, former Chief
Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), had become particularly unpopular since it had
been announced that he would receive an annual pension in the region of £700,000 despite the fact
that RBS had recorded a record deficit of £24 billion in 2008 whilst he had been in charge. Sir Fred
Goodwin’s pension would be funded by the taxpayer because the RBS had been nationalised in the
autumn. The financial package would give him an income in the region of 10 times larger than an
MP’s annual salary. There were suggestions that Ministers could have negotiated a smaller pension
for Sir Fred, but that they had been distracted by other problems. Whoever was to blame, the public
was outraged by what many perceived to be a reward for failure.

The issue of constitutional reform remained unresolved. There was no likelihood that the final
composition of the Upper House would be determined before the next election. The Conservative
Party favoured a House of Lords that was largely elected.

The Government had recently announced plans to privatise the Royal Mail. The decision had made
some Labour MPs very angry but the Conservative opposition thought that it was the right policy
and would support the Government when the time came to vote on the proposals.

7
In June there would be elections to the European Parliament. The results of those elections would
provide a snapshot of the parties’ electoral prospects. In the autumn it was likely that the Irish
people would be asked to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. The Conservatives had promised the British
people a referendum on the Treaty.

Mr Evans said that the war in Iraq remained an important political issue in the UK. He had voted for
the war but now wished he had not. However a welcome development was that the UK was likely to
withdraw its forces from Iraq during the summer of 2009. The UK’s military focus should now be on
efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan.

Miss Kate Hoey MP agreed that the economy was the dominant political issue. The causes of the
downturn, which had affected the whole world, were incredibly complex. It was very difficult to
explain how the UK had got into such a mess and also how it would get out of it.

The electorate and the media viewed politicians as out of touch and untrustworthy. That was largely
because politicians were criticised for not implementing manifesto commitments and because they
introduced policies that the electorate had not voted for.

In the UK, the Prime Minister alone chose the date of the next General election. Understandably,
Prime Ministers wanted to choose an election date that gave them the best chance of success. Most
Governments went to the polls before the law required them to. If that pattern was followed it meant
that the election would be held in June. However it was unlikely that a General election would be
held in 2009.

The proposed privatisation of the Royal Mail was extremely unpopular among Labour MPs and the
general public. The Government had handled the issue badly and 130 Labour MPs had pledged to
resist the Government’s plans. Lord Mandelson, Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform, had never been popular within the Labour Party and the proposed changes to
the Royal Mail had made him less popular. His current position was made more difficult because he
was a member of the House of Lords and so was not accountable to MPs in the House of
Commons. The Royal Mail required some modernisation but the Government had gone about it in
the wrong way. At a time when the Government had nationalised private banks, it was wrong to
privatise a much-loved public service.

Another political issue was terrorism and security. It was the first duty of a government to protect its
people. However, it must not do that at the expense of individual liberty. The House of Lords,
although not elected, had been more effective than the House of Commons at protecting the public’s
liberty.

The Chairman agreed that terrorism, constitutional reform, and the economy were the current
dominant political issues. The next year which led up the next general election was likely to be an
exciting time in UK politics.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that politicians had many roles but that their primary
responsibility should be to hold the executive to account. However, her constituents seemed to

8
regard her role more as a social worker which made it difficult for her to do her job as effectively as
she would want.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin MNA (Quebec, Canada) wondered how the British public had reacted
to the massive growth in public debt which had followed the rescue of the banking sector.

Miss Hoey explained that the role of UK MPs had changed a great deal in the twenty years that she
had been an MP. The development of instant communications through the Internet, as well as the
televising of parliamentary proceedings, had made MPs more accessible to the media and their
constituents. Although there were some regrettable consequences of both, including the loss of
some privacy, in general it was a good thing.

It was important that politicians did not lose sight of the important local issues that concerned their
constituents. Lambeth Council, where she lived, was not very efficient and over the years many
people had asked for her help to resolve a problem that had been the responsibility of the Council to
resolve. However, sometimes it was more important to solve a constituent’s problem than to engage
in ideological debates.

Mr Evans said that MPs were easily lampooned. It was easier for the media to criticise MPs unfairly
about their expenses than for it to explain the good work that MPs of all parties carried out.

The figures on public debt were so large that they were difficult to comprehend. However, the state
of the economy had begun to have an effect on those people who had lost money in foreign banks
or who had experienced negative equity in their houses.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked whether the UK Government should apologise
for invading Iraq.

Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP (Hong Kong) wondered what new measures would be proposed
in the forthcoming budget and whether they would address the UK’s current economic problems.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) questioned why the media criticised UK politicians so
harshly.

Mr Evans reiterated his regret that he had backed the war in Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein had
been a brutal tyrant who had deserved to be removed from power, but the British people had been
misled about the reasons for the war.

The budget in April presented the Government with a dilemma. Businesses, banks, and individuals
all required money, but the Treasury had no money to give away. It was difficult to predict what the
Chancellor had planned. However his room for manoeuvre was limited.

As regarded the reputation of MPs, many did not help their reputation. The recent controversy about
Members’ allowances had damaged the reputation of all politicians. However, the media did not give
equivalent coverage to the good work that MPs did. Most journalists were not subject to the same
stringent rules on expenses as politicians.

9
Miss Hoey said that there was a general disillusionment with politicians. Turnout at general
elections had been poor. The reasons for that were complex and varied, but it would help if
politicians acted with greater integrity.

Miss Hoey had voted against the Iraq war. The biggest and most costly mistake had been the
insufficient focus on what to do after the invasion.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked whether, given the economic downturn in the UK,
the UK’s aid budget to less developed countries would be slashed.

Hon. Sandy John Arissol MNA (Seychelles) said that he was often pestered by his constituents to
give them presents for birthdays and other notable occasions. He wondered where politicians
should draw the line when they gave help to their constituents.

Mrs Beverley Isles (Clerk, Canada) asked whether there were any plans to reform the UK
Parliament’s procedures.

Miss Hoey said that the UK had been a generous overseas donor over recent years. The Prime
Minister was personally committed to the issue. The British people demanded that money was spent
effectively and was not directed at corrupt regimes. The UK would not give money for development
to Zimbabwe while it was led by President Mugabe.

It was not advisable for politicians to give presents to constituents.

A Speaker’s Conference had been convened to consider possible changes to parliamentary

proceedings and the way that it worked more generally.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked whether the party whips were strict
when they enforced discipline and what sanctions they could apply to MPs if they rebelled against
the party line.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked to what extent back bench MPs could influence
Government policy.

Miss Hoey said that experienced backbenchers could wield significant influence on Governments if
they chose the right issue at the right time.

The party whips recognised that MPs did not vote against their party lightly. A great deal of
forethought always accompanied such a decision. Although it was a whip’s job to try to persuade
MPs to vote with the party, the use of over-bearing tactics would prove counter-productive.

The Chairman thanked everyone for their contribution to a very interesting session.

10
Tuesday 3 March 2009

THE SPEAKER

Speaker: Rt Hon. Michael Martin MP (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Chair: Sir Nicholas Winterton DL MP (Conservative)

No notes are available for this session.

11
Tuesday 3 March 2009

BICAMERALISM: THE WORK OF A SECOND CHAMBER

Speaker: Rt Hon. Baroness Hayman (Lord Speaker)

Chairman: Rt Hon. the Lord Anderson of Swansea DL (Labour)

The Chairman welcomed the delegates. He said that, although bicameralism in itself was not
unusual, the United Kingdom system could seem puzzling because the second chamber was not
elected, other than the closed elections held among the hereditary element of the membership. Lord
Anderson said that the House of Lords had defeated the Government far more times than the House
of Commons. Since 1997 the House of Commons had defeated the Government four times; the
House of Lords had defeated the Government over five hundred times in that same period. Lord
Anderson also noted that many ministers sat in the Lords, including a number with high profile
portfolios due to the financial crisis, such as Lord Mandelson and Lord Myners.

Lord Anderson introduced Baroness Hayman to the delegates. He said that Baroness Hayman’s
role as Lord Speaker proved that there could be radical change within continuity. Baroness Hayman
had specialised in health and education in her early career, before serving as an MP in the House of
Commons. She had been appointed to the House of Lords in 1990 and had held various positions in
the Government. In 2006 she had been elected as the very first Lord Speaker, and had used the
role to embark on a number of initiatives, most notably that of engaging young people with the
political process. As the first Lord Speaker, Baroness Hayman had the opportunity to set the tone for
others to follow.

Baroness Hayman thanked Lord Anderson for his introduction. She said that although she would
not recommend directly transposing the House of Lords model to any other parliament, she had
noted that people were always very generous in their respect for the Westminster system.

The 1911 Parliament Act had set in train a process of reform that had brought about the modern
House of Lords. It was interesting to look at the evolution of the second chamber. Internationally,
there were many variants of parliamentary models. Many Commonwealth parliaments managed well
with unicameral systems. One of the advantages of the unicameral model was its clarity of
democratic responsibility. This issue also emerged in debates on the ideal membership of the
House of Lords.

Baroness Hayman noted that, internationally, there was much more consistency in characteristics of
lower chambers, such as direct representation and representation by population. In contrast, upper
houses were often the result of political history and geography, and sometimes represented different
social structures and attitudes. Some countries had constitutional courts that did some of the work
that may otherwise have been undertaken by second chambers. In many countries second
chambers followed a historical model (such as in the UK), but there could also be more modern
motivations. For example, Rwanda had set up a second chamber with the aim of entrenching the

12
representation of different ethnic groups and the promotion of human rights within a stable
environment.

The Lord Speaker’s role was very different to that of the Commons Speaker. Baroness Hayman said
that the House of Lords was generally much better behaved (not only because of the higher average
age of the Members, but also because there was less interest in tribal politics) and valued self-
regulation. Before the post of Lord Speaker had been established, the Lord Chancellor had
‘moonlighted’ as Speaker. This had been one small part of his role, which had also included
appointing most senior judges and holding a cabinet post. Baroness Hayman believed the historical
role of the Lord Chancellor had not contributed to the effective separation of powers, and had
welcomed the changes brought by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The judicial capacity of the
House of Lords would soon pass to the new Supreme Court. The Lord Chancellor had ceased to act
as Speaker.

Baroness Hayman was pleased to have won the opportunity to be the first ever Lord Speaker, but
there was a great responsibility to make things work. The House of Lords did not want someone to
direct the chamber. A key part of the Lord Speaker’s role was connecting with the public, especially
young people. Many young people viewed political structures as a barrier rather than an opportunity.
The Lord Speaker needed to beat the drum for the role of Parliament as a place for debating the
issues that were close to people’s hearts.

The role of the House of Lords had changed enormously in recent decades. Fifty years ago only
hereditary peers had sat in the Lords, and even then female hereditary peers were excluded. The
members of the House were mostly aristocratic, nearly all privately educated, and the vast majority
belonged to the Church of England. The first four women were admitted in 1958, as part of the first
group of life peers. This set in motion a series of changes in membership, which culminated with the
1999 changes which removed all but a small group of hereditary peers. Fifty per cent of current
members had joined the House in the last ten years. In addition, the House of Lords had twice as
many ethnic minority members as the House of Commons. There was also wide religious
representation. A third of frontbenchers in the Lords were women, as had been four out of the last
five Leaders of the House. The House of Lords also had a good record for allowing those with
disabilities to perform as legislators. As a chamber where many members were subject experts who
had already achieved in their fields, the average age was naturally higher than that of the
Commons, but the youngest member of the House of Lords was only 34. There was a wide diversity
of experience and expertise in the Lords and, perhaps most importantly, more members of the Lords
had significant experience of life outside politics.

The House of Lords operated on the basis that no party should have an inbuilt majority. This meant
that the Government could not rely on numbers only to win a vote; instead, it had to win the
argument. The House of Commons often focused on the big issues when considering a Bill, while
the House of Lords was able to undertake vital line by line scrutiny. The House of Lords had caused
hundreds of amendments to be made to government Bills, and in the majority of cases these
amendments were accepted by the Government as an improvement. The House of Lords functioned
extremely well as a revising chamber.

13
The House of Lords also functioned well in conducting scrutiny and holding the Government to
account. This was especially the case given the importance of the some of the ministers in the
Lords. In particular, the House of Lords Select Committee system was widely respected for its in
depth scrutiny work.

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) said that his assembly was exploring the idea of
elections to the senate, and asked for any comments or advice from the speakers.

Mr Bernard Dalinting (Clerk, Sabah, Malaysia) asked how people were chosen for admission to
the Lords, and whether anyone could apply.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether Members of the House of Lords received
a salary. She also asked the Lord Speaker to share her experiences as a female speaker, and on
the progress of women in Parliament.

Baroness Hayman explained that Members of the House of Lords were not salaried. The House
operated on a deliberate part-time arrangement, with Members receiving expenses only when they
attended the House. Many Members of the House continued their professional career on the
‘outside’. This was seen as an advantage because they brought added expertise to the House’s
work.

Baroness Hayman said that the House of Lords was a very good place for women to operate. The
appointments system had made it easier to ensure a diverse composition of Members. 40 per cent
of those appointed to the Lords in the last ten years had been women. Many women who had
achieved a high position in the Lords had benefitted from the experiences they had gained outside
politics. Experience of the wider world (even that of motherhood and raising a family) was seen as
important in the House of Lords. Women did not have to have been career politicians since the age
of 25 in order to succeed. However, there remained deep systemic obstacles to be overcome, not
only in Parliament but also in society more widely.

Baroness Hayman explained that Members of the House of Lords were appointed rather than
elected. There was a two-pronged system of appointments. Those who were not members of a
political party could apply to the Appointments Commission and, if successful, would join the ranks
of the Crossbench Peers. Political peers were nominated by their parties, and then vetted by the
Appointments Commission.

There was an ongoing debate over whether there should be elections for appointment to the Lords.
Baroness Hayman said this would be very difficult to achieve. No one wanted a second chamber
that was a pale replica of the lower House, a consolation prize for those who could not get into the
House of Commons. If the second chamber was to have real value, it needed to offer something
different to the House of Commons. The second chamber should be neither a replica nor a rival.

At the moment the House of Lords had significantly less power than the House of Commons. For
instance, it had no powers in relation to finance or taxation, and ultimately it could only delay
legislation rather than overturning it. The public valued the fact that the House of Lords was not
composed solely of career politicians, and that the membership included a range of expertise and

14
values. It was necessary to ask what was most important in a second chamber: expertise, values
and independence, or accountability and legitimacy. It was difficult to reconcile these two aspects.
Baroness Hayman said that it was possible for a chamber to achieve legitimacy without being
elected.

Hon. Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) explained that the Kenyan Upper House had been
abolished. He asked whether the House of Lords was incompatible with democracy, for example if it
rejected legislation approved by the elected chamber.

Mr Brian Ntundo MP (Zambia) asked whether political parties were able to put forward MPs for
appointment to the House of Lords.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked Baroness Hayman if she felt more at home in the Lords
or the Commons.

Baroness Hayman said that the House of Commons had been a very different experience. A
Member of the House of Commons was at the centre of political debate, while the House of Lords
was calmer and more deliberative.

Baroness Hayman said that Members of the House of Commons often ended up as Members of the
House of Lords, but before making the move they had to cease being an MP and then be
recommended by their parties.

On the subject of Kenya, Baroness Hayman said that every country must find its own destiny. In the
United Kingdom conflict had been resolved by establishing differentiated powers between the
elected House and the appointed House. In a system with two elected chambers there would still be
a need to find a way of resolving conflict, to ensure the two Houses complemented each other rather
than acting as rivals.

The Chairman thanked Baroness Hayman for addressing the conference.

15
Tuesday 3 March 2009

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

Speakers: Sir Robert Smith Bt MP (Liberal Democrats)

Ms Jacqy Sharpe (Principal Clerk, Table Office, House of Commons)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman welcomed the speakers.

Sir Robert Smith Bt MP introduced himself as a member of the Procedure Committee, which was
conducting an inquiry into parliamentary questions in the House of Commons. Questions were one
form of holding the Government to account in Parliament: the procedure had evolved into a key
method whereby Members could extract information from the Government. Procedures were
evolving: the present Procedure Committee inquiry was examining practices relating to questions for
written answer, and a report in 2002, in which Sir Robert had also participated, had led to a
significant reform to the handling of questions for oral answer.

Prime Minister’s Questions was the aspect of parliamentary questions with the highest profile, but it
was the least informative aspect of questions: Sir Robert regarded it as the tip of the iceberg. Prime
Minister’s Questions allowed Members on all sides of the House to highlight topical issues: as a
consequence the Prime Minister needed extensive briefing beforehand and a substantial briefing
folder. Several hundred questions for written answer were tabled each day, and in addition Ministers
from each Department answered questions orally in the House at the start of business from Monday
to Thursday according to a five-week rota.

All questions had to be tabled by Members: they could table questions either in person in the Table
Office (where they could seek advice on drafting), by post or via an electronic tabling system on the
Parliamentary network introduced in 2002.

Questions for oral answer had to be tabled no later than three sitting days before the time
designated for answer. Members wishing to ask a question in the Chamber had their names entered
into a ballot and names were drawn at random. At Question Time the Speaker would call each
Member in turn to put the question printed on the Order Paper: the Member was then entitled to ask
a supplementary question without notice. Other Members rising in their places could then be called
by the Speaker to ask further supplementaries. In calling such supplementaries, the Speaker had to
gauge the level of interest in the subject and its relevance.

The three-day notice period was a relatively recent innovation, recommended by the Procedure
Committee in its 2002 report: prior to that Members had had to give 14 days’ notice. A further and
more recent innovation had been to allocate the last ten or fifteen minutes of each question slot to
so-called topical questions, where Members drawn by ballot could ask questions with no notice at
all.

16
Sir Robert noted that Members adopted many different approaches to tabling written Questions to
seek information or to press for action. Some eschewed Questions completely, opting to correspond
directly with Ministers; others asked Questions to elicit Government statistics, to provoke responses
to constituency concerns, or to highlight weaknesses in Government policy. There was no limit on
the number of questions which could be tabled for “ordinary written answer”, but Members had a
daily limit of five “named day written answer” questions (questions for which they could name the
day on which the response should be given).

The volume of questions for written answer had grown substantially in the last ten years, not least
because of pressure from outside organisations monitoring the activities of Members: the tabling of
Questions was one of the few quantifiable measures of a Member’s activity. Sir Robert noted the
effect of the increase on the timeliness of answers received to questions and on the resources
available to answer them: Members were in general now receiving answers which were less full and
more delayed.

One remedy for Members seeking information was to use the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 to request information from the Government. This was not a parliamentary
procedure, though it had the benefit of allowing an appeal against a failure to respond to the request
once 20 days had elapsed. The Procedure Committee was examining whether a similar system of
appeals could be put in place in relation to parliamentary questions.

Questions had two purposes: to seek information or to press for action. The process was a dynamic
one: every time a new method was found to open the Government to scrutiny through Parliamentary
questions, it seemed that the Government managed to come up with a means of avoiding it. Despite
this, the process was still a vital means of holding the Government to account.

Ms Jacqy Sharpe remarked that in the 2006-07 Session almost 58,000 questions for written
answer and almost 4,000 for oral answer had been tabled. The Table Office had the authority,
delegated by the Speaker, to edit questions submitted for tabling for compliance with House style
and to examine them for compliance with the rules of the House governing Questions. Questions
which appeared to breach the rules were referred to the Principal Clerk for a ruling and
subsequently referred back to the tabling Member for discussion. A Member who was unhappy with
a Table Office ruling could make representations to the Speaker. The Table Office’s practice was to
try to find a means for a question to be tabled within the rules wherever possible.

The Government’s most recent estimate of the average cost of answering a question was £410 for a
question for oral answer and £149 for a question for written answer. The Government applied a
discretionary cost limit above which the cost of answering a question was considered
disproportionate, though this could be waived if it was considered in the public interest to provide an
answer: the so-called disproportionate cost limit was currently £750.

Ms Sharpe noted some further categories of questions. It had recently been agreed that Members
ought to be able to table questions during the Summer Recess and to receive answers. Members
were now permitted to submit questions for written answer on three designated days in September
when the House was not sitting. She also noted the urgent question procedure (formerly known as
“private notice questions”), where a Member could apply to the Speaker for the right to ask a

17
question on a matter of urgent public importance. If the Speaker granted the request, the Minister
responsible would be required to come to the House to give an oral answer to the Question at the
end of Question Time that day and to be further questioned.

The floor was opened to questions.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked whether television broadcasts of Question Time
showed the subject of the question as it was being broadcast.

Hon. Dr Joseph Sammut MP (Malta) asked what account the Government took in providing the
answer of the effort which was required.

Mr Brian Ntundu MP (Zambia) asked whether a Member who was not present at Question Time to
put his question still received an answer.

Sir Robert answered that the BBC Parliament channel, when broadcasting Question Time,
broadcast an edited text of each question as it was being asked and answered. It was frustrating to
all concerned when Members were not present to ask the questions in their name at Question Time,
not least because Opposition front-benchers might have planned a series of supplementary
questions on the issue to be raised, and if the question was not called they would not be able to
pursue them. A question which had not been called did not receive any answer.

Ms Sharpe noted that the cost limit for questions was calculated on the cost incurred in answering
the question, including the staff time and effort involved: it had last been updated in December 2008.
Members who had not received answers to Questions owing to the disproportionate cost involved
might consider tabling further questions asking for information over a shorter period, for example.

The Chairman noted that he had had to deal with some bizarre questions when he had worked at
the Ministry of Defence, including one on the number of pairs of socks provided to the Armed
Forces.

Hon. Mary Salifu Bofero MP (Ghana) asked whether party whips had any influence over the way in
which questions were asked.

Mrs Beverley Isles (Clerk, Canada) noted that in the Canadian House of Commons a Member
dissatisfied with an answer could raise the issue on the adjournment of the House that day if notice
was given within one hour of Question Time and asked if there was a similar procedure at
Westminster.

Mr Glen Hart MLA (Saskatchewan, Canada) asked what the procedure was for departmental
Ministers answering questions orally; how long the questions usually lasted, and how many
Ministers participated.

Sir Robert did not think his party whips tried to exert any influence over the questions he might ask
in the Chamber, though it was well-known that whips of all parties routinely circulated texts of
questions for oral answer which Members might consider tabling. It was conceivable that Members

18
could be influenced to withdraw questions, though he was not aware of that sort of negative
pressure. A Member dissatisfied with an oral answer to a question could give notice immediately
that he or she planned to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House, but this did not give a
right to raise the subject that day: the Member would have to enter the Speaker’s ballot for end-of-
day adjournment debates. Indicating that a matter would be raised on the Adjournment had the
effect of stemming any further questions on the matter at the Question Time in question. There was
a strong case to be made for some formal challenge to inadequate answers, and the matter was
under active consideration in the Procedure Committee’s inquiry.

Expanding on the arrangements for departmental Question Time, Sir Robert noted that most
Departments had up to one hour to answer questions, though questions to territorial Departments
(the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Offices) lasted just 30 minutes. Ministers answered
questions without the aid of officials, and could not pass questions over to them as they could in a
select committee, though officials sitting in the official “box” adjacent to the Government benches
could pass briefing notes to the Ministerial team.

Ms Sharpe elaborated on the arrangements for departmental Questions: a rota was issued by the
Table Office, with the Government’s approval, setting out the time and date of each Question Time
in advance and also indicating the last date and time for tabling of Questions for the random
“shuffle” for each slot. Members could follow up unsatisfactory answers to Questions for written
answer by tabling “pursuant” Questions.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) noted that there was a clause in the Sierra Leone
Constitution which prohibited party whips from taking action against their MPs.

Mr P. K. Grover (Clerk, India) asked whether there were any limits on the topical questions which
could be asked without notice at the end of Question Time, and how many questions could be
asked.

Mr Bernard Dalinting (Clerk, Sabah, Malaysia) asked whether questions to the Prime Minister took
precedence over departmental Question Times.

Sir Robert answered the latter question by noting that Prime Minister’s Questions was on a weekly
rota separate from that of departmental Questions. Ministers had no formal notice of the matters to
be raised as topical questions. His experience had been that the Speaker tried to get in as many as
possible of the Members selected to ask topical questions (between eight and ten) while preserving
the overall balance of Question Time. He was not aware that any Member had had the party whip
withdrawn merely for asking awkward questions of the Government.

Hon. Jane Aagard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) noted that all questions in the Australian
Federal Parliament were asked without notice, though Government backbenchers would often give
informal notice to the Government of the subject of their question. She wondered whether the
practice of asking questions enabling Ministers to trumpet the Government’s achievements—known
in Australia as “Dorothy Dix questions”—was prevalent at Westminster.

19
Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) asked how many supplementaries to a
Question for oral answer could be asked.

Hon. Maser Kujat MP (Malaysia) asked whether any priority was given at Question Time to issues
identified as the responsibility of regional administrations.

Sir Robert observed that so-called “Dorothy Dixers” were often asked by Government back-
benchers, sometimes inspired by their whips: some Members were better than others at concealing
this stratagem. Back-benchers were entitled to ask one supplementary question following the initial
answer to their question, but party front-benchers could ask a number of supplementary questions
at any time during the question slot: the Official Opposition was entitled to ask up to six
supplementaries and the Liberal Democrats two. Members were expected to use their discretion as
to whether to give a national or local focus to their questions, though a question on a very local
issue would reduce the scope of the answer and the scope for subsequent supplementary
questions.

Dr Seh Hong Ong MP (Singapore) asked what action the Speaker took where more than one
question was being asked as a supplementary.

Sir Robert noted that Members and Ministers who asked long-winded questions and gave long-
winded answers during a time-limited Question Time were never popular: some Members were
more skilful than others in getting a good deal of information into a question. The Speaker generally
had the support of all back-benchers in his efforts to limit the length of questions and answers.

Sir Robert closed his remarks by praising the work of the Table Office and its clerks: it was widely
recognised that Table Office clerks were there to help Members achieve their objectives through
questions, and they acted as facilitators to Members rather than gatekeepers for the system.

The Chairman thanked Sir Robert and Ms Sharpe and closed the session.

20
Tuesday 3 March 2009

DEBATES

Speakers: Rt Hon. Greg Knight MP (Conservative; Chairman, Procedure Committee)

Mr Eric Illsley MP (Labour; Member, Procedure Committee)

Chairman: Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative; Member, Procedure Committee)

The Chairman introduced Mr Greg Knight MP, Chairman of the Procedure Committee and a former
Minister and Deputy Chief Whip under John Major’s Government; and Mr Eric Illsley MP, a member
of the Procedure Committee who had been a Member of Parliament for 22 years, during which time
he had been a front bench spokesman and a whip for the Labour party. Both panel members had
constituencies in Yorkshire and were experienced speakers.

Rt Hon. Greg Knight MP said that he would talk about the purpose of debates and the rules of
behaviour that applied.

Debates had a number of purposes. Foremost was the deployment of political argument: debates
were opportunities to challenge, criticise and explain subjects. On a bill, debates preceded an
attempt to change the law and were therefore of paramount importance.

Debates also provided speakers with exposure and visible representation in front of colleagues, the
media and, through them, the wider public. Frequently Members of Parliament used debates not to
change the law, but to raise local issues or draw attention to particular causes.

Mr Knight questioned whether debates changed minds. In the short term he did not believe this to
be the case because most politicians went into debates with a fixed viewpoint, concerned only to put
their views across. However, debates could plant the seeds for change. Even when the vote was
lost on a particular issue, speakers in a debate would have started the process which would
eventually change views and perhaps alter Government policy. In his experience, a speaker had
only succeeded in changing the outcome of a debate twice.

Mr Knight observed that debates revealed levels of support or opposition for a particular policy or
initiative. The opposition could use debates for political point-scoring. Some junior Members of
Parliament had been promoted to Ministerial posts on the basis of their performance in a debate. He
gave the example of Iain Macleod, an unknown Conservative backbencher under Churchill, who
answered Aneurin Bevan, an unrivalled Labour orator, in a debate. Churchill had stayed late in the
House of Commons and heard Macleod’s speech. He was so impressed that he promoted Macleod
to a Ministerial role.

Sometimes it was better to remain silent in a debate. Mr Knight quoted Benjamin Disraeli, who had
said that, in politics, it was better to be remembered for what you had not said than for what you had
said. A good politician knew when to keep quiet as well as when to speak up. “Rent a quote”
politicians always elicited a groan in the House of Commons when they stood up to speak.

21
Similarly, effective debating was not proportionate to the length of a speech. Mr Knight gave the
example of a friend who had spent two hours preparing one 30-minute speech against the smoking
ban in private clubs. Mr Knight had not had the time to prepare a speech on the subject but had
made a one-sentence intervention in the debate. The following day, his friend’s speech was not
reported, but his own intervention made the headlines. The media liked soundbites. A politician had
multiple audiences and needed to think about how best to communicate with all of them.

Mr Knight noted that, whilst the public liked speakers to show some emotion, losing one’s temper
whilst speaking tended to render speeches ineffective. Politicians needed to remember that when
they were on the television they were in someone’s front room. Nobody liked to have ranting and
raving in their home. Lord Hailsham was an expert in the use of controlled emotion in speeches. He
would make an emotional statement at the start of a speech but then go on to make his arguments
calmly and rationally.

Members of the House of Commons observed rules of behaviour in debates. Members had to speak
in their place. Mr Knight recalled one occasion on which Lord Janner, then an MP, was told by the
Speaker not to perambulate whilst addressing the House. Members were also not permitted to
address one another directly, but had to address each other through the Chair, using terms of
address such as “the Honourable Lady”. This rule helped to depersonalise the debate.

By convention, Members wishing to speak in a debate notified the Speaker in advance of their
intention. As a courtesy they were expected to be in their seat for the opening speeches of the
debate; for the speech preceding their own speech; for the subsequent speech; and again for the
winding up. This convention reminded Members that they were participating in a debate, not a
monologue.

There were also rules about the use of “unparliamentary” language. For example, a Member who
called another Member a “liar” would be asked to withdraw the remark or leave the Chamber. Some
Members were able to find a way round this rule: famously Churchill had accused another Member
of “terminological inexactitude” and a Labour Member had recently described a Member on the
opposition benches as being “like Janus” in order to avoid using the term “two-faced”.

Mr Knight believed that a speech needed a strong start and a strong finish. Humour should be used
judiciously and could be devastating. He gave the example of Ronald Reagan who, when he was
seeking election for a second term as President, faced questions about whether or not he was too
old to do the job. Rather than releasing his medical records, Reagan opted to answer a question
posed to him in a debate by saying that he was not prepared to comment on the youth and
inexperience of his opponent. He faced no further such questions.

Mr Eric Illsley MP said that it was always a pleasure to follow Mr Knight when making a speech,
although he did not always relish debating with him because he was the author of two books on the
use of honourable insults and had a devastating wit.

Mr Illsley wanted to explain the opportunities for debate open to Members of the House of
Commons. The Chamber had been built, and indeed rebuilt, as a debating chamber, with benches
facing each other. It was not big enough for all Members of Parliament to have a seat at once, but it

22
was rarely full because only those with an interest in a particular debate tended to attend. Members
were able to intervene on each other, so the Chamber was not a place for set piece speeches.

Legislation was debated in the Chamber. Bills received a formal first reading there. Approximately
two weeks later there would be a second reading debate. A further debate would take place once a
bill had been through committee, at report stage. Finally, a short debate would take place for third
reading. Thus Members had three opportunities to speak in the Chamber on pieces of legislation
that were before Parliament.

Mr Illsley noted that the Speaker would sometimes place a time limit on speeches on a bill because
of the number of Members wishing to speak. A notable annual exception to this was the Finance
Bill. Debate on this piece of legislation could not be curtailed, so the House could debate throughout
the night if Members wished.

The Government could schedule “Government debates”. The most famous example of this was the
debate on the Queen’s speech which took place every year over a period of several days. A further
example was the annual budget debate on the Chancellor’s proposed budget. This year the budget
debate was likely to attract more interest than usual because of the global financial slowdown. There
was also a St David’s Day debate on Welsh affairs each year; and a debate on defence matters.

20 days each year were set aside for debates on subjects chosen by the opposition. The UK
parliament was the first parliament to adopt this practice. The opposition used these debates to
discuss topical issues. For example, the previous week there had been a debate on the proposed
sale by the Government of the Royal Mail.

Mr Illsley noted that one of the most effective means for a Member to secure a debate was to put
their name down for an “adjournment debate”. These took place every day at the end of the main
business of the House and lasted for a maximum of 30 minutes. Members were guaranteed a
response from a Minister in these debates. The last day before each recess was also given over to
adjournment debates.

The previous year had seen the introduction of “topical debates”. Backbenchers could apply to the
Leader of the House to have a debate on a topical issue the following Thursday.

Pressure on speaking time in the House had resulted in the creation of a secondary Chamber,
called Westminster Hall, where adjournment debates could take place. This presented opportunities
for select committees to debate their reports.

The Chairman thanked both speakers and opened the floor to questions.

Hon. Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) asked at what stage Members became involved in the
Finance Bill.

Mr Illsley said that the Finance Bill was the legislation needed to implement the budget. It was a
Government Bill.

23
Senator Ilyas Ahmed Bilour (Pakistan) asked whether a Member could speak in a debate on an
amendment to a Bill, even if he had not moved that amendment.

Mr Knight said that a Member could choose not to move an amendment that he had tabled.
However, once an amendment had been moved, it became the property of the House and anyone
could speak in the debate on it. Thus one person could do the work of many.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) observed that shorter speeches tended to generate
greater headlines but asked about the rules on filibusters.

Mr Illsley said that the Speaker had discretion to impose a time-limit on speeches if many Members
wanted to speak in a debate. Front-bench spokespeople were not time-limited, however, and this
tended to squeeze the time available to backbenchers.

Mr Knight said that the Speaker’s time limit was imposed on the basis of interest expressed to him
before a debate took place. On Private Members’ business there were no time limits. If a Member
had the stamina, he could talk on a single amendment for hours.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked if there was a Standing Order
providing for the motion “That the Member no longer be heard”.

Mr Knight said that there was a motion “That the question be now put”. The Speaker had discretion
on whether or not to accept this. For the motion to be passed, 100 people had to vote for it. The
motion could not be moved during the speech of the mover of the amendment, who could therefore
talk out a bill in this way.

Mr Brian Ntundu MP (Zambia) asked whether there was a handbook citing all the expressions
deemed to be unparliamentary.

Mr Knight said that it was felt that the existence of such a handbook would unduly fetter the
Speaker. The decision on unparliamentary language was vested in the Chair, but there were
precedents and context was a helpful guide.

Mr Kevin Shiels (Clerk, Northern Ireland) said that twice recently in the Northern Ireland Assembly
a Member had been asked to withdraw their unparliamentary remarks. They had refused, were
obliged to leave and had been clapped out. He asked what sanctions could be imposed by the
Speaker when clapping occurred.

Mr Illsley said that the Speaker had no sanctions but was able to impose his authority by “naming”
the Member in question, which meant that the Member would be excluded for a certain period of
time afterwards. When Tony Blair resigned as Prime Minister, the Chamber broke into spontaneous
applause, but this had been accepted by the Speaker.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked when a debate ended.

24
Mr Knight said that debates ended at “the moment of interruption” unless a special business motion
was in place to vary the finishing time. When the clock struck, the debate ended and the question
had to be put immediately. It was possible for the Minister to talk his own bill out, so Ministers were
careful to sit down slightly in advance of the moment of interruption.

The Chairman thanked both the Speakers.

25
Tuesday 3 March 2009

TAXATION AND PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: PARLIAMENT’S ROLE

Speakers: Mr Greg Hands MP (Conservative; Member, Finance Bill 2008 Committee)

Chairman: Lord Wakeham (Conservative; Member, Economic Affairs Sub-Committee on the

Finance Bill)

The Chairman introduced himself to the delegation and explained that he was a former Leader of
both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. He had been a shadow Treasury Minister,
Chief Whip (the official title of which is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury), and Chairman
of the Economic Affairs Committee in the House of Lords.

Lord Wakeham emphasised that the control of expenditure was an essential part of a parliamentary
democracy.

Mr Greg Hands MP introduced himself and reported that he was a member of the Finance Bill
Committee in the House of Commons. Before becoming a Member of Parliament in 2005 he had
worked as a banker and was the only MP in the House who had worked on the banking trading
floor. Despite wishing to become more involved in foreign affairs, after attending a debate on the
Floor of the House about Northern Rock (a British Bank) he found himself engrossed in the subject
of financial scrutiny within Parliament. He found that he had a great deal of knowledge and was
therefore put to work on the Finance Bill: he had recently become Shadow Treasury Minister.

Parliament was about “supply”. Annually £650 billion of public expenditure and taxation was
approved by Parliament and there was a disequilibrium between spending and the public deficit.

Historically in medieval times the King would summon Parliament to seek to raise additional funds
for going to war. In 1640 the English Civil War challenged Charles I and the existing system. A
Resolution in 1671 cited “that in all aids given to the king by the Commons, the rate or tax ought not
to be altered by the Lords”. 1860 saw the introduction of the Paper Duties Repeal Bill, which was
rejected by the House of Lords. 1909, saw a confrontation between the Liberal Party (in
Government) and the House of Lords, when the Lords vetoed Lloyd George’s “People’s Budget”.
Following two general elections in 1910 this led to the Parliament Act 1911 which curbed the fiscal
powers of the Lords.

1979 saw the introduction of the Planning cycle and the Budget cycle. There were four main strands
to Parliament’s financial role but it could be difficult to know which stage of the cycle Parliament was
in as it was a very complicated system. He outlined the various different processes that Parliament
undertook regarding financial scrutiny.

Firstly, the Comprehensive Spending Review. This had been as a result of the Government’s desire
to forward plan in 1998. The Comprehensive Spending Review was a method by which Government
departments agreed proposed expenditure and performance targets: the last CSR had been in
2007 and the next would be in 2010.

26
Secondly the Budget, an annual event for the management of revenue.

Thirdly, Estimates. These provided an opportunity for Parliament to authorise public expenditure.
Each year three days of debate were held before Parliament approved the proposed expenditure of
each Government department.

Fourthly, the Report cycle, a review process whereby Parliament looked back on performance of
departments and reviewed how the money had been spent.

He noted that there were other aspects of financial scrutiny. Every five weeks each government
department answered questions in the House. The Minister answered questions about the
performance of his or her Department. . Members could also submit written questions and the
answers received contributed towards the process of financial scrutiny.

The House of Commons also had a Public Accounts Committee, a select committee comprising of
Members from all main parties. Its role was to examine reports from the National Audit Office, which
was responsible for the auditing of performance of most government departments and examining
how money was spent. The National Audit Office was headed by the Comptroller and Auditor
General (who was an officer of the House of Commons).

Departmental select committees, had the power to examine expenditure of government departments
but often focused to a greater extent on policy issues.

He introduced the Budget cycle. The first Budget had been held in 1733 under Walpole who was
both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The next Budget was to be on 22nd
April 2009. The Budget was always a media event; and Members placed bets on the length of time
for which the Chancellor would speak, and the number of proposals he would make (normally about
50 or 60) The Leader of the Opposition had to respond immediately to the proposals put forward by
the Government with no knowledge of the exact text of the Budget. Some indication might be
gauged by the state of the economy and any leaks that might have occurred. The previous year’s
Budget saw the Government attempt the removal of the basic rate of income tax at 10p, which
would have affected the low-paid. This led to a Labour rebellion and the Government dropped the
proposal.

The information about the budget was published in “the budget pack”. The Finance Bill was usually
presented the same day and set down for a Second Reading. Following the Second Reading the
Bill was sent to Public Bill Committee where it was debated, clause by clause. This process normally
took about 2 months; outside help was brought in to aid Members, for example the Conservative
Party used PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Attending this Committee was a good training for an MP to
understand how scrutiny worked in the House. The amended Bill then had its Third Reading on the
Floor of the House.

The Pre-Budget Report was produced by HM Treasury in the preceding November in advance of
Budget. It was a lengthy document of about 225 pages of text and tables.

27
Estimates Cycle: Main Estimates were published within 3 weeks of the Budget. Last year, the
Cabinet Office’s anticipated expenditure was £235 million, and the Department of Health between
£75-85 billion. The selection of Estimates to be debated was made by the Liaison Committee (a
Committee of Chairmen of all House of Commons Select Committees). Amendments could be
proposed to the Main Estimates but only if they reduced expenditure. The House of Commons could
vote against such estimates but this would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the
Government of the day.

The Alignment Project was published by the Treasury in November 2008 with the aim of
modernising the public expenditure system. The aim was to align the spending and budget cycles.
There was £650 billion forecast expenditure in the next financial year and £550 billion in taxation, so
there will be a £100 billion deficit. George Osborne was the current Shadow Chancellor and if the
Conservatives won the next election he would inherit a 12% deficit.

The Chairman noted that it was interesting to hear the changes that had occurred since he sat in
the House of Commons. In days gone by there was no timetabling of government business and it
was common to be sitting from 4pm to 4am. He reported that the House of Lords could not amend
or reject a Finance Bill, but the House of Lords Finance Sub-Committee (which Lord Wakeham
Chaired) produced a Report on the Budget as soon as the Finance Bill was published, which
informed the debates in the House of Commons.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked about scrutiny outside the debating chamber.

Mr Hands responded that the main form of scrutiny was through the media. The Treasury Select
Committee (which had a Labour majority) also produced a report on its views of the Budget
proposals in time for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House. It was worth
noting that a 5 day debate on the Budget on the floor of the House was held.

Mr Roy told the meeting that in New Zealand the select committee can call for a report in advance
of the Budget, e.g. from the Auditor General’s Office.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A.C.T., Australia) asked whether a Parliament could have a
parliamentary budgetary office to advise parliamentarians on matters financial, as Australia was
planning to look into such a proposal.

Mr Hands said that the UK was in the position of awaiting the final budget of this parliament. The
Conservative Party were calling for restraint. Within the Committee Office there was a “Scrutiny
Unit” which provided financial advice to select committees. General advice for Members could be
obtained from the House of Lords and Commons Libraries which had excellent research facilities.
He recently requested information on the impact of the strength of the Euro on people who held
second homes in Europe. Information had been compiled and provided extremely quickly.

The Chairman noted that Select Committees also had the power to appoint Special Advisers.

Hon. Mohammed Haji Mohamoud Omar MP (Somaliland) said that Somaliland was aspiring to be
a Commonwealth Member. He asked whether the Budget had ever been refused and further asked

28
who formulated the Budget for the House of Commons, or whether it was part of the Budget as a
whole?

Mr Hands responded that as the government had a majority in the House of Commons, the budget
had never been refused, and if that was to happen it would be viewed as a vote of no confidence in
the government of the day.

The Chairman noted that the terms of the Budget could be changed by moving an amendment to
the Finance Bill. In order to succeed Members would need to talk to the government ‘behind the
scenes’. Regarding the budget for the running of the House of Commons, technically responsibility
lay with the House of Commons Commission.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) said that the Pakistan Senate had recently passed a Money
Bill and asked if there was there a similar system in the UK.

The Chairman said that for any law to be passed which required additional expenditure then normal
parliamentary procedure would apply: a money resolution. A money resolution could only be moved
by the Government and it was through this instrument that permission was given for expenditure.

Hon. Julienne Uwacu MP (Rwanda) asked whether financial records’ auditing was performed at
the same time every year.

The Chairman replied that the process of auditing government expenditure took place throughout
the year, and that separate audit reports were produced on various aspects of government policy
e.g. waste in the ambulance service. This incremental approach to auditing worked well.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) informed the conference that Australia had
State Parliaments whose budgets were scrutinised by the Speaker. She asked whether this
happened in the UK.

The Chairman said that this did not happen in the UK. Budget debates were never presided over by
the Speaker but by the Chairman of Ways and Means (the Speaker’s “No. 2”).

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) noted that in her country, in the interests of
transparency, the Chairmen of Committees tended to be drawn from the opposition.

The Chairman reported that the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee was always held
by a member of the opposition. The chairmanship of select committees was divided by agreement
between the parties and this worked well as the role of the Chairman was widely understood.

Mr Hands noted that the Chairman of Ways and Means was a Member of the Opposition. When the
Finance Bill was in Committee then two Chairmen were selected from the Chairmens’ Panel, one
Government Member and one Opposition Member. There were never any complaints as both
always acted impartially.

29
Hon. Sandy John Arrisol MNA (Seychelles) told the conference that the Seychelles was a member
of the CPA, and he asked whether the UK had a Deputy Speaker in respect of the Opposition
Party.

The Chairman answered that there was no need for this as the Speaker was politically impartial. He
added that any Speaker who was not politically impartial would not last long in the job! Impartiality
was key and it was a system which worked well.

Hon. Kiramatullah Khan MPA (NWFP, Pakistan) told the conference that Pakistan had four
Provinces and each Assembly passed a budget which was approved by a finance committee. He
asked who approved the budget in the House of Commons.

Mr Hands responded that the budget had always been passed as the Government held a majority,
but that the Opposition always voted against it.

The Chairman informed the conference that each year following the Budget statement the
Provisional Collection of Taxes Act came into force, which allowed for immediate effect of some
proposals. The Government had to get approval of the Finance Bill within the period set by the Act

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) asked how often the Public Accounts Committee
met?

Mr Hands responded that the Public Accounts Committee met twice a week and produced about 50
reports per year which received a great deal of publicity. The National Audit Office provided
expertise to the Committee, which had a Government majority but an Opposition Chairman. It had
produced some controversial reports and had a very strong influence on public opinion.

The Chairman thanked the conference and concluded by stating that it was the responsibility of
parliamentarians to be effective in controlling budgets.

30
Tuesday 3 March 2009

THE ROLE OF THE OPPOSITION

Speakers: Mr Stephen Crabb MP (Conservative)

Mr John Barrett MP (Liberal Democrats; Spokesperson for Work and Pensions)

Chairman: Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP (Plaid Cymru)

The Chairman opened by emphasising that strong opposition parties were fundamental in any
democracy.

Mr Stephen Crabb MP said that he had been a Member of Parliament for almost four years. On
becoming an MP in 2005, he had been surprised at the level of co-operation between political
parties. Most people based their perception on Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), which was
extremely gladiatorial and combative. However, PMQs was fairly unrepresentative, so people
outside Parliament often had a misplaced view. Much positive co-operation existed between political
parties in order to achieve good governance, good laws, and good administration.

The Conservative Party was the largest opposition party. Its aim was to win the political arguments
of the day, and to form the new Government. The challenge for the party in meeting these aims was
determining how to use existing political processes to their advantage. The party was attempting to
win an ongoing battle for public opinion.

At a more detailed level, the Conservative Party was interested in ensuring legislative bills were
drafted properly. Relationships between ministers, Government MPs and opposition MPs working
on bills was far more cordial than people assumed. Select committees were another good example
of MPs from all parties working together effectively. Mr Crabb had served on three different select
committees. Although the committees had Labour majorities, Members dropped their party politics
altogether when working for the committee. The focus was on scrutinising the Government
department that the committee shadowed. Select committees showed MPs at their most
collaborative and least partisan.

The atmosphere in the House of Commons Chamber was very different to that on committees. MPs
therefore had to be, in a sense, schizophrenic. It was not uncommon to see, say, a Labour MP and
Conservative MP drinking together in the bar; however, they would very rarely have dinner together.

Mr John Barrett MP said that opposition parties received the majority of the votes cast in the last
election, although they were clearly in the minority in Parliament. Governments were normally
formed in the UK with about 40% of the vote. The current electoral system meant that the opposition
parties remained in the minority despite 60% of the vote. Under a proportional representation
system, there would be 130 Liberal Democrat MPs in the House of Commons compared to the
current 63.

Mr Barrett was not preparing for a life in opposition. Liberal Democrats had experience in
administration and government in many other areas of government, including the Scottish

31
Parliament, but not at Westminster. Not all the best ideas lay with one single party. For example,
one party did not have all the solutions to the economic crisis. Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat
Treasury Spokesman, had been very outspoken about the crisis and his views were well respected,
partly due to his background as an economist.

The opposition had had a key role during the Iraq war. A government with only 35–40% support of
the electorate was on particularly shaky ground if it sent the country to war.
Select committee membership was often a key role for opposition MPs. Mr Barrett had spent many
years on the International Development Committee. The committee had hardly ever divided on party
lines; committee members were focussed on whether the Government was spending its resources
in the most effective way. Members could gain much expertise on select committees, but
committees could be time-consuming and it was known for Members to sometimes ‘disappear’ in
committee work.

Some opposition MPs were spokespeople, a job which had risks and rewards. Although
spokespeople had higher roles, they were also quite often sacked.

Some MPs preferred to concentrate on constituency issues. Mr Barrett had used the expertise
gained on the International Development Committee to speak to his constituents about related
issues. MPs wanted to be effective both at Westminster and in their constituency. Mr Barrett spent
much time assisting constituents who wanted a strong voice at Westminster. He kept in touch with
constituents by various means: e-mail, telephone, regular visits to schools and hospitals, local
TV/radio appearances, attending local events and fundraisers, and embarking on regular
campaigns.

Hon. Sandy John Arrisol MNA (Seychelles) asked how opposition MPs protested; for example did
they ever walk-out of the Chamber.

Mr Barrett said the Liberal Democrats had stormed out of the Chamber recently on an European
issue. They had been unhappy because the Speaker chose the official opposition party amendment
to a bill, rather than the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats
considered this unfair. Upsetting the Speaker, however, was not seen as a top priority because of
his power. MPs could also take direct action if they wished to protest, for example taking to the
streets with lobby groups.

Mr Crabb said that the Conservatives were very careful about when and how they criticised the
Speaker. Accepting the Speaker’s decision was a little like accepting the rules of a referee at a
sports match. It would be quite corrosive to constantly criticise the Speaker. Some Conservative
backbenchers, however, had decided on previous occasions to criticise the Speaker in the media.
Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether there was a formal process of giving notice if one
disagreed with the Speaker’s proposal.

The Chairman said that such a process did not exist; the Speaker made the final decisions.
However, the current Speaker was always willing to listen to Members’ concerns in private. One of
the Speaker’s important roles was to ensure the views of backbenchers were heard, although there
was no formal procedure about this in the rules.

32
Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that Jamaica had a problem with political tribalism.
She asked what effort had been made to communicate to the public the fact that the different parties
worked together.

Mr Crabb said that there were more opportunities than ever for the public to understand what MPs
did and how they worked. The recent, much-publicised, inquiry by the Treasury Select Committee
into the banking crisis was a very good example of Members being shown to work together. Further
opportunities existed through developments in the broadcasting of Parliament. At election time, all
the major party leaders would sign a declaration refusing to give any space or credence to racist
views.

Hon. Headley asked where opposition parties should strike the balance between politicking and
contributing positively to the development of the country. For example, opposition MPs who refused
to support or contribute in a positive way, or add value to the process, because they did not want the
Government to gain support.
Mr Crabb gave the example of the Northern Ireland Bill—a very significant piece of legislation being
discussed by the House tomorrow—whereby the Conservatives had decided to refrain from political
point-scoring because they were interested in the overall peace process.

Mr Barrett said that there were certain policies he strongly disagreed with and would always
oppose. In terms of politicking, he never took the view that he would get re-elected by arguing for
something he did not believe in. However, they were now approaching the final year of Parliament
and motivations slightly changed closer to election time. Opposition MPs were not going to assist
their opponents win the election.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked what had been the reaction of the opposition
parties to the banking crisis.

The Chairman said that the banking crisis affected everybody, so all parties needed to work
together. It was important to try to pool ideas—for example, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Vince
Cable, often suggested very good political ideas. It was a two-way process because sometimes the
Chancellor, Alistair Darling, asked MPs for contributions. It was necessary to work together, not
shout at each other.

Mr Crabb said that the public perception of MPs was not currently as high as it had been in the
past. It was therefore important that opposition MPs were not seen to make narrow party points in a
time of economic crisis. People were turned off politics by such behaviour.

Mr Barrett said that the public believed that it was important that politicians could work together at a
time of crisis, as they did during the war-time period.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked about the consequences when opposition MPs did not
follow the party line.

Mr Barrett said that there would always be “rogue” Members, or loose cannons, who diverged from

33
the party line.

Mr Crabb said that rogue MPs were important because Parliament was supposed to be a safe
forum for the expression of multiple views. A supposed “rogue” could one day be proved right.

Hon. Best asked where the line should be drawn when the opposition repeatedly castigated the
Government of the day.

Mr Barrett said that there were many examples where it would be easier for opposition parties to
simply blame the Government, for example for the current economic crisis. Part of the role of the
opposition was to identify where mistakes had been made and, if necessary, criticise, for example
the lack of regulation on banks. However, opposition parties were often at a disadvantage in
debates because they lacked the resources and information available to the Government.

Mr Crabb said that politicians should come together at times and be constructive, but real debate
should not be closed down.

Mr Muhammed Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) asked about some of the privileges
and opportunities available to opposition parties.

Mr Crabb said that it was very hard work being an opposition MP. However, various opportunities
did exist for opposition MPs—they could table written or oral parliamentary questions which the
Government was obliged to answer. Opposition MPs could also raise their own parliamentary
debates.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said that Mr Crabb seemed to be implying
the Conservatives would win the next general election. This would be considered political suicide in
Australia because the public liked an underdog.

Mr Crabb said that he had not intended to imply the Conservatives would definitely win the next
general election. Most observers would agree, however, that the political climate today was different
compared to that of the last few years.

Mr Barrett pointed out that only 40% of the vote was needed to form a Government, and there were
several marginal seats where the three parties were contesting hard. If the media perceived a party
as potential winners, it could be a key factor in terms of votes.

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) said that the speakers had been far too modest
about the role of the opposition. The role of the opposition should be to take the Government to
task. Otherwise, you were left with a dynasty or a dictatorship.

Mr Crabb said that he had been attempting to demonstrate the levels of subtlety below the usual
adversarial image that the public were already aware of and accustomed to.

Mr Barrett said that the Government had far more resources to criticise opposition parties’
proposals; so, on occasions, it was more constructive to simply criticise the Government.

34
35
Wednesday 4 March 2009

TRANSPARENCY OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Speakers: Mr Tim Burr (Comptroller and Auditor General)

Rt Hon. Keith Hill MP (Labour; Member, Public Accounts Committee)

Chairman: Mr James Paice MP (Conservative)

The Chairman welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates.

Mr Tim Burr said that the work of the National Audit Office (NAO) would be familiar to many of the
delegates, as the NAO’s programme of international work had helped many countries develop
processes for holding their government departments to account in spending public money.

He explained that in the UK the Comptroller and Auditor General was an Officer of the House of
Commons, who had powers to compile reports on Government Departments which were laid before
the House of Commons and the power to report directly to the House of Commons. He said that his
work scrutinising departments was done in collaboration with select committees, in particular the
Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which considered the NAO’s reports.

Mr Burr explained that it was the role of Parliament to vote the money that government departments
were able to spend. Assurance was therefore required that this money was well spent and
accounted for. It was the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG)’s job to make sure that this was
the case and to ensure that money was only used for the purposes which Parliament had specified.

The NAO had 800 – 900 members of staff, many of whom were professional accountants and other
specialists. They had responsibility for auditing the accounts of all Government Departments and
bodies – over 500 accounts altogether. He said that the reports that the NAO compiled investigated
value for money (VFM), examining the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which money was
spent. These reports dealt with diverse subjects, and included analysis of the quality of public
services, project management, procurement, private finance and the raising of revenue.

Rt Hon. Keith Hill MP told the delegates that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was the oldest
and possibly most influential select committee in the UK Parliament. A Government response to a
PAC Report in 2005 had said that it acted on the great majority of the recommendations of the
committee. Mr Hill said that this was something which few other select committees could claim.

Mr Hill explained that Parliament’s primary responsibility of raising revenue, or taxation, was
established over the course of the 16th and 17th centuries, secured by the Glorious Revolution of
1688 in particular. Scrutiny of the way government spent the money was weak until the beginning of
the 19th century, which saw high levels of government spending in the wars against the French.
This was also the period which saw the introduction of income tax. The accounts of the Admiralty
were first examined by Parliament in the 1830s, and military expenditure remained a key stimulus to
financial scrutiny by the House of Commons today.

36
Mr Hill said that the PAC had been established in 1861 with the support of William Ewart Gladstone.
All government departments were required to produce annual accounts for examination by the PAC.
The position of the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) was established in 1866 and the first
complete appropriation accounts were laid before Parliament in 1869. He explained that the early
work of the PAC and the C&AG had focussed on ensuring that the money was spent on what had
been authorised and improving the accuracy of the accounts. After the 1880s the C&AG also began
to look at the economy and efficiency of government expenditure, or the value for money concern
(VFM), which now dominated the work of the PAC. This was prompted by a Royal Commission of
Inquiry in 1904 that revealed evidence of massive waste and mismanagement in the South African
wars. Reflecting this new approach, the requirement for the automatic audit checking of all
transactions ended with the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921.

Since then, Mr Hill explained, parliamentary scrutiny had extended into non-departmental public
bodies, although the Committee retained a continuing concern with military procurement and there
remained debate over whether the Committee had a responsibility to scrutinise non-departmental
agencies such as the BBC.

The PAC comprised 16 members, with party proportions that reflected the membership of the
House, although the Committee very rarely divided. The Chairman was by convention an Opposition
member and the Committee was joined in its public deliberations by the C&AG himself, usually with
the National Audit Office colleagues who had written the report under consideration, and also by a
representative of the Treasury Office of Accounts, the body that was responsible for the issuing of
rules, guidelines and advice to the Accounting Officers that were being interviewed.

The PAC held about 60 public hearings every year and also published about 60 reports a year. Mr
Hill said that this probably made PAC the most prolific of all the select committees, and that keeping
up with the work of the PAC was quite a commitment.

The Committee never interviewed politicians; and only civil servants and most frequently
departmental permanent secretaries, who were the accounting officers of their government
departments. As a “value for money” Committee, they dealt with the officials who knew where the
money had gone. In principle, and in law, the C&AG had complete discretion in the choice of VFM
inquiries, but he was also statutorily required to consult the PAC when planning his programme. Mr
Hill believed that they generally met a happy compromise on the topics.

Mr Hill asked if it could be a fair fight, between up to 15 Members of Parliament and two or three civil
servants. He said that numbers might have been unequal, but that the expertise lay with the
officials. MPs were aided by the analysis of the National Audit Office reports and by advisory notes
supplied by the C&AG, which enabled MPs to engage in rigorous questioning. Mr Hill explained that
the PAC had a unique system of questioning, with members allowed ten minutes to pursue any line
of enquiry they chose. However, he said that if he had to identify a weakness in the system, it would
have been the inevitable lack of expertise. Nonetheless, the issue would have been ventilated in the
public arena, which Mr Hill believed to be the true strength and effectiveness of the PAC.

The purpose of the PAC was, therefore, to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with
which departments had used the financial resources allocated to them. In its reports the PAC tried to

37
draw lessons from past successes and failures. It was not their job, however, to make judgements
about policy: only the way in which the policies had been implemented.

Mr Hill asked how important this activity was. He said that it went to heart of representative and
responsible government. It was not possible to have good governance if the delivery of public goods
was being impeded by dishonesty. Furthermore, what would be the point of democracy or
representative government if the purposes for which governments were elected were being
subverted by incompetence? Efficiency in government was, therefore, also fundamental. The public
needed to know that public money was being spent in the most effective way.

He said that this approach to VFM was probably the greatest strength of the scrutiny and control of
public expenditure in Britain. Although the VFM approach had developed over many years, it was
only in 1983 that the National Audit Act (which also set up the National Audit Office) gave the C&AG
the statutory power to produce value for money reports to Parliament on a regular basis and on a
variety of subjects. Mr Hill said that this was an Act that gave a new lease of life to the PAC and
really dominated the British approach to public spending. Parliament was good at debating and
voting on the raising of revenue, but it was not very good at appropriations. However, it was good at
scrutinising the way money was spent, and that was down to the PAC and the work of a strong
NAO.

Mr Hill said that over seven years as a minister in different capacities he had always been extremely
conscious of the PAC. He recalled that a department became highly charged in the days before civil
servants were due to appear, that the transcripts of the proceedings were leapt upon with glee by
less senior officials. He also said that as the parliamentary private secretary to the former Prime
Minister, preparations for Prime Ministers Questions had often been interrupted by uncomfortable
news of a PAC report.

Although the reports of the National Audit Office were agreed with the government departments
before they were published, they still made uncomfortable reading for government. He said that
considering the huge sums of money being spent on highly complex projects, it would have been
amazing if there had been no extravagance, waste or mis-spending, but that the public had a right to
know. Therefore, the PAC had been right to look at some of the biggest projects facing the British
people, including the 2012 Olympic Games in London, nuclear decommissioning and the new 14 to
19 years education reform. He said that these reports attracted huge and consistent publicity, often
both when first published by the NAO, and when commented on by the PAC

Mr Hill said that the PAC could not have done its job without the NAO, which reached into every
nook and cranny of government and was headed by the C&AG whose position was unique in the
British system as an Officer of the House of Commons, appointed by the Queen, following an
address by the Prime Minister. The NAO was indispensable to the PAC. However, he suggested
that the NAO was also dependent on the PAC and wondered whether it would have enjoyed the
same access to government and responsiveness from civil servants without their awareness that
failure to co-operate would be exposed in the public domain via the PAC. He suggested that a little
bit of menace was a useful thing and that the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit
Office operated a perfectly symbiotic relationship.

38
The Chairman thanked the speakers and asked for questions from the delegates, in groups of
three.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how often Value for Money reports were submitted
and how the subject of these reports were chosen.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) asked how Local Authorities’ accounts were scrutinised.

Hon. Gibson Hlophe MP (Swaziland) asked what happened when the PAC discovered that money
had been misappropriated or mis-spent.

Mr Hill replied in response to Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid that the NAO only dealt with national
government departments and non-departmental public bodies such as the BBC. Local Authorities
were within the remit of the Audit Commission, rather than the NAO.

In response to Mr Hlophe, he said was not aware of the PAC ever finding a true case of corruption
in the spending of public money by public bodies in the UK and that because of this pursuit of
misappropriation was not now as aggressive in the UK as elsewhere in the world, or as it had been
historically. However, if such a case were to be identified, this would lead to a criminal prosecution.

Mr Burr agreed with Mr Hill on this matter and said that the proper authorities, such as the police
would be notified and prosecutions pursued. The NAO would also investigate any weakness or
failures that had allowed such a case to occur, and examine where controls could be strengthened.

In response to the question from Mr Kayinamura, Mr Burr said that around 60 VFM reports were
compiled each year and that the subjects were determined partly by the work programme of the
PAC, and partly by a variety of factors, including the importance and size of an account; public
interest; any significant changes that had occurred in a department; any risks involved in a project;
the topicality of an issue; or whether the subject had been suggested by an MP or member of the
Committee.

The Chairman asked Mr Burr if he could explain the concept of a “whistleblower” and what a public
servant could do if they believed that wrong-doing was occurring. He also asked what protection
existed for employees who wish to disclose such information.

Mr Burr replied that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 offered protection for employees and
explained that the C &AG also had a role in investigating any information received regarding public
expenditure, even if such information was submitted anonymously. If this was the case, such
inquiries would be undertaken in a circumspect way in order to protect the identity of individuals
disclosing information.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether the PAC held departments accountable
for occasions where things were not being done in time, due to lengthy processes of procurement or
similar causes of stagnation.

39
Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked which features of the system made sure that the
NAO remained independent.

Hon. Mohamed Haji Mohamoud Omar MP (Somaliland) asked who appointed the C&AG and how
they could be removed from this position.

Mr Tim Burr replied to the last question that he was appointed by the Queen on a motion of the
House of Commons, moved by the Prime Minister. He was selected for the position jointly by the
Prime Minister and the chairman of the PAC, who was always a member of the opposition, which
would have therefore ensured political consensus for the appointment. He explained that he could
only be removed from this position by an address to the Queen from both Houses of Parliament.
Such an event had never yet occurred.

Rt Hon. Keith Hill MP explained that the C&AG was essentially the most powerful official in the
country, as a figure appointed by the head of state and requiring the agreement of both Houses to
be removed.

Mr Hill said that holding departments to account for the slow implementation of projects and
ensuring that Government were meeting targets for delivery was absolutely their main concern. He
said that the pressure placed on departments by the NAO and the PAC was very important and in
his experience welcomed by ministers, who were often frustrated by slow implementation.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked whether transcripts of PAC evidence
sessions were made public.

Mr Brian Ntundu MP (Zambia) asked how the C&AG, PAC and law enforcement authorities
interacted where mismanagement of public money was discovered

Ms Lisa Baker MLA (Western Australia, Australia) asked how far the NAO would go in terms of
auditing Non Governmental Public Bodies.

Mr Burr replied to Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA that all PAC meetings were public.

In response to the question from Ms Lisa Baker, he said that they would follow wherever public
money went in terms of auditing public bodies. They would not audit charities as a matter of course,
for example, but they would look at a charity’s effectiveness at managing public expenditure if they
were spending public money in some way, perhaps in partnership with a government department.

Mr Burr said that the police would always be involved in any case of misappropriation, generally by
the Government department involved itself, although the C&AG would ensure that this was the case.
He said that there was a constitutional distinction between the courts and judiciary and Parliament
and this that facilitated effective monitoring of expenditure.

Mr Hill agreed that all meetings of the PAC were public and explained that an inquiry would have
started with a report from the NAO and ended with a report from the PAC to the House of
Commons, which would include recommendations and transcripts.

40
Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked how the independence of the C&AG could be guaranteed,
given their appointment by the Head of State, and how long they would serve in that position.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) asked how expenditure in the form of transfer
payments was scrutinised.

Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda (Clerk, Sri Lanka) said that in Sri Lanka PAC meetings were held in
private to keep proceedings confidential and asked what the benefits were of having public
meetings.

Mr Hill told Mr Gautrin that they had no direct relationship with hospitals or schools and so did not
scrutinise these kinds of expenditure; they only looked at departments and national non-
governmental public bodies.

He explained that while the PAC had to hold private sessions occasionally to protect commercial
confidentiality, the Committee were on the whole reluctant to do so.. He believed that the principle
that public money should be scrutinised in public was fundamental to accountability.

Mr Burr replied to Mr Roy that the need for the Chairman of the PAC and the Prime Minister to
agree on the appointment of the C&AG ensured independence and explained that he held the
position indefinitely and believed that a period of at least 10 years was necessary to be effective.

41
Wednesday 4 March 2009

THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Speakers: Rt Hon. Sir George Young MP (Conservative; Chairman, Standards and Privileges
Committee)
Mr Eric Illsley MP (Labour; Member, Foreign Affairs Committee and Procedure
Committee)
Mr David Natzler (Clerk of Committees, House of Commons)

Chairman: Lord Shutt of Greetland OBE (Liberal Democrats; Chief Whip in the House of Lords)

The Chairman welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates.

Sir George Young MP explained that the Committee existed to oversee the work of the
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and to hold Members of the House of Commons to
account for any breaches of the Code of Conduct. The Committee had 10 Members, five from the
Government party and 5 from Opposition parties. Parity between parties on a Committee was
unusual as the Government party normally had a majority. He had chaired the Committee for eight
years. By convention the Committee was chaired by an Opposition Member.

Sir George made five points about the Committee system: first that the membership of Committees
should not be too large. Most Committees had seen their membership increase from 11 to 14
Members. Following recent elections where the Government had been returned with large
majorities there had been pressure to do this in order to provide an alternative career path for
Members.

Second, there should be a continuity of membership. He said that this aided the congeniality of a
Committee’s work as Members had a good knowledge of each others’ starting points on issues.
Third, Members’ attendance should be good. This assisted the congeniality point made previously
and also provided for continuity when a Committee returned to issues it had previously examined.

Fourth, Members should respect each others’ confidences which enabled views to be shared openly
without fear of them being repeated outside the committee room. This had been particularly valuable
in the work of the Standards and Privileges Committee and gave Members of the House confidence
that cases would be dealt with fairly and not on party-lines. Finally, consensus should be achieved
wherever possible as it enabled the Committee to command more respect outside the House.

Sir George concluded by setting out his thoughts on the role of chairmen of committees. He said
that chairmen should set the tone of the committee and steer its work, for example by keeping an
eye on the clock. Chairmen should also identify the key objectives that a committee should achieve
and ensure that they were incorporated into the committee’s programme. They should also seek to
include all members in a committee’s work by a process of consultation.

Mr Eric Illsley MP talked about the different types of Committees in the House of Commons: Select
Committees, Public Bill Committees and ad hoc committees.

42
Most select committees were established to examine the policy, administration and expenditure of a
Government department. Other ad hoc select committees existed on a range of issues such as the
administration of the House of Commons. The membership of most committees reflected the party
balance in the House of Commons. At present most committees had 14 members: 8 from the
Government party, 6 from the main opposition party and 2 from the smaller parties.

The current select committee system was established in 1979. Committees were given the power to
send for persons, papers and records. These powers were very important in enabling committees to
carry out their work. If anyone refused to appear before a committee, the committee could report this
to the House of Commons which might pass a motion compelling the person to attend. Although
committees could not compel Government ministers to appear before them, it was highly unusual for
a minister to refuse to do so. Select committees were usually granted access to all classifications of
documents, and although the Government may not release the most sensitive documents, it would
normally try and accommodate a Committee. For example, a Committee might be able to view the
documents in a closed room.

Select committees reported to the House of Commons not the Government. Select committee
reports covered a wide range of topics. Committees held the government department they monitor
to account by reporting on particular issues. The Government was expected to reply to reports
within two months of publication.

Committees were also able to react quickly to topical issues. For example, the Foreign Affairs
Committee’s recent inquiry into the situation in Gaza. Visits were important to a committee’s work as
they provided an opportunity to see things on the ground and to meet interested parties which the
committee would not normally be able to.

The other type of committee was Public Bill Committees. These committees considered legislation
after a Bill had received its second reading in the House of Commons. He explained that this was a
two stage process. Under a recent innovation Public Bill Committees also took evidence on the Bill
from interested parties. This had led to members being more informed when considering the Bill
line-by-line and any proposed amendments.

Mr Illsley concluded by explaining that several ad hoc committees existed in the House, including
the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees, All Party Groups on a particular
subject or country, and Parliamentary Party Groups.

Mr David Natzler outlined the structure of the committee system. The House of Commons had 19
departmental select committees plus a number of ad hoc committees. There were approximately
500 membership slots to fill on committees, but there were insufficient members to fill them
especially once the government ministers were taken off those eligible to serve. This meant that
several members had to serve on more than one committee. He explained that the House of Lords
had a smaller committee structure and that joint committees of members from both Houses were
sometimes established to examine a particular topic or issue.

43
The cost of the House of Commons committee system was approximately £15 million. Committees
employed approximately 200 staff and produced 350 reports and held 1,200 meetings in a
parliamentary session.

However, measuring the impact and success of committees was difficult. Committees would have
examples of where they had been successful in holding the Government to account. While the
Government would not attempt to abolish committees, there was always the possibility of reform or
a reduction in the number of committees.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and invited questions from the delegates.

Mr Amjed Pervez Malik (Clerk, Pakistan) asked what formal rules and procedures existed in
relation to committees and about committees relationships with government departments.

Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) asked about the criteria for the selection of the
chairmen of committees. He also asked about overlap between committees, whether Bills were
considered by select committees rather than public bill committees and what disciplinary powers
existed in respect of committee members.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) asked about the powers of the House in disciplining members.
He also asked what would happen if two committees decided to look at the same issue.

Sir George said that the Speaker of the House of Commons dealt with bad behaviour in the House.
The Standards and Privileges Committee would deal with misconduct outside the House. The
membership of committees and proportion of chairmen from each party reflected the number of
members from each party in the House. The Government would normally retain the chairmanship of
committees monitoring the major government departments. Committees operated informally
although there were formal rules of procedure for the consideration of reports and in relation to
matters before the courts.

Mr Illsley explained the Labour Party’s procedure for nominating members of select committees.
Although any member could request to sit on a particular committee, the final decision would be
taken by the party’s whips. In respect of Public Bill Committees the whips would nominate members
according to a rota although individual members could request to serve.

Mr Natzler said that committees’ procedures followed the House’s Standing Orders. Select
committees deliberated in private and tended to be less formal. Committees reported to the House
of Commons not government departments and committee decisions would only be relayed to
government in this way.

Mr Natzler said that overlap between committees did happen on some subjects. There was no
formal way of stopping it as committees had complete autonomy on choosing their inquiries and
interpreting their terms of reference.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked about how to resolve the problem of getting
members to serve on committees.

44
Mr Richard Ssendege (Clerk, Uganda) asked whether consultation on legislation should take place
when it was in draft or as it went through Parliament.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked if it would be preferable for the House to refer issues to
a particular committee rather than individual committees taking the decision so as to avoid overlap
in committees’ work.

Mr Natzler said that it could in theory be helpful if the House referred issues to a particular
committee, although he thought influential chairmen would get their committees added and
therefore, there might still be more than one committee looking at an issue.

Sir George said that on occasions a Joint Committee of members of both Houses would be
appointed to look at an issue. In cases of dispute between committees, clerks of committees would
seek informally to find a resolution or as a last resort a chairman might raise the issue in the Liaison
Committee, whose membership consisted of all select committee chairmen.

Mr Illsley stated that it was his experience that huge overlap existed between committees. He cited
the example of different Committees’ inquiries on the Iraq war. He said that consideration of
legislation would usually be most effective when it was in draft form. He said that the House of
Commons also had the problem of finding sufficient members to serve on committees.

Mr Blaine Pedersen Hart MLA (Manitoba, Canada) asked whether it would be desirable for there
to be a year’s consultation on controversial Bills.

Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda (Clerk, Sri Lanka) asked what effect prorogation had on select
committees.

Hon. Samwel Kambi MP (Kenya) asked how a committee decided whether to meet in private or
public.

Mr Illsley said the Government would attempt to achieve consensus on a controversial draft Bill but
it would be unlikely to consult for as long as a year.

Mr Natzler explained that most select committees were appointed for a Parliament and although
they could not meet when the House was prorogued their work continued as soon as the new
Parliamentary session commenced.

Sir George said that select committees took evidence in public and deliberated in private. The
Standards and Privileges Committee was an exception to this as it held all its proceedings, including
evidence taking, in private.

Mr Bernard Joseph Dalinting (Clerk, Sabah, Malaysia) asked what powers committees had to
discipline their members.

45
Sir George said that anybody could complain about a member to the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards. The Commissioner would investigate the complaint and if necessary would report his
findings to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Committee would then make a report to
the House.

Mr Natzler explained that individual committees had no disciplinary powers in respect of their
members.

The Chairman thanked the speakers on behalf of the delegates.

46
Wednesday 4 March

SCRUTINY OF THE PRIME MINISTER

Speaker: Mr Liam Laurence Smyth (Clerk of Bills, House of Commons)

Chair: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

Mr Liam Laurence Smyth gave a short overview of the process for Prime Ministers Questions
(PMQs). He explained that Westminster had a large number of MPs and a relatively small Chamber
which meant that there was not enough room for everyone to have their own seat, nor enough time
for everyone to talk. Most of the time the Chamber was fairly empty, with only those planning to
contribute to a Debate attending, but PMQs was different. The Chamber was always very full and
noisy and the Speaker had to manage a large crowd.

PMQs was effectively a session of questions without notice. The leaders of the opposition parties
received an allocation of questions; the Speaker could also select from a list of Members successful
in the ballot for questions and from other Members in the Chamber. It was a very political event.
Many questions came from the Government side and gave a helpful opportunity for the Prime
Minister to talk about the Government’s achievements. The Prime Minister was currently on a visit
to the USA and the Leader of the Opposition was absent due to family reasons. Rt Hon. Harriet
Harman MP and Rt Hon. William Hague were standing in for them.

After the delegates had viewed the day’s PMQ session on monitors, Mr Laurence Smyth made
some follow up comments. He pointed out that on this occasion, the Speaker had selected
relatively few questions from the ballot list, partly perhaps to achieve party balance after the
opposition questions but also because the questions and answers had been longer than usual. He
said that rather than being a session to hold the Prime Minister to account, it had been more of a
contest between two sides. The Speaker had a difficult job ensuring that the session did not turn
into an opposition question time or a Labour party question time, and this session had illustrated
well both of these tendencies.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) suggested that in reality PMQs was more about media sound-bites
than accountability.

Mr Kevin Shiels (Clerk, Northern Ireland) and Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (Australia) asked for
more information about how the Speaker had chosen Members to ask questions.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) asked whether the Prime Minister received advanced notice
of the questions.

Mr Laurence Smyth explained that the Speaker had to balance a number of factors in selecting
questions. The leaders of the two main opposition parties were each automatically allocated
questions. The Speaker could then select a Member to achieve some party balance (such as a
Government backbencher immediately after the Leader of the Opposition) or he could select the

47
next question from the ballot list. It was rare in practice for advance notice to be given about the
substance of a question.

The Chairman added that when Rt Hon. David Cameron MP had attended his first PMQs as Leader
of the Opposition, it had appeared to unsettle the Prime Minister that he had only asked five
questions instead the expected six.

Hon. Kenneth Best (Barbados) pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition had appeared to
make political points and had not been required to answer questions or explain how his party would
have acted differently from the Government. Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP (Hong Kong)
asked whether the Speaker was able to refer to a list showing which Members had asked PMQs on
previous occasions. Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked whether it was usual for the
Speaker to refer to Members by name, rather than constituency.

Mr Laurence Smyth explained that only the Prime Minister had an obligation to answer questions.
There was no responsibility for the other parties to answer questions, which gave them a small
advantage. Meticulous records were kept as to which Members had asked PMQs on which dates;
while this might help achieve a more even allocation of questions, it did not take account of the fact
that some Members had more to say than others. The ‘naming’ of a Member was a significant
rebuke, which the Speaker used to good effect to control a noisy Chamber. However, it was just
normal practice for the Speaker to call out the Member’s name when it was their turn for a question
so as to identify clearly who was being called.

48
Wednesday 5 March 2009

THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

Speakers: Mr Liam Laurence Smyth (Clerk of Bills, House of Commons)

Ms Madeleine Moon MP (Labour)
Mr David Beamish (Clerk Assistant, House of Lords)

Chairman: Lord Dholakia OBE (Liberal Democrats; Deputy Leader in the House of Lords)

The Chairman welcomed the group and commented that there had been some very interesting
sessions so far. He noted that the rule of law is the most important ingredient in democracy.
However law simply imposed would have little effect without ownership. The essence of Parliament
is about law and law making, although there are other important ingredients, including
accountability.

The Chairman discussed his recent participation in the CPA Delegation to Kenya and noted that in
the discussions had with their Kenyan colleagues they would still come back to the main ingredient
– the legislative process. Lord Dholakia described the Commonwealth as a family of different
nations – with the CPA as a hub to ensure that members do not deviate from democratic principles.
The system is not perfect, it is not static and it continues to evolve. It is necessary not to forget that
Parliamentarians are custodians of the people’s trust and that trust is enshrined in the processes
that parliaments follow.

The Chairman then introduced the speakers for the session.

Mr Liam Laurence Smyth described the variety of legislative business before the House in just the
two weeks of the current Seminar. Business included:

• Remaining stages of Political Parties and Elections Bill

• Remaining stages of the Corporation Tax Bill (an extremely long tax law rewrite bill, certified
as a money Bill)

• Formal proceedings with no votes on the Consolidated Fund Bill, authorising the
Government’s expenditure

• “Ten-minute Rule" Bills for backbenchers to draw attention to legislative initiatives

• Two Private Members’ Fridays for backbench bills to be considered

• All stages of the Northern Ireland Bill being taken in one day

• Possible Lords Amendments to the Northern Ireland Bill, after Lords consideration of the bill

49
 • Public hearings in the Public Bill Committees on the Apprenticeships, Skills, Learning and
Children Bill

• Conclusion of clause-by-clause consideration in the Public Bill Committee on the Coroners

and Justice Bill

Mr Laurence Smyth said that well over a thousand laws were made each year, but the very great
majority were orders or regulations made by Ministers using powers given to them by statute. Only
a couple of hundred such statutory instruments over a year required parliamentary approval, on a
simple yes/no decision to approve the whole of the statutory instrument. The Government invariably
secured the necessary approval.

New Bills were introduced when Ministers needed new powers or when the Government wished to
change existing law in ways which they lacked powers to do without a new Act.

The legislative process was adversarial, with challenge and amendment coming mainly from the two
Opposition parties, with the Government Ministers defending every word in their Bill. Where
Amendments were made, they were almost always made by the Government. In some cases the
Government’s own Amendments might have been necessary to avoid defeat, so they made the
necessary concessions to ensure the Bill’s passage.

In a Public Bill Committee, the Government backbenchers often said little, as the Opposition and
Ministerial frontbenches argued their way through the Bill; but actually it was the Government
backbenchers whose power was decisive. It would be only with their support that the Opposition
parties could combine enough votes to defeat the Government.

Ms Madeleine Moon MP spoke of her experience as a Government backbencher on the Coroners

and Justice Public Bill Committee, where she had particular concerns about the reform of the law on
inquests in cases of suspected suicide. In politics, the meeting before the meeting was often the
most important. Influence was most effectively brought to bear before the Bill was finally drafted,
rather than in the debates after the Bill’s introduction.

In her view, there was too much talk by lawyers and not enough real life experience in the debates
on making legislation. Hearings were practically a waste of time if they only heard from the usual
interest groups, repeating their well-known views. It would be much more valuable to get out of
Westminster and to talk to the people on the ground who would actually be affected by the Bill’s
proposals. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee’s examination of legislative competence orders,
which gave greater powers to the National Assembly for Wales to exercise devolved responsibilities,
was a better model of legislative activity.>

Mr David Beamish said that legislative procedures and the stages of a bill were broadly similar in
the two Houses, and that Government bills could begin in either House (though major controversial
bills usually started in the Commons).

But there were some significant differences in the House of Lords. First, the Government does not
have a majority and has no formal control over the order paper. Secondly, the Lord Speaker has no

50
role in selecting amendments for debate or Members to speak, and any amendment tabled can be
debated and any Member can speak on it – there is no formal timetabling of bills.

In practice programmes for individual bills can usually be agreed, because the House is unpaid and
Members welcome a degree of certainty in the planning of business. Committee stages are taken
either in the Chamber (for most major bills) or in Grand Committee, held in parallel with a sitting in
the Chamber and open to all Members. The House has not followed the Commons in introducing
evidence-taking by the committee at the start of a committee stage.

The Government’s lack of majority in the Lords means that, while rejection of a Government bill is
rare (and unheard of for any bill for which the Government has an electoral mandate), Government
defeats on amendments to bills are quite frequent. Such defeats lead to “ping-pong”, the process of
seeking agreement when amendments made in the second House are not accepted in the first.
Sometimes the Commons give way, but more often a compromise is reached, and occasionally the
Lords give way when the Commons stand firm.

Delegated legislation cannot be amended, but only approved or rejected, and rejection is quite
exceptional. Nevertheless Parliament can have some real influence, usually when draft instruments
are withdrawn in the light of criticism by committees. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
conducts technical scrutiny of instruments (e.g. ensuring that they are not ultra vires). In recent
years the Lords have appointed a Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, which draws attention
to instruments worthy of special scrutiny and has become influential. Another influential committee is
the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which examines draft instruments
introducing regulatory reform (formerly “deregulation”) and also scrutinises delegated powers
contained in bills.

No notes are available for the Q&A session. However, the discussion included questions about:

• Royal Recommendations, Private Members Bills and Money

• Effect of death of sponsoring member on Private Member’s Bill

• Conference meetings to resolve differences between the Houses

• Parliamentary counsel a government resource of trained draftsmen

• Emergency passage of legislation through all stages without notice

51
Wednesday 4 March

OPEN FORUM: SCRUTINY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Hon. Jane Aagard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) was appointed to the Chair for the open
forum.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) noted that New Zealand was an interesting hybrid in the
Commonwealth with a unicameral legislature and mixed member proportional as its electoral
system. It had a population of 4.2 million people and 122 Members of Parliament. The New Zealand
electoral system was a two-tiered system, with voters having two votes: the main vote was the party
vote, which determined the proportionality of the House; the second vote was the electorate vote,
which determined the local representative within the House. There were seven political parties
represented in Parliament and it therefore could not rely on an adversarial system to develop the
scrutiny levels that were in Westminster.

There were 14 subject-area select committees, plus any number of ad hoc committees set up from
time to time for particular purposes. Select committees often asked the public for input when they
were considering a bill or inquiry.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee provided a high level of public accounts scrutiny.
Following the introduction of the budget into the House of Representatives the Estimates were
referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which could conduct an examination of the
Estimates or refer them to the relevant committee. Committees were able to hold hearings and invite
Ministers to attend to explain their spending plans and priorities. The committee could be supported
in its Estimates enquiry role by the Office of the Auditor General.

In addition to the select committees, New Zealand had offices such as the Office of the Auditor
General, the New Zealand Ombudsman, the Commissioner for the Environment and the
Commissioner of Inland Revenue, which had the power and ability to do the work of an upper
house. These gave the public a great deal of confidence in the scrutiny process.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A.C.T, Australia) said that the Australian Capital Territory Legislative
Assembly had recently gone through a process of change. The ACT Greens, of which he was a
member, had had a successful election in 2008, giving them the balance of power in a 17-member
unicameral Legislative Assembly. The Greens chose to support a Labour minority government,
entering into a contract with them to ensure that a number of changes were implemented.

Firstly, the Legislative Assembly endorsed the Latimer House principles (principles which set out the
ideal circumstances for open and accountable government); secondly, the parties agreed changes
to the standing orders; thirdly, changes were made to reflect the new shape of the Legislative
Assembly and each of the three parties received equal speaking time and opportunity to ask
questions; changes were also made to Freedom of Information legislation. In addition an
independent Arbitrator was appointed, whose role was to mediate between the Legislature and
Executive in the event of a disagreement over the public release of documents. This removed the

52
need for expensive legal cases. In April 2008 an Ethics and Integrity Adviser was appointed to
advise Members on ethical issues concerning the exercise of their role.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) stated that scrutiny was not effective in Sierra Leone:
the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was a member of the majority All People’s
Congress Party; and both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker were also members of the ruling party.
He felt that the appointment of an Anti-corruption commissioner highlighted the lack of effective
scrutiny of Parliament by select committees.

The House of Representatives had 124 members - 112 members elected through proportional
representation, while the remaining 12 members of parliament were chosen by traditional chiefs.
Sierra Leone had 24 parliamentary oversight committees: of which 16 were chaired by the ruling
party; the SLPP which served as the main opposition party in Parliament chaired five committees;
the People’s Movement for Democratic Change chaired the Committee; while the Speaker served
as chairman of three committees

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) explained that the Legislature in Oman was bicameral, with an
elected Consultative Council, and a State Council which acted as the upper chamber. Oman was
divided into 61 districts; an area with a population of over 30,000 people had two Members of
Parliament, while those with less than 30,000 had one.

The elected Consultative Council was an advisory body and had limited powers to propose
legislations. Its main function was to review and comment on draft economic and social legislation
prepared by the ministers in accordance with the Five Year Plan. It had the power to request
Ministers to appear before it, which enabled public scrutiny of their decisions. The upper house was
also an advisory body and its main function was to serve as a liaison between the government and
the citizens.

The development of the legislature had occurred gradually, Since 1970 the government had given
high priority to education in order to develop a domestic work force, which the government
considered a vital factor in the country's economic and social progress. Approximately 48% of those
attending school were female. The Oman constitution guaranteed equality between the genders.

Hon. Deependra Singh Shekhawat MLA (Rajasthan, India) said that the office of the Speaker
played an important position in their parliamentary democracy. Both the Speaker and Deputy
Speaker were elected from amongst the Members of Parliament present and voting in the House.

The parliamentary system replicated that of the UK. There was an emphasis on scrutiny and
accountability which was carried out by committees, one of the most important being the Committee
on Public Accounts. It consisted of not more than 22 members and its Chairman, since 1967, had
been a member of the opposition appointed by the Speaker. The terms of office of members of the
Committee did not exceed one year at a time.

Scrutiny and accountability were essential for a strong democracy, and the right to information
played a key role. Any person could ask the government or the administration for information, and
there was a recognised process by which citizens could gain information.

53
Mr Ashok Bhatt MLA (Gujarat, India) said that India had an inherent culture of democracy. Gujarat
was linked closely with India’s history of independence, and the area had provided the first Speaker
of India’s Parliament, G.V. Mavalankar, in 1952. It was governed by a Legislative Assembly of 182
members, and a term of office was five years. The state had a two-party system.

Parliament had worked hard to improve the lives of citizens in Gujarat. It had made the decision to
improve its agricultural economy, and in the last seven years its gross annual revenue had
increased seven-fold. Unlike the rest of the world, Gujarat was not suffering the downturn in the
economy and indeed had increased employment in agriculture, and this was due to Parliament
working for the good of the people. Parliament always had to be accountable to the people, and had
to improve the economy, health and education opportunities of its citizens.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) said that Ghana’s constitution was fashioned after the
Westminster model. Ministers were appointed from members of the Parliament. Parliamentary
scrutiny had been undertaken by select and standing committees; select committees were subject
matter related committees charged with the responsibility of scrutinizing expenditures, management
and polices of the Ministries Departments; standing committees were appointed to deal with
subjects of continuing concern to the House. Women took an active part in Parliament.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that following the post-election crisis in 2008,
accountability and scrutiny had deteriorated. Two coalitions had agreed in February 2008 to form a
grand coalition government in a power-sharing arrangement which provided for the establishment of
a prime minister and two deputy prime ministers, as well as the division of an expanded list of
cabinet posts.

The unicameral National Assembly consisted of 210 members elected to a term of 5 years from
single-member constituencies, plus 12 members nominated by political parties on a proportional
representation basis. There were a large number of cabinet posts, which meant there were not
enough backbenchers to perform the role of effective scrutiny.

Parliament had lost credibility amongst the people, and was at its lowest level of support.
Traditionally, Kenya’s Parliament passed three bills a year. In the last year, seven bills had been
passed, although these had all been about power-sharing arrangements rather than new legislation
for the improvement of the country. The parliamentary system needed to be reviewed, and there
needed to be clear and strong leadership.

Hon. Samwel Kazunga Kambi MP (Kenya) agreed that the formation of a coalition government
meant that there was no effective opposition. The Kenyan Parliament had a committee system
which had powers to summon Ministers, the Vice-President and the President. A committee’s
recommendations could lead to the sacking of a Minister.

Kenya was struggling to be seen as an effective democracy, and Parliament and the government
needed to work harder for its citizens. Too often in Africa, individuals had put their needs before that
of their country.

54
Hon. Julienne Uwacu MP (Rwanda) explained that the Rwanda Parliament had two chambers: the
Chamber of Deputies; and the Senate. The lower chamber dealt with public appointments, while the
higher examined constitutional issues, such as legislation and overseeing government action. Since
the 2008 parliamentary election, women controlled the parliament having taken 44 out of 80 seats.
Rwanda, whose post-genocide constitution ensured a 30% quota for female MPs, had already held
the record for most women in parliament.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) described the power of select committees, which had
caused the resignation of the Prime Minster in 2008. A parliamentary select committee on energy
had presented a report to parliament of its investigation of an emergency power project, which found
corruption at the core of the project. Following that, Prime Minister Lowassa had resigned, accepting
political responsibility for the failed enterprise.

There was a daily question and answer session in the House. Every Thursday it held Prime
Minister’s question time, although this was not as confrontational as in Westminster.

Hon. Sandy John Arrisol MNA (Seychelles) said that his nation had a population of 83,000 people,
with 33 members in its Parliament (22 from the ruling party, and 11 from the opposition). There was
no effective scrutiny in Parliament – the Chairman of the Public Accounts was from the ruling party
(Seychelles People's Progressive Front) as were all other chairman of committees in the
Parliament.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that within the Jamaican Parliament of 60
members, there was a good political balance, with 32 Members of the ruling party, and 28 in
opposition. There was a strong scrutiny element in the Parliament, as the opposition party had
previously been in power for 18 years. This meant that the Public Accounts Committee was chaired
by the former Minster of Finance, one of the most experienced Ministers in the Caribbean.

The opposition felt strongly that it was extremely important to utilize the media, if they could not be
heard in Parliament.

55
Thursday 5 March 2009

PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS

Speakers: Mr John Lyon CB (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards)

Mr Chris Mullin MP (Labour; Member, Standards and Privileges Committee)

Chairman: Mr Ben Chapman MP (Labour)

The Chairman invited delegates to not only ask questions after the panel’s presentations, but also
to contribute examples and observations from their experiences in their own Parliaments.

Mr John Lyon explained that standards in the House of Commons were not a modern invention.
Bribery was first forbidden three hundred years ago, and it was thirty years since Members first had
to declare any financial interest in the matters they were debating. It was more than ten years since
the current system had been established by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

He listed the “Nolan principles” for standards in public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity,
accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. He noted that, while this list might seem simple
and obvious, the challenge of living up to these principles was a difficult one. Based on his own
experience as Commissioner, he believed that Members of Parliament generally fulfilled this
challenge. The first Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had been appointed in 1995, the
same year that these principles were established. He said that he was the fourth Commissioner, and
that his role was to provide the independent element in the standards system.

He noted that the system of standards was based on three main principles. The first of these was
that the House was self regulatory, a principle that derived from the sovereignty of Parliament. The
principle that Parliament had the right to control its own affairs dated back to 1689 and the Bill of
Rights, which stated that “freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to
be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.” This was balanced, however,
by the independent element of the system. He reminded delegates that the Commissioner was an
independent officer of the House of Commons. This was demonstrated by the fact that no one could
instruct the Commissioner to investigate a complaint against a Member. Thirdly, the Westminster
framework for standards was non-statutory, another reminder of the sovereignty of Parliament. The
Commissioner answered to the House and not to the courts.

He then described the office of Commissioner. He said that the Commissioner was appointed for a
non-renewable term of five years, and that the Commissioner could be dismissed only on a
Resolution of the House. There could therefore be no suspicion that the Commissioner might be
influenced by the prospect of a second term. He explained that the Commissioner’s work related
only to the House of Commons; he had no responsibilities for the House of Lords or for the Code of
Conduct for Ministers. He said that the Commissioner had a small team of staff and a budget of
approximately £500k.

He explained the main aspects of the role of the Commissioner. The first of these was the
monitoring of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament. He said that the Code itself was only

56
about three pages in length, and that its role was to guide Members and to set expectations. The
Code was supported by a set of Rules; the Commissioner noted that it was the way of rules to gain
in length and complexity over time. The House had recently agreed a new, shorter set of rules, and
the Commissioner welcomed this.

Turning to the registration of financial interests, the Commissioner noted that the purpose of the
Registers was to identify financial interests which might be thought by others to influence a Member.
He noted that the principle was not that financial interests were inherently wrong, but that all
financial interests should be transparent. He listed the four Registers, all of which were updated
online while the House was sitting, covering: Members; Members’ staff; accredited journalists and all
party groups. The work of maintaining these Registers was undertaken by the Registrar of
Members’ Financial Interests, an official of the House of Commons.

The third function of the Commissioner was to advise Members and help to prevent them from
unwittingly breaking the rules. His aim was to keep standards always in the line of sight of
Members, and to this end all Members were provided with a binder of information on standards. The
Commissioner’s office also provided briefings and confidential advice to Members and their staff.

The fourth function of the Commissioner was to advise the Committee on Standards and Privileges,
both on individual cases and on the wider standards framework. In 2008, for example, the
Commissioner had advised the Committee on the relationship between the complaints system and
the criminal law. The Commissioner advised the Committee on the facts of his investigations but
played no role in its decision making.

Mr Lyon then described his role in dealing with complaints, the function that attracted most public
attention. The Commissioner had the power to inquire into complaints that a Member had breached
the Code of Conduct and its associated rules. These complaints related to a Member’s obligation to
declare or register financial interests and to the use of the House’s facilities. The Commissioner did
not deal with complaints into how Members carried out their work. The system was also not an audit
system: the Commissioner acted only on the basis of a complaint supported by evidence of a
breach of the Code. Once the Commissioner had investigated a complaint, he often reported his
findings to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. In the last financial year he had reported his
findings on 15 complaints against Members.

Mr Lyon explained that he never forgot that a complaint could affect the local reputation, political
standing and future career of a Member. The high stakes involved in each inquiry meant that a
thorough, fair, evidence-based investigation was required. All the evidence on which the
Commissioner relied was published with his memorandum to the Committee, and the process was
therefore open and transparent.

Mr Lyon explained that he did not discuss his findings in advance with the Committee. It was for the
Committee, and not for the Commissioner, to decide on the appropriate penalty to recommend to
the House of Commons. He described the possible penalties, which ranged from a written apology
to suspension from the House without pay, or even – in extremely rare cases – expulsion.

57
Mr Lyon concluded by explaining that this system of standards had stood the test of time and
evolved and become more demanding over the years. It was a continuing process: standards were
adapted to new challenges and to changing public expectations. This process enabled the House of
Commons to decide on its own standards and to have its Members’ performance independently
tested against those standards. It was an essential foundation to public confidence in the democratic
system.

Mr Chris Mullin MP noted that although the UK thought of itself as one of the world’s oldest
democracies, it was nevertheless still on a steep learning curve. Its processes continued to evolve
over time. There had been a sea change over the last hundred years in the public’s expectations of
its elected representatives. There had been huge changes even in the last twenty two years, and
these had mostly been for the better. The House of Commons was no longer a gentlemen’s club:
the number of female Members of Parliament had increased significantly since 1997. The age of
deference had also passed: the visit of an MP to his constituency was no longer a rare event for
which the Member was met by the local stationmaster in his top hat. Mr Mullin noted that this
deference still existed in younger democracies.

Mr Mullin noted that the nature of a Member’s job had changed over time. It no longer involved only
the scrutiny of the Executive, but also providing a local service in the constituency. The House had
voted for itself resources that would have been undreamed of in the past; Members now had a
budget for staff and constituency offices and allowances for their second homes and for their travel
between Westminster and their constituencies. Over the last fifty years, the public demand for
scrutiny of the use of resources had increased, and in the last ten years this demand had been
accelerated by the presence of 24 hour media coverage.

This had led to a need for Members to change their ways. In the past it had been assumed that all
Members were honourable and no in-depth inquiries had taken place. Even ten years ago there had
been no hard rules and parties had not been required to declare the sources of their finances.
Today a much brighter spotlight fell upon these questions. There were now requirements for
Members to register financial interests and donations and for political parties to register donations.
Donations to parties from abroad were now forbidden. Details of allowances were published and
accounts were published under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Mullin noted, however, that
details of Members’ allowances were often misrepresented by the media.

The system had for a long time relied on self regulation, and had been much criticised for this. The
employment of an independent Commissioner had represented a dramatic change to a system with
robust inquiries and the publication of their findings. On the question of penalties, Mr Mullin said that
the Committee on Standards and Privileges had been accused of letting some Members off too
lightly. This was misplaced, he argued: three Members had had their careers terminated by the
Committee’s Reports, and even the Prime Minister was not immune to the Committee’s scrutiny.
The issues investigated by the Committee included failures to declare, alleged misuse of
Parliamentary facilities, payments made to relatives who did not in fact do work on the Member’s
behalf and the misuse of stationery on an industrial scale.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and invited questions from delegates.

58
Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) noted the size of the budget of the Commissioner’s
office and remarked that in Nigeria, because of the strong political opposition, the budget would
have to be much larger. He asked whether there was a template for complaints with which all
complainants had to comply.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether the complaints were mens rea or related to
negligence.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked whether there was a register of
interests for journalists.

Mr Lyon said that he did not investigate rumours but only those complaints where evidence was
provided. During the financial year 2007-08, he had received 226 complaints against named
Members and had begun inquiries into 71 of these.

Turning to the profile of breaches, he noted that the concept of mens rea did not apply because the
complaints did not relate to criminal offences. He noted that most complaints did not relate to major
events and that he investigated few complaints relating to cash for questions or similar offences. He
noted that Members were not elected for their administrative abilities and that many relied on their
staff to monitor the rules. Staff were sometimes not properly briefed on the importance of the rules,
and many breaches occurred through accident, foolishness or negligence.

Only journalists who held passes to the House of Parliament were obliged to register their interests.

Mr Pierre Laufo Fonotoe MP (Samoa) said that he was interested in the register of Members’
interests since no equivalent existed in Samoa. He asked what was included in the Register,
whether Members were truthful in their disclosures, and what consequences there were for a failure
to disclose.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked what happened if there was public outcry about
the size of Members’ salaries. She noted that the fact that MPs salaries in Kenya were not taxed
was a source of public concern.

Mr Mullin said that the fact that the UK Parliament voted on the level of its own salaries was a
source of embarrassment. The Government had promised to find a way of having Members’ salaries
set by an independent body. He noted that while the system had been abused in the past, in recent
years the opposite had occurred: the increase in salary compared unfavourably with the rest of the
public sector. Members’ allowances were untaxed; he commented that this was absolutely right, as
long as claims made were genuine. He suggested that a system of audit should be put in place.

Mr Lyon said that salaries and allowances were not the responsibility of the Commissioner or of the
Committee on Standards and Privileges. Ultimately the decisions were taken by the House itself.

The Register of Members’ Interests covered a broad range of interests, including financial or other
material benefits such as land, property, overseas visits and shareholdings. The Commissioner said

59
that Members were generally truthful because the consequences were so severe: even forgetting a
deadline for registration was a serious matter.

Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP (Hong Kong) asked whether the Commissioner’s office
scrutinised allowance claims. He also asked whether gifts had to be registered.

Dr Seh Hong Ong MP (Singapore) asked where the line dividing the Commissioner from the
Committee was drawn. On the subject of penalties, he asked whether there was a clear system for
determining the penalty recommended by the Committee. He noted that, in Singapore, Cabinet
Ministers had no business involvement but other MPs were part-time and continued to exercise
professions. He asked whether there was a clear-cut line for MPs with business interests.

Hon. Juhar Mahiruddin MLA (Malaysia, Sabah) asked whether there was a right to appeal,
especially for those Members suspended from the House.

Mr Lyon said that allowances were the responsibility of the House’s Department of Resources and
were not scrutinised as such. The auditing of allowance claims was not part of his remit.

On the subject of gifts, he said that gifts with a value greater than 1% of a Member’s salary had to
be registered.

On the relationship between the Committee and the Commissioner, he said that complaints went to
the Commissioner and that he alone decided what to do. He then decided the outcome of a
complaint and could dismiss it if it was unfounded. He had the power to resolve minor, inadvertent
breaches with the Member in question. In more serious cases, he reported to the Committee and it
was his decision to submit a memorandum. This was the element of independence in the system
and avoided the risk of political interference. It was not his role to recommend a penalty, but rather
to determine whether a breach had occurred and how it had come about. The Committee was free
to come to a different conclusion and had the power to recommend a sanction. There were no
guidelines for penalties, but the Committee was advised on precedents by its Clerk.

Responding to the question from Dr Seh Hong Ong MP, Mr Lyon noted that the same principle
applied to UK Cabinet Ministers. He noted that historically Members of Parliament had not been
paid, and that even after salaries were introduced many professional Members continued to work. In
theory this was still possible today, but in practice most Members had no significant outside
interests.

Mr Mullin said that the Commissioner’s reports were very rigorous and that Members had a right to
comment on its findings when giving oral evidence. The facts were rarely disputed. The final
decision on sanctions lay with the House itself, especially in the case of suspension. There was no
right to appeal the Commissioner’s decision to investigate.

Hon. Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) noted that demonstrations were taking place in Kenya
urging MPs to pay tax on their salaries, but said that for Members to do so would be a breach of the
law.

60
Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked whether the effectiveness and performance of
select committees was scrutinised, especially the rates of absenteeism.

Mr Hanuman Ram Kuri (Rajasthan, India) asked whether it was in the spirit of democracy to have
an unelected Commissioner.

Mr Mullin advised the Kenyan delegate that the best course of action was to set salaries at
acceptable, reasonable levels. He noted that the greater gap between rich and poor in developing
countries meant that the lifestyle of those at the top attracted more criticism than in the developed
world.

He noted that absenteeism from select committees was not penalised.

Mr Lyon suggested that the appointment of an unelected Commissioner was the price the House
had to pay for independent, non-political investigation. He had been appointed through a fair, open,
transparent process. His work was generated by the electorate and he did not decide on sanctions.

61
Thursday 5 March 2009

HANSARD

Speakers: Ms Lorraine Sutherland (Editor, Hansard)

Mr Jonathan Hoare (Sub-Editor, Hansard)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman introduced the session.

Ms Lorraine Sutherland explained that the purpose of Hansard was to provide an accurate and
independent record of proceedings in the Chamber of the House of Commons, including
departmental questions and answers. Hansard was also responsible for the House of Commons
annunicator and copies of division lists sent to the whips.

Ms Sutherland explained that Hansard was printed and published on the day following the business
it covered and that an electronic version was available on the Internet three hours after the business
was transacted. Also on the Internet were copies of Hansard for the proceedings in the Chamber
going back to 1988 and in committees from 1997. In addition, digitised historical Hansard daily parts
from the 19th century onwards were being made available on the Internet.

Ms Sutherland outlined the history of the reporting of proceedings in Parliament. She said that
starting in the 17th century unofficial, and often inaccurate, accounts of debates in Parliament had
been produced but such publications had been suppressed with the full force of the law. During the
18th century demand for accounts of debates had grown and to circumvent the legal restrictions
accounts of debates with a gloss of fiction had been produced such as the reports of the Senate of
Magna Lilliputia. Following a legal battle involving John Wilkes MP suppression had ceased in 1771.

In 1803, William Cobbett had started printing records of debates. These were published as a
supplement to his Political Register and were the first organised attempt to record proceedings
consistently and accurately. Due to insolvency Cobbett had to sell the contract for debates in 1812
to Thomas Curson Hansard, son of Luke Hansard, the Government's printer (although Thomas'
business was independent). Hansard put his name on the reports in 1829 and from that time
Hansard became a recognised part of the parliamentary procedures.

Ms Sutherland said that in 1897 a committee examined the operation of Hansard and in 1909 its
recommendations were implemented when operation of Hansard was taken over by the House of
Commons and it was given the title Official Report. Ms Sutherland added that in 1943 the name
Hansard had been restored to the front cover of the reports.

Ms Sutherland explained that Hansard was not a verbatim report and that it attempted to turn the
spoken word into readable text and to improve clarity without changing the meaning. MPs could not
make changes of substance.

62
Mr Jonathan Hoare explained that Hansard had offices at 7 Millbank and in the Palace of
Westminster. It used a working list system with two Hansard reporters always in the Chamber. He
explained that nowadays Pitman’s shorthand was hardly used, although for a time Hansard had
trained staff in it when shorthand courses had ceased. Instead, most reporters used recording tapes
supplemented with notes which the reporter wrote up and the text was checked by an editor before
publication.

In committees a sub-editor took a log to reporters based in 7 Millbank which was then written up and
checked by a sub-editor before publication. Mr Hoare added that until 2008 Hansard had been a
discrete department within the House of Commons service but in 2008 it had been amalgamated
with other departments to become part of the Department for Chamber and Committee Services. He
concluded that Hansard was the public record of British democracy.

Ms Sutherland showed a copy of a Hansard daily part to the meeting. She said that the main
challenges facing Hansard staff were demand for swift publication and maintaining high standards
of accuracy. In recruiting reporters Hansard sought to appoint people with a flair for the English
language and a good knowledge of politics. New staff were given a four month training course.
Sitting hours could fluctuate and the number of parliamentary questions had grown in recent years
putting pressure on the production timetable.

Mr Hoare added that part of the process of managing Hansard was to anticipate the demands of
MPs. He said that, for example, MPs were becoming more computer literate and that as a result
Hansard now sent them copies of their speeches for checking by e-mail. But, if an MP wished to
suggest a change, he or she was required to come to the Hansard office in person rather than send
a researcher. This ensured that MPs were responsible for their own speeches.

Mr Hoare told the meeting that Hansard had an annual budget of £10 million, £4 million of which
was earmarked for printing costs. The rest went on salaries of 100 staff who worked for Hansard, 75
to 80 of whom were employed directly on reporting. To meet pressures freelance staff were
sometimes employed. He explained that Hansard required the IT systems that it used to operate
without any faults or failures, something that was not always appreciated by those who provided IT
services.

Looking to the future Ms Sutherland considered that the demand for paper copies of Hansard was
likely to continue, though she noted that this was an area where costs might be reduced—possibly
through the outsourcing of printing. She considered that voice recognition software in its current
form could not replace existing arrangements as it could not recognise the full range of accents in
the Chamber. She noted that it had been used in the Tynwald in the Isle of Man, where it had
speeded up the production of its Hansard.

The Chairman invited questions to Ms Sutherland and Mr Hoare.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A. C. T., Australia) asked if proof copies were made available in
advance of the final printed daily parts.

63
Ms Sutherland said that as a copy of Hansard went on the Internet after only three hours there was
no opportunity to make proofs available. She added that if proofs were heavily amended privilege
might no longer apply to the text in the proof.

Mr Rattenbury also asked if MPs were invited to e-mail their speeches to Hansard.

Ms Sutherland said that it was not used as a matter of course but that instead Hansard asked MPs
for a copy of their speaking notes.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked if Hansard corrected syntax.

Ms Sutherland replied that it could be corrected to make the text intelligible.

In response to a question from Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Pakistan, Balochistan) Ms Sutherland
explained that Hansard gave MPs copies of their speeches on request.

Mr Richard Ssendege (Clerk, Uganda) asked why Hansard reports were necessary when Clerks
also kept a record.

Ms Sutherland explained that the Clerks at the Table in the Chamber or in committee did not take a
record of what was said, only a record of decisions taken and resolutions made. In contrast the
Hansard record set out what was said before a decision was taken or a resolution made. She said
that Hansard therefore played an essential role in holding the government and MPs to account. She
added that unlike reports written by journalists no slant was put on the Hansard report.

Mr Kevin Shiels (Clerk, Northern Ireland) asked if remarks made by MPs from a sedentary position
were recorded in Hansard and if bad language was reported.

Ms Sutherland replied that sedentary remarks were only recorded when the MP who had the floor
reacted, in order to make his or her remarks intelligible. She said that similarly, although bad
language was unparliamentary, it was published in Hansard to explain the reason for an intervention
by the Speaker.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) asked whether Hansard made mistakes.

Ms Sutherland said that mistakes occurred but that Hansard strived for accuracy. Where a mistake
occurred it was corrected as soon as possible on the Internet. On the printed version a correction
would be published the next day.

Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda (Clerk, Sri Lanka) asked whether the audio versions used by Hansard
were made available.

Ms Sutherland explained that a commercial company held a contract to make audio and video
recordings of the Chamber and committees available for a set period. Copies made by Hansard
were only used for purpose of a producing a transcript and were not kept.

64
Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked if there was a correlation between
the printed and broadcast version.

Ms Sutherland said there was a correlation and that discrepancies were less serious than they use
to be.

The Chairman thanked Ms Sutherland and Mr Hoare.

65
Thursday 5 March

PARTY DISCIPLINE IN PARLIAMENT

Speakers: Mr Tony Cunningham MP (Labour; Government Pairing Whip)

Mr James Duddridge MP (Conservative; Opposition Whip)
Lord Shutt of Greetland (Liberal Democrats; Chief Whip in the House of Lords

Chairman: Rt Hon. Lord Morris of Aberavon KC QC (Labour)

The Chairman introduced the speakers.

Mr Tony Cunningham MP began by explaining the UK system of government, particularly in

comparison with that of the USA. He explained that unlike most other countries, in the UK
governments did not serve for a fixed amount of time, but were dependent on a Parliamentary
majority for power; without a Parliamentary majority that government would fall. His job as a
Government Whip was to help maintain the necessary Parliamentary support and make sure that
the Government’s business was passed. He compared his job to that of a factory manager,
ensuring the smooth progress of business.

He said that Whips generally had two roles:

1) They took responsibility for the wellbeing of a regional group of MPs
2) They shadowed a Government department and were responsible for ensuring that all
legislation from that department was passed. He illustrated this with a discussion of his work
as DEFRA Whip in the passing of the Animal Welfare Bill.

As a “pairing Whip” he was also personally responsible for Members’ movements and grants
permission for travel and absences from Parliament.

Mr Cunningham also described how Whips were an important conduit of information between the
Government and the Parliamentary Party and acted as “barometers” of Members’ opinion. He
concluded his talk by emphasising how important trust and integrity was between opposing Whips’
offices; without this trust the system would not work.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked how much of the job was information gathering of the
mood of the Parliamentary Party?

Mr Cunningham said that the parties had an informal network to gather information. Part of a
Whips’ job was being aware of potential problems in advance.

Hon. Rachel Wambi Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked if a Party system could survive without trust
between Whips’ offices. She asked with particular reference to the coalition government in Kenya
which seemed to lack mutual trust.

Mr Cunningham reiterated his earlier statements and said that it was vital that “his word was his
bond”.

66
Hon. Juhar Mahiruddin MLA (Malaysia) asked how the right to free expression survived in a
situation where, it seemed to him, the Whips had the power to prevent Members voting against their
party. He wondered what methods Whips had to prevent Members voting against their party and,
what sanctions they could apply if needed.

Mr Cunningham pointed out that governments were dependent on a degree of discipline and in his
view stable governments were important enough to justify a degree of power invested in the Whips.
He said that the Whips’ main power was one of patronage.

The Chairman then introduced the remaining two speakers.

Lord Shutt of Greetland began by explaining the differences between “whipping” in the Commons
and Lords, the main difference being that the Lords’ was generally more relaxed. This meant that,
rather than maintaining discipline in his own party, his main role was fostering the relationship
between the other parties and negotiating speaking time for his Members. He suggested that his
role was therefore more “organisational”; he had regular discussions with the Government Chief
Whip over the Forthcoming Business and he encouraged his Members to attend Committee
meetings and ask Ministerial questions at every available opportunity. Rather than guiding through
policy, he viewed the main aim of his job as expressing the Party’s views at every available
opportunity.

Mr James Duddridge MP suggested that in many ways being a Whip could not be taught. Instead
in was an “intuitive, organic” role, competency in which could only be gained through experience.

He agreed with Mr Cunningham’s analogy of a Whip as a “floor manager”, allowing business to be

conducted and acting as a (two-way) conduit for information. Referring to Mr Mahiruddin’s earlier
question he suggested that a distinction could be drawn between “principled opposition” and
“opportunistic opposition”; in his view sanctions would only be applied in the case of the latter. He
suggested that, at least in the Conservative Party, experience in the Whips’ Office was a good
“grounding” for Ministerial office.

Mr Duddridge concluded by re-emphasising the importance of trust and honesty between opposing
Whips’ offices.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked how a Whip could gain, and keep, the trust of his peers
given that it is an appointed, rather than an elected role.

Mr Duddridge suggested that in his experience this was not a problem as the Whips’ office
generally represented all “wings” of the Parliamentary party and therefore Members’ problems with
one particular Whip would be minimised.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shebesh (Kenya) asked what would happen if the party lost confidence in
the Whip? How could they be removed from the post?

67
Mr Duddridge said that to his knowledge, this had never happened. There was no method to
remove the office-holder directly, and since the role placed great importance in personal
relationships it was extremely unlikely to happen.

Lord Shutt gave three reasons why his Party Members would want him removed from his position:
1) He was not doing a good job and was making incorrect judgements and decisions;
2) There was a large personality clash;
3) He was incompetent.

He suggested that if this was the case the Party Leader would be informed discreetly and since his
position was dependent on the support of his Members’, once he had lost their confidence it was
likely that the party leader would be made aware and he would be removed that way. There is no
mechanism to directly remove the Whip from office.

68
Thursday 5 March 2009

THE ROLE OF AN MP IN THE CONSTITUENCY

Speakers: Ms Diane Abbot MP (Labour)

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP (Conservative)

Chairman: Lord Corbett of Castle Vale (Labour)

The Chairman said that he was glad to be with the delegates. He thought that they would enjoy
their time in constituencies on Friday, and reminded delegates that the MP’s role in the constituency
was of paramount importance to the Westminster system. He then introduced the first speaker,
Diane Abbott MP.

Ms Diane Abbott MP introduced herself as the Member of Parliament for Hackney North and Stoke
Newington, a position she had held for 22 years. An MP’s role in the constituency was a very large
part of the job. The role was particular to the constituency and the individual MP’s circumstances.
Her constituency was ethnically very diverse. The role of an MP in Parliament took up a significant
proportion of an MP’s time. During the parliamentary terms in Westminster, the House sat every
Monday to Thursday, and sometimes on Fridays. All ministers were members of the House of
Commons (or Lords) first and foremost. Consequently the pressures brought about by having a
constituency were felt by all Members.

Her constituency of Hackney was geographically small. Her role was threefold – as a constituency
MP, an MP in Parliament and as an MP promoting her own interests. Ms Abbott had a particular
interest in knife crime, which was an important issue in her constituency. Her role in the constituency
kept her busy; she would often be approached in the street by constituents. However in the
Westminster system, MPs were not approached for direct financial assistance. Rather, constituents
would ask for advice and help in relation to housing, immigration, asylum and schooling, for
example. The volume of correspondence that an MP received had increased many times since she
had become an MP in 1987.

Within Parliament, opportunities arose to advance some of her constituency interests. She could
speak with authority on schools and nursing homes, contribute to the development and scrutiny of
legislation and the Budget, which was due in the next few weeks. She had recently visited Latin
America and Afghanistan. Although MPs at Westminster might not have the same stresses as
delegates, they certainly had many calls on their time.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP said that it was a great privilege to be speaking to delegates, and
thanked Diane Abbott MP for her excellent presentation. He began by recalling his experiences
around the hilly villages of the Cotswolds. He would give delegates a short, pithy summary of his
role as a constituency MP. His constituency was very different to Ms Abbott’s. His covered 1000
square miles, and was very rural. His was a wealthy, articulate electorate, with many pet interests.
He agreed with Ms Abbott that the job had undoubtedly become more difficult and time-consuming
in recent years. Whereas previously constituents would have accepted a delay in replying, the
introduction of e-mail meant that nowadays, a response was expected by return. Some of the

69
problems which were brought to him as an MP were desperately difficult. Repossession, access to
medicine and miscarriages of justice were a few that stuck in the mind.

In Parliament, MPs were kept equally busy. He was Shadow Minister for International Development,
and was engaged with such questions as what the UK’s policy towards Sri Lanka should be. It was
essential that an MP enjoyed the job of listening to people, and getting results for people in difficulty.
It was hard work, but enormously satisfying.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) asked how individual MPs funded their election to
Parliament.

Ms Abbott said that twenty years ago, her campaign cost £4,000. The rules concerning election
expenditure were very strictly policed, with any member of the local electorate entitled to view a
candidate’s election accounts for a period after the election. She knew of one case in which a newly-
elected Member had lost her seat due to having spent too much. Another point worth noting was
that in the UK, paid political advertising on television was not allowed. Political parties were given
free slots on television around elections (known as ‘party political broadcasts’). At a national level,
the rules were not so strict. Both major parties were taking steps towards reform, and whilst there
was much agreement, significant obstacles remained.

Mr Clifton-Brown agreed that the difference between local and national rules was marked. The
central offices of the major parties spent about £20m at the last election. Fundraising had many
different forms: a wine and cheese party in the Cotswolds one week would be just that, however, if
Parliament had been dissolved, any funds spent were then counted towards the election fund, for
which there was an expenditure limit for each constituency. Individual candidates did not need to
pay for any aspect of their campaign themselves.

The Chairman mentioned the Political Parties Bill, which was before Parliament at the moment.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked how much candidates were allowed to spend at each
election.

Mr Clifton-Brown said that the figure varied, but was around £15,000 and set by the Electoral
Commission. That figure covered all expenditure in the 3-5 weeks between dissolution and election.

Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP (Hong Kong) asked at what point money started being counted
as election expenditure. For example, would posters printed before dissolution count, as they would
be related to the election but ordered outside of the period.

Ms Abbott explained that such posters would be counted. On a related note, MPs received a
communications allowance of about £10,000, the purpose of which was to keep constituents
informed about their work as a Member of Parliament. The money could, for instance, be spent on
leaflets or the development of a website.

Mr Clifton-Brown added that once Parliament had been dissolved, MPs became candidates –
strictly speaking, they were no longer a Member of Parliament.

70
Hon. Harbans Kapoor MLA (Uttarakhand, India) asked what problems arose in the speakers’
constituencies.

Mr Clifton-Brown said that his constituents’ problems ranged from parking fines to murder.
Whereas he had no power to influence proceedings, as an MP, he had some ability to intervene in a
case.

Hon. Kapoor asked if UK MPs had any equivalent of the constituency development fund.

Mr Clifton-Brown explained that the role of an MP in the Westminster system did not include
holding any purse strings. His, and others’, role was limited to opening doors and pressuring
Ministers, maybe in the course of a Westminster Hall debate.

Ms Abbott noted that in the UK, there was, comparatively speaking considerable support provided
by the state.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said that in Australia, a first-time candidate
had very few funds. Stringent rules were applied by the tax office, which deducted 5% of an MP’s
salary in order to subsidise election expenses.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that in Africa during an election, candidates
simply had to feed their electors. Learning about good practice in Westminster was all well and
good, but in Africa it was not practical.

Ms Abbott said that although she had been raised in Britain, her family had close ties to Jamaica,
and she was aware of the difficulties faced by MPs in developing countries.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked about corruption.

Mr Clifton-Brown said that he was glad that he did not have any money to spend in his
constituency, as it meant that he could not be accused of corruption.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A.C.T., Australia) said that as a relatively new Member of Parliament,
he had sat across the table from constituents with complaints which he had found fairly trivial. He
asked the speakers how they dealt with difficult constituents.

Ms Abbott said that as a younger MP, she had made many efforts to jump through hoops for her
constituents. With some of them, it just wasn’t within her power to help. In several immigration and
asylum cases, the kindest thing was often just to advise them to buy a new suitcase. When Salman
Rushdie published The Satanic Verses, she had been placed under pressure by senior members of
her local Muslim community to call for the book to be banned. Despite their threatening to withdraw
Muslim support from her, she assisted their calls as she had felt that there was something inherently
wrong with banning books with which one did not agree.

71
Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) said that some constituents were best helped by being taken to an
employment agency and that this was fairly easy to arrange.

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) asked about separating professional and personal
lives.

Ms Abbott said that in a small constituency, this was quite difficult. She tried to protect her family
from unwanted exposure. A former secretary had been most insistent that as soon as the House
rose for the summer, she got on an aeroplane for a foreign holiday.

The Chairman recalled a time when he had been on holiday in Greece with his family and a
constituent had approached him. He had told the constituent in no uncertain terms that he was on
holiday and that his issue could wait.

72
Thursday 5 March 2009

REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

Speaker: Ms Alda Barry (Registrar of Members’ Interests)

Chairman: Miss Elspeth Macdonald (Assistant Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman opened the session and introduced Alda Barry, Registrar of Interests.

Ms Alda Barry said that register was created in 1974 as a result of then recent scandals over
parliamentary interests, and it therefore predated the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
The register was intended to

“provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member
receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions,
speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as Member of
Parliament.”

In that sense, it was a register not of wealth but of interests. Members were not required to register
all interests or all property owned, merely those that might be held to influence the way in which they
voted. All such registers had to strike a balance between transparency and privacy, a balance that
constantly shifted over time

Members were required to register within three months of their election, though that period was to
be shortened to one month to bring it into line with the practice of the Electoral Commission. The
register contained entries within 10 categories:

1. Remunerated directorships
2. Remunerated employment, office, profession etc.
3. Clients
4. Sponsorship or financial or material support
5. Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK)
6. Overseas visits
7. Overseas benefits and gifts
8. Land and Property
9. Registrable shareholdings
10. Miscellaneous and unremunerated interests

In the first two categories, Members did not need to reveal how much they earned, unless they
earned it in their capacity as Members of Parliament. Declarations were made within bands of
£5,000. If paid as a consultant, Members also had to provide information on earnings and give an
indication of how much, and what, they were required to do. They were also required to state that
they did nothing inconsistent with their status as Members.

73
The ‘Clients’ category, formerly much used, was no longer much required, public opinion being
against paid advocacy. The ‘Sponsorship’ category required declarations of donations from
associations and so forth, if the donation was specifically linked to the Member. ‘Gifts’ implied gifts
to a Member or his/her spouse or partner. ‘Overseas visits’ meant some visits for which expenses
had been paid (although it did not include CPA visits, among others).

‘Land and property’ covered property which brought in a substantial income. Members need not
declare their own homes, only properties for which they received rental income. ‘Shareholdings’
spoke for itself. ‘Miscellaneous and unremunerated interests’ included entries for non-practising
professionals or those who provided unpaid consultancy, the point being transparency.
There was, in the UK, no need to register family or domestic partners’ interests, unless they arose
simply because a Member was a Member: a pair of tickets to an opera, for example. If a spouse
took a Member on a trip, there would be no need to register the fact.

Various thresholds applied to different categories: for remuneration, Members were required to
declare anything above 1 per cent of an MP’s salary (over about £630); gifts (or a combination of
gifts) worth more than £500 should be registered; properties worth a Member’s salary or more were
registered; and rental income of 10 per cent or more of a Member’s salary had to be registered (over
about £6,300). Sponsorship of more than £1,000 also had to be registered, this last figure being in
line with the requirements of the Electoral Commission: from summer 2009, Members would no
longer have to register separately with the Commission and the House, but would have to provide
the House with more detail than hitherto.

Changes in registration requirements tended to be driven by events. Following a case the previous
year in which a Member had employed a member of his family who may not have done all the work
for which he was paid, Members were now required to register any relationship with their staff and
their job titles. Salary scales for jobs were also provided. The balance had in this case tilted from
privacy towards transparency.

When the Register of Members’ Interests was introduced, the question arose of benefits for
Members’ staff. As a result, a register of staff interests covered two categories: outside employment
and employment which benefited from use of a parliamentary pass; and gifts and hospitality. The
threshold for registration was half the figure for Members: around £330.

There was a further register for members of all-party groups, regarding their sponsorship or the
provision of secretarial assistance. The all-party beer group, for example, received support from
brewers.

A register of journalists’ interests had also been created for journalists who were passholders: i.e.
the press gallery and the lobby. They were required to register employment advantaged by the
holding of a pass, with a threshold of just over £630. The only point of the register was equity with
Members; indeed, some, such as Matthew Parris, had effectively used it to advertise that they were
‘available to write for all publications’.

All the registers were published on the internet and regularly updated. Only the Register of
Members’ Interests was published in hard copy.

74
The advocacy rule, while not prohibiting the holding of outside interests, limited Members against
doing anything to benefit a person or body which paid them. And, in addition to the obligation to
register interests, there was a wider obligation to declare an interest, which meant telling the House
of an interest relevant to any action in the House, either by saying so in debate or by having [R]
placed next to a question, early-day motion or letter to Minister.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) asked how interests should be declared in debate.

Ms Barry said that it should be done by saying “I declare an interest in XXXX”.

Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung (Hong Kong) asked whether only monetary interests had to be
registered. Would a non-paid interest in, say, a hospital group have to be registered or declared?

Ms Barry said that it would. The obligation related only to direct or indirect financial interest, though
she would generally advise the declaration of non-financial interests for reasons of transparency. No
complaint would be entertained for non-declaration of such a hospital interest, but she would advise
a Member to declare it if relevant. Apart from anything else, it would show that a Member knew what
he was talking about.

Mr Pierre Lauofo Fonotoe MP (Samoa) asked how the register was enforced without statutory
backing.

Ms Barry said that the House regulated itself and decided its own penalties, although an alleged
crime would be a different matter. In the case of a complaint, the Commissioner would report to the
Standards and Privileges Committee, which would report to the House with a recommendation for
action. The House would then make a decision and, if required, impose a penalty. Penalties might
include requiring an apology or restoration of any monies, or the withholding of salary and
suspension from the House for up to one month. The House could, ultimately, expel a Member, and
no court could intervene to prevent it from doing so. If such a Member were re-elected, he would
again be able to sit.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) asked how often Members had to register. His own
country’s register was statutory and registration was required annually.

Ms Barry said that Members had to register initially within three months of election, and then after
any change in circumstances that required registration.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) asked who could see the register.

Ms Barry said that anyone could. It was printed annually and was always available on the internet,
where it was updated every two weeks. Copies could also be inspected in the House by anyone
who wished to do so.

75
Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked whether the register could be used, in effect, to
cover up holdings in companies owned by the registered company. Was the register merely a PR
exercise?

Ms Barry said that the purpose of the register was to make information publicly available. Members
had to register holdings of 15 per cent or more of a company or worth more than £63,000. They had
also to say what the company did, and anyone could then check the company.

Mr P. K. Grover (India) asked whether candidates had to register.

Ms Barry said that they were required to tell the Electoral Commission about sponsorship, but that
the Register of Members’ Interests was only for MPs.

Dr Seh Hong Ong MP (Singapore) asked whether any study had been done into whether
registration reduced corruption.

Ms Barry said that outside paid employment had certainly reduced since registers began but she
knew of no such study.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said the UK register seemed very gentle in
comparison with the one she was used to. She was required to register credit cards, mortgage, her
husband’s interests, and every share owned.

Ms Barry said that all Parliaments had to decide for themselves how their registers worked. The
House of Commons might be perceived as having been more generous to itself than some other
Parliaments had been, or indeed than the House had been to local authorities.

76
9 March 2009
THE INDUSTRY AND PARLIAMENT TRUST
Speaker: Mrs Sally Muggeridge FRSA (Chief Executive, Industry and
Parliament Trust)
Chair: Baroness Harris of Richmond (Liberal Democrat; Trustee, Industry and Parliament Trust)
The Chairman welcomed the delegates and introduced the speaker Mrs Muggeridge.
Mrs Sally Muggeridge said that Baroness Harris was a fellow of the Industry and Parliament Trust
(IPT). Baroness Harris had taken time, under the auspices of the IPT, to visit industry representatives
to learn about some of the challenges they faced. Business was the life-blood of the delegates’ own
democratic processes in their home countries.
Both the Speaker and the Lord Speaker were Presidents of the IPT. Over 60 parliamentarians were
involved in the IPT; this meant they were getting out and seeing what was happening in the business
world.
The IPT was a process by which parliamentarians had the opportunity to engage with business, and
vice versa. It was a two-way process—Parliament learnt from business and business from Parliament.
The IPT had been operating since 1977. It was a completely non-partisan and independent
organisation, as illustrated by the presidency of the Speaker and Lord Speaker. It was a useful body for
fostering understanding and its work was very practical.
New Zealand had its own equivalent of an IPT and, in the EU, the Spanish and French had similar
schemes. They were sometimes called slightly different names in other countries. The IPT was also
seeking to foster understanding between business and parliamentarians in many of the “new”
economies, such as India.
Ms Lisa Baker MLA (Western Australia, Australia) asked about the profile of typical businesses
involved in the IPT—for example, were they large, small, or medium businesses.
Mrs Muggeridge said that, in the UK as elsewhere, small and medium enterprises were as much the
lifeblood of the UK economy as any others. It was therefore vital they had the opportunity to be
involved in the IPT, and some were. However, the IPT’s programme lasted 18 days which could
sometimes deter some smaller businesses.
Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP (Hong Kong) said that small and medium enterprises often found it
more difficult than larger businesses to cope with new legislation. He asked what role the IPT played
between businesses and MPs when a parliamentary bill affecting business was tabled.
Mrs Muggeridge said that the IPT provided a very good forum for industry and Parliament to network
together and discuss issues. However, the IPT’s role was of an educator, not an influencer. Policy was
not its responsibility, although the IPT always provided opportunities for MPs to learn more about the
industry when relevant legislation was going through Parliament.
The Chairman said that the IPT provided a very useful forum to understand what new legislation might
be coming up in the future.

77
Dr She Hong Ong MP (Singapore) asked about the funding of the IPT, and how it was ensured that
the IPT did not show preference for certain lobbyists for financial reasons.
Mrs Muggeridge said that the IPT was a charity, and so accepted donations. Businesses that
supported the IPT’s ethos—that it was a educator, not a lobbyist—sometimes gave funding. The IPT
also earned money through its training programmes which allowed business people to come to
Parliament and study the legislative process. This was important because many senior executives in
the business world did not understand Parliament.
Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked how the IPT related to the relevant business and industry
select committee in Parliament.
Mrs Muggeridge said that the IPT often invited members of the relevant select committee to learn
more about the industrial and business world. Also, business representatives were often called by the
committee to answer questions in public, and the IPT sometimes advised the witnesses on the
process. Committees were a very valuable resource for businesses to learn more about Parliament.
Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said businesses in Jamaica were subject to much “red
tape”. She asked how the IPT assisted businesses in dealing with bureaucracy.
Mrs Muggeridge said that the IPT undertook a research study last year about “red tape”. The survey
showed three out of ten parliamentarians thought red tape was a problem to businesses, compared to
ten out of ten businesses who felt the same. There was opportunity for the IPT to see how red tape
could be reduced. Pre-legislative scrutiny was important in ensuring there was not going to be an
excessive amount of red tape.
Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how the IPT chose the businesses that engaged in
dialogue with parliamentarians.
Mrs Muggeridge said that umbrella trade associations were useful in collecting a voice for the IPT to
deal with. For example, the IPT sometimes worked with the Chamber of Commerce, the Confederation
of Business Interests and the Energy Retail Association.
Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked what co-ordination took place with other organisations
outside the House of Commons, such as the House of Lords.
Mrs Muggeridge said that Lords were heavily involved in much of the work of the IPT—perhaps
because they were under fewer time-pressures than Members of Parliament.
Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho MP (Zanzibar) asked how it could be ensured that business and
parliamentarians could trust each other, and how the IPT ensured that it did not become politically
biased due to the involvement of Members from different political parties.
Mrs Muggeridge said that every businessperson was also a voter. Each side respected the other—
parliamentarians respected the interests and learning offered by business people, whilst business
people respected the time given to them by parliamentarians. Lots of rules existed to guard against
political bias. The political speakers did not represent their party, they represented Parliament.
Similarly, businesses represented their sector, not their individual interests.
Mr P. K. Grover (India) asked about the structure of the IPT.

78
Mrs Muggeridge said that the direction and control of the IPT was determined by the Board of
Trustees, on which parliamentarians were in the majority.
Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked what was the ethos of the organisation, and whether
the IPT took account of the responsibilities of businesses.
Mrs Muggeridge said that the IPT’s work was open to everybody. Big business organisations, such as
Tesco, sometimes got a bad press but some MPs were surprised to learn that Tesco was the biggest
employer in their constituency.
The Chairman thanked Mrs Muggeridge and those who had asked questions. She offered to provide
further information if delegates required.

79
9 March 2009
THE ARMED FORCES PARLIAMENTARY SCHEME
Speaker: Col. Sir Neil Thorne OBE TD DL
Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)
Col. Sir Neil Thorne said that he had previously been an MP for 13 years and also had many years
experience serving with the armed forces. Whilst an MP, he often attended debates on defence
issues involving other MPs with no military experience. The quality of the debates was so poor that
he thought he would try to improve Members’ understanding.

He approached the Industry and Parliament Trust to see whether they could initiate a scheme
involving parliamentarians and the military. However, the IPT only dealt with private industry, not
with Government. So, about 25 years ago he decided to set up his own separate scheme—the
Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. At first, neither ministers, the Civil Service, nor the military
wanted to be involved, although they all eventually warmed to the Scheme.

He decided that the best method was to start at the bottom and work up. When MPs usually went on
a military visit, they were treated as ‘two-star’, which meant they learnt very little about the troops on
the ground. With his Scheme, he took it down a level so MPs could gain a better understanding
about what was happening at the grass roots.

MPs were given combat kit. Originally, the kits were issued as and when required, but this was
considered a waste of taxpayer’s money so MPs were instead issued the kit for a year. MPs were
given a rank to put on their shoulders in order to gain more respect. The Scheme also managed to
obtain Royal Navy uniforms for the MPs. Today, uniforms were always issued to MPs because it
helped them feel embedded with the forces. A couple of MPs had visited Basra recently without
uniforms, and they had been treated very differently.

When Labour gained power in 1997, he had been asked to expand the Scheme. There were now
five MPs assigned to each service. A few years later, MPs were allowed to be assigned to a slightly
higher rank to gain experience at that level. Today, MPs could take part in all four levels of the
service.

Currently, 53 MPs were under command on the Scheme. Three ministers were currently on the
Scheme. Most Members did not want to finish the Scheme until they had graduated. Once a year,
they held a black-tie graduation ceremony in the Speaker’s House. Today, the Scheme was taken
very seriously.
A similar scheme had been established in Australia. However, he had not attempted to sell the
Scheme to other countries, because it was their decision if they wanted it. He had also had
advantages setting up his Scheme in the UK because he had both a political and a military
background. It generated confidence amongst MPs that he was able to help them.

He had been working on the Scheme for the last couple of decades. He had developed very good
relationships with all the political parties. However, sometimes problems did occur. For example, the

80
armed forces were sometimes unable to engage because they had to undertake operational
activities. Similarly, MPs sometimes had to attend debates. On the whole, however, the Scheme
worked well; several MPs had said it was the best thing they had done in Parliament.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether the quality of debates in Parliament had improved
since the introduction of the Scheme. He also asked what involvement the Scheme had had with the
Iraq conflict.

Sir Neil said that the level of debate in Parliament had improved immeasurably since the
introduction of the Scheme. There were now sufficient people knowledgeable enough to want to
speak on military issues without having to be pushed into doing so. MPs often began their time in
Parliament by being anti-military but, after spending time on the Scheme, became much more
supportive of the people serving in the military. Regarding Iraq, it would have been difficult for Tony
Blair to have achieved quite the majority he did on the vote on the Iraq War if there had not been a
Scheme. Almost 200 Members had taken part in the Scheme, which did have a material effect.

Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) asked what effect the Scheme had had on improving
Members’ knowledge of military special operations.

Sir Neil said that very effective integration took place between Members and the military, which
improved Members’ understanding substantially.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said that Australia ran a similar scheme on
a short-term basis whereby parliamentarians served as ordinary soldiers for two days in a hot part of
the Northern Territory. She asked whether the UK Scheme also operated on a short-term basis.

Sir Neil said that he had attended the commencement of Australia’s scheme. Australia was different
to the UK because of the vast distances involved. There was now some collaboration in that
Australian parliamentarians who had done their scheme three times could be seconded to the UK
Scheme.

Ms Lisa Baker MLA (Western Australia, Australia) asked that about the gender mix of the
parliamentarians who took part in the Scheme.

Sir Neil said that the Scheme was open to any parliamentarian who wanted to be involved. MPs
who undertook the Scheme often discovered that men were better at some things, and women at
others.

Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho MP (Zanzibar) asked how any political influence within the army was
dealt with.

Sir Neil said that he had been astonished to find there was still a so-called ‘Pepys Effect’ in the
Royal Navy, which was a rule that no member of the Navy could have direct contact with politicians
unless a civil servant was present. However, army officials did not polarise on particular parties. The
armed services were servants of the Crown; they were not employed by the Prime Minister but they
still had to treat the Prime Minister and his deputies with respect, and they did.

81
Monday 9 March 2009

YOUNG PEOPLE AND PARLIAMENT: ENGAGING THE NEXT GENERATION

Speakers: Mr Tom O’Leary (Head, Parliamentary Education Service)

Ms Beccy Allen (Researcher and Project Manager, Hansard Society)
Mr Alex Sergent (Project Co-ordinator, Catch21 Productions)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman welcomed the speakers and said that the 60th anniversary year of the
Commonwealth had been deemed a year for youth and indeed a number of young people had been
nominated to meet the Head of the Commonwealth that evening. In times when politicians were not
held in high esteem it was extraordinarily important to engage young people. The speakers for the
session were all actively involved in engaging young people in Parliament.

Mr Tom O’Leary said that the primary objective of the Education Service was to work with schools
and Members of both Houses. The Education Unit had been in existence for many years. 10 years
ago it had three staff but since then the need to undertake more outreach work was highlighted by
the report of the Modernisation Committee on Connecting Parliament and the Public in 2004 and the
report of the Puttnam Commission in 2005. Both of these reports contained recommendations about
the educational facilities in Parliament and there had been a substantial expansion in those facilities
and corresponding efforts to raise standards. Tom O’Leary now led a team of 21 staff and a
proposal for an Education Centre had been approved for construction in 2012-13.

The Service had three main objectives: to inform, engage and empower. Most of those who came
into contact with the service knew little about Parliament and so embarked on a journey. The main
plank of work was a series of workshops and tours in Parliament which took place during the
schools year. Each workshop involved a question and answer session with an MP. Recent years
had seen a large increase in the number of children who participated in the workshops: 11,000
children in 2005-06 and 38,000 in 2007-08. Parliament could seem an exclusive environment but it
did include children in this respect. The projected capacity of the education centre was 100,000
children a year. It was estimated that 45,000 young people a year gained access to Parliament
through their MPs.

Quality of learning was central to the Education Service. Training staff, qualitative assessment and
reviewing content were afforded high priority. Efforts to embed technology in the provision of the
service were also being made: children were digital natives and to engage them it was necessary to
provide content in up-to-date formats. A video-conferencing facility had been made available; the
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families had recently participated in such a
conference. The Education Service also provided training for teachers: whilst it could only scratch
the surface in terms of bringing the school population to Westminster, the Service trained up to
2,000 teachers a year to improve children’s political literacy.

82
Recent developments involved the convergence of the resources provided by the Unit: online
resources had been enhanced with a new website and the launch of an education channel for
Parliament. Bids to produce a 3D visualisation of Parliament with real-time representation of the
work of Parliament were being considered. The Service aimed to provide accurate and high quality
content in ways which were not too serious to engage children. DVDs were being produced for
distribution to schools and the Service was working with partner organisations such as the Youth
Parliament (which it sponsored), Aim Higher, BBC Schools Question Time, Future Lab and the
Institute for Citizenship.
Rebranding work on the Service’s publications was another development, and one which had begun
to have an impact. The collective experience of the Service showed that young people wanted
knowledge. It was when they were not equipped with this knowledge that they did not engage: the
Education Service provided resources to address this.

Ms Beccy Allen said that the Hansard Society was a charity which undertook independent non-
partisan political research and educational work to encourage greater engagement with the political
system. It had created projects and material for use by students and teachers as part of the
citizenship education programme.

The Hansard Society also aimed to encourage dialogue between young people and their
representatives, and to ensure that young people’s views were taken into account in the political
process of decision-making. The HeadsUp website, for example, was a forum for political debate
which connected young people with their peers and with decision-makers. Five forum debates took
place in each academic year, supported by the provision of material for use by teachers in
conjunction with their students’ participation in the online debate. The latest topic of debate was
crime. Teaching resources had been prepared, along with a package for students which included
video content and links to other online resources. The next stage was the forum debate among
students and teachers and legislators and other decision-makers. For example, Lord Harris,
formerly Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, was to take part in the forum.

After the forum debate ended a detailed report on the key themes to have emerged would be
prepared. This would go out to forum users, journalists and other stakeholders in the policy-making
process.

The forum itself was organised in a series of threads. Young people could create their own avatars
which gave a sense of personal attachment to participation in debate. Moderators oversaw the
debate to make sure that participants engaged with each other in a reasonable way and that other
aspects of the forum ran smoothly. Such debates put young people at the centre of the political
process: their ideas were widely circulated (recipients might include parliamentary committees, for
example). The involvement of decision-makers in the debates was important: on average 10
decision-makers participated in each forum. The website had 8,000 users: the online facility brought
together people whose contact would otherwise have been limited by geography. Whilst decision-
makers were at present involved in debates on a one-off basis, as the website developed they were
being encouraged to engage with it more regularly.

The challenges associated with running the website and forum debates included explaining to
teachers and politicians the technology involved. The format of debates could seem complicated to

83
people unfamiliar with the forum facility which was not a “live chat” but which allowed users to log in
whenever they liked. But the Hansard Society’s view was that such methods could be used more
widely in the evidence-gathering projects undertaken by Government departments and
parliamentary committees. Communication could be a challenge because of the variation in the
language with which participants were familiar. The poor reputation of consultations could represent
a barrier to participation but the Hansard Society sought to explain the differences between
HeadsUp website and standard methods of consultation.

In running the HeadsUp project the Hansard Society had distilled several key lessons to be learned
in relation to engaging with young people. It was important to be honest about the process: young
people should be told that their views would be fed in to debate with decision-makers but the
potential for influencing decisions should not be exaggerated. Content was key but it was vital that
the technology which hosted it was not too difficult to navigate. The quality of input from decision-
makers was also a significant factor in the success of a forum. Communication with participants
before, during and after each debate was vital and an outcome – the report on a forum – was
crucial.

Mr Alex Sergent said that Catch21 was a charitable production company which ran workshops and
produced shows across the UK. Aimed at 16-25 year-olds, it was run by young people for young
people. Catch21 had been set up as a production company with the express aim of engaging young
people in the political process when, in 2004, its founders had realised that traditional broadcasting
methods were on the wane and Ofcom figures showed that young people were no longer getting
their information from the television or radio news. Something was wrong with what the mainstream
media were doing in terms of explaining the political system to young people. Traditional
broadcasters needed to acknowledge that politics had changed. Catch21 recognised that political
awareness now revolved around single issues.

Catch21 had launched a web television channel. It provided cameras and space for interviews, and
posted videos. Through social networking sites such as Youtube nearly 40,000 people had watched
Catch21’s video on issues relating to sex education. The team behind Catch21 had a sense of the
style that was relevant to young people and its reporters knew how to capture this in the way that
they presented each show. Catch21’s filming and editing services were available to assist other
bodies: it could produce packages, including video content for posting on websites.

More and more young people were turning to the internet for news and on current trends it was to
be expected that all young people would get their news in this way in 5-10 years. Catch21’s aim was
to produce more content in order to make more decision-makers aware that they needed to engage
with the internet to connect with young people.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and said that they had presented examples of ways in which
young people could be engaged in the political process but did not say that their methods were the
only ones to be used.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that three attempts had been made to establish a
youth parliament in Kenya and each one had failed and asked for information about the structure of
the UK Youth Parliament. Some of the examples of Catch21’s content seemed to concern issues

84
which should be the subject of education anyway, such as sex education. The real challenge would
be to start a continuous conversation on other areas of political life, such as recent events and the
political situation in Northern Ireland.

Ms Beverley Isles (Clerk, Canada) said that the efforts of the speakers’ organisations were to be
applauded. Canada faced the same challenges in engaging the youth but also had to focus on how
to keep people engaged as they go older. Young adults needed a different type of information.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) congratulated the speakers on their work and asked
how young people were represented at the House of Commons. Training for teachers and young
people advocating for their peers was very important. Several initiatives in Africa involved proposals
to establish youth parliaments.

Mr O’Leary said that the UK Youth Parliament was an organisation separate from the Houses of
Parliament. It was a very effective organisation with local representation, which was run as a charity.
Young people were elected to the Youth Parliament and then came together to discuss and decide
on campaign issues. A motion to allow the Youth Parliament to meet in the House of Commons
chamber was before the House.

Mr Sergent noted that the Youth Parliament had effective structures for raising awareness of its
work. Catch21 helped to provide a platform for it.

The Chairman noted that a Member of the House of Commons, Christopher Chope, sought to
amend the motion before the House to prevent the Youth Parliament from meeting in the Commons
chamber. The Youth Parliament had previously met in the House of Lords, which had been pro-
active in its outreach activities in recent years.

Mr Sergent said that Catch21’s target audience was the 16-25 age group but that it aimed to build
on the audience it had and help other organisations to take this audience to the next step. Catch21
did not dictate the content of the broadcasts it put together: the young people it was trying to engage
did. Catch21 was a small organisation with limited resources but it had done some work in Belfast
and would love to be able to set up operations in a great many locations in order to be able to
provide in-depth local coverage.

Ms Allen said that the Hansard Society’s work on citizenship education focused on young people
between the ages of 11 and 18. Once young people left education it was more difficult to reach them
without extensive, and expensive, advertising campaigns. The strength of the Hansard Society,
however, was that it provided building blocks for understanding the political process. It was to be
hoped that young people would use what they had learned to engage with the political process as
adults. Other Hansard Society projects were for people of all ages – the Lords of the Blog website,
for example, which now had high-profile regular contributors, was for everyone. It was possible to
create projects that would interest young people even if such projects had not been designed with
that target audience in mind.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) noted that Jamaica had a strong youth parliament and
asked what recruitment process was used for the UK Youth Parliament. One potential barrier to

85
engaging young people was the ‘body language’ of parliament, which was often combative. Perhaps
young people would prefer to conduct themselves in a more harmonious way.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A. C. T., Australia) noted that a great many countries had much lower
levels of internet penetration than the UK. Perhaps mobile telephone technology would be more
accessible for young people in such countries. Delegates would be interested to hear more about
the level of moderation required for internet forum debates.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) asked what the governing party in the UK was doing
to engage young people.

Ms Allen said that the way in which politicians conducted themselves in debate was a major barrier
to the engagement of young people in the political process. The language of politicians was often
formal, and hard to understand. Until political processes could be shown to be composed of people
talking as they would in everyday life young people would continue to be discouraged from
participating. The Hansard Society through its work on citizenship introduced young people to
parliamentary committees, which in general operated on a less argumentative basis than
proceedings in the Chamber of the House.

The forum debates did not require extensive moderation, partly because young people often got
involved through their citizenship classes, alongside their teachers. Exchanges on the forum could
become a bit boisterous but in general they required less intervention than, for example, the political
blogs designed for adult use. The moderator’s role was to ensure that debate focused on the
chosen topic of the forum and generally to keep things running smoothly.

53% of the users of the HeadsUp website were female. Gender did not seem to be a crucial issue
for the target age group, though it was known that ‘personality politics’ was a barrier to women’s
engagement in the political process.

Mr Sergent said that Catch21 sought out harmonious ways of explaining the political process. It
referred young people to other sources of information and methods of engagement, such as the
Lords of the Blog site, and to issue-specific resources but always made sure that it presented a
balanced selection of links and tried to enhance its users’ experience of these resources by the
information it provided. Lack of funds prevented Catch21 from making use of extensive advertising
campaigns and mobile technology. Everyone who contributed content through Catch21 was a
volunteer: people got in touch to say that they wanted do produce a piece, meetings were set up
and the piece was planned. At Catch21 there was a balance between male and female staff and
contributors.

Mr O’Leary said that the Youth Parliament appeared to be representative in terms of gender
balance. It operated independently from the Houses of Parliament and had its own ways of
recruiting and engaging young people. The Education Service was not involved with the work
political parties carried out with young people.

The Chairman noted that each of the main parties in the UK had a youth wing.

86
Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) noted the Northern Territories covered
huge and remote areas and that parliament made significant investment in a remote programme.
Parliamentarians travelled to remote areas to talk to people who might not otherwise engage in the
political process at all, owing to language or other barriers.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) said that apathy amongst young people was a problem and
asked how organisations in the UK were tackling this.

Senator Wesley George (Trinidad and Tobago) said that whilst everyone would appreciate efforts
to get young people involved in the political process, it was important to ask how the success of
these efforts was measured. Such efforts had been made in Trinidad and Tobago but it was difficult
to get young people involved in decision-making forums.

Ms Allen said that technological developments had proved useful in reaching people in remote
areas with no capacity to travel. The Hansard Society had explored the issue of voter apathy. It
surveyed people who became involved in its projects: 60% of those who used the HeadsUp site, for
example, said that they were more likely to vote than they had been before using it and a great
many of the site’s users made contact with a Member of Parliament for the first time through a forum
debate. Students said that after their experiences they were more likely to take part in other political
discussions. The Hansard Society had concluded from its research on the obstacles to voter
engagement that whilst people tended to say they disliked MPs as a group, their opinion changed in
relation to MPs they met face-to-face or online. None of these efforts would solve the problem of
voter apathy but engaging young people early and making political discussion seem ‘normal’ could
help, even if it was difficult to predict the extent of a young person’s future involvement in the
political process.

Mr O’Leary said that the Education Service ran an outreach team of five staff. The team’s work had
been very successful but could only scratch the surface in terms of the population of young people it
met. The Service made sure that the format of the content it produced was as accessible as
possible but was also looking at establishing partnerships in other areas to increase its outreach
work and at providing training for teachers. The Service did not have a set approach to tackling
language barriers; it followed the lead of the institutions with which it was working. The Service was
producing publications in the Welsh language. Voter apathy was an important issue: what
constituted voter apathy was the subject of a huge debate.

The Education Service hoped to make Parliament seem relevant to young people as part of a jigsaw
of influences on their level of engagement. Success in these efforts was taken to mean the growth
of a generation of young people who understood how Parliament worked, not necessarily a
generation of young people who aspired to be directly involved as representatives. Education was
the key to ongoing engagement: the ultimate aim of the Service was to empower young people by
helping them to develop a political literacy that would give them an ability to engage with political
processes on which they could build as they grew up.

Mr Sergent said that Catch21 produced shows in different parts of the UK but limits on its resources
limited the number of people it could involve in its productions. It had run a project in the Council of
Europe, seeking views on e-democracy and the level of politicians’ engagement with new methods

87
of contributing to political debate. Catch21 measured its success by the feedback it received on its
shows. On the basis of its first 12 shows, which were based on single issues, 74% of viewer said
that they had been encouraged to vote. The shows involved representatives engaging with a
presenter and an audience and so young people felt as though their views were being heard and
this spurred them on to want to vote.

Voter apathy was one of the reasons Catch21 had been set up but it was a difficult trend to quantify
and track. When used properly as a tool the internet was an highly effective method of engaging a
large number and wide range of young people.

Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) said that the role of students in public
life should be explored and asked what the role of the UK Youth Parliament was.

Hon. Dr Joseph Sammut MP (Malta) said that parliaments had gone down in the public’s
estimation in recent years and that it was unrealistic to expect to be able to solve this problem
simply through the use of the internet.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked whether the two Houses had a programme of regular
meetings with students, and whether the role of Parliament was part of the school curriculum as it
was in Oman.

Mr O’Leary said that citizenship was taught as a subject in schools. It had been compulsory since
2002. But as a new subject it was not as embedded in the curriculum as other subjects and studies
of its effectiveness had identified political literacy as an area of weakness. This was partly
attributable to a lack of confidence on the part of teachers who were worried about the potential for
accusations of political bias. They needed a sound basis from which to teach the subject.

Every time a school visited Parliament there was an opportunity to meet MPs. The MPs were drawn
from a self-selecting group and sometimes the constituency MP of visiting pupils was not available.
However, separately from the work of the Education Service a great many Members visited schools
in their own areas.

Mr Sergent said that Catch21 recognised that the internet was not the only method of engaging
young people and that there were a great many people who did not have access to it but it did help.
Catch21 would continue to produce its shows and involve as many people as possible in their
production. Young people needed to know that their voices were being heard and they could gain
this acknowledgement from seeing the record of their views in shows which were archived on the
website.

Interest in the work of Catch21 was increasing: this in itself was a measure of its success. The
commitment of some teachers to citizenship education was not as strong as it could be but projects
such as those run by the Hansard Society and the Education Service helped to connect MPs and
schools. Catch21 contributed to this process by providing platforms for young people to make their
views known and their voices heard in Parliament.

The Chairman thanked the speakers.

88
89
Monday 9 March 2009

THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Speaker: Mr Peter Wardle (Chief Executive, Electoral Commission)

Chairman: Mr Humfrey Malins MP (Conservative; Member, Speaker’s Committee on the

Electoral Commission)

The Chairman welcomed Peter Wardle, the Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission. Mr
Wardle had previously been a civil servant and had overseen one of the first major Whitehall IT
outsourcing projects. He had also been a board member of the Inland Revenue and a director in the
Cabinet Office.

Mr Peter Wardle said that he would do four things during his talk. He would give an outline of
elections in the United Kingdom, give an overview of the Electoral Commission and its work, talk
about the role of the Electoral Commission in regulating political funding and discuss the running of
elections in the United Kingdom.

There were diverse electoral systems in the United Kingdom. There was an assumption that all the
elections were first past the post but elections for parliaments and assemblies in Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland used variations on proportional representation. Local elections in England and
Wales were first past the post but local elections in London, Northern Ireland and Scotland used
variations on proportional representation.

One role of the Electoral Commission was to make sure electors understood the rules under which
elections were being run. One example of this was that in Scotland, young people who had not
voted in the 2005 General Election would not have had the opportunity to vote in a first past post
system since then, as Scottish Parliament elections used proportional representation. The Electoral
Commission would need to ensure that these voters understood the differences between the
electoral systems used for Westminster elections and that used for Scottish elections. The biggest
source of frustration for voters was their vote not being counted due to the ballot paper being spoiled
by mistake. O

ne issue that was of concern was voter turnout. Between the elections in 1997 and 2005 there had
been a 10% drop in participation. This was the trend in most Western European democracies and
although it had been reversed in the last French Presidential election it was still a worry. Turnout
among 18-24 year olds was lower than among other age groups and older voters were more likely
to participate.

The Electoral Commission had been founded by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums
Act 2000 and resulted from recommendations put forward by the cross-party Committee on
Standards in Public Life. Other countries, such as Australia, South Africa and India had had
Electoral Commissions for much longer. There were currently six Electoral Commissioners and the
Commission had 150 staff at seven locations across the United Kingdom. The Electoral Commission

90
did not only oversee Westminster elections; they promoted integrity and public confidence in all
United Kingdom elections.

The Commission was accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee. The Committee
had to approve the forward plan of the Commission as well as the Annual Report and Accounts. The
Electoral Commission was politically neutral. Neither Commissioners nor staff of the Commission
could have been involved in politics in the past ten years. This had not worked satisfactorily and
changes were being made to reduce the time limit to five years for Commissioners and senior staff
and one year for all other staff. There would also be four Commissioners appointed directly by
political parties and there would be no ban on these Commissioners having been politically active in
the five years prior to their appointment.

The Electoral Commission also had a role in regulating the funding of elections. Their main objective
was to promote integrity and transparency in election funding by political parties. The Electoral
Commission wanted to ensure well run elections where the results were accepted and trusted.
There were 372 political parties currently registered. This number included many small, local
interest parties. Parties were removed from the register if they did not comply with the requirements.
The main requirement was to field candidates at elections. The Electoral Commission also worked
with the CPA and the Commonwealth Secretariat on foreign elections. As well as hosting visiting
officials they also liaised with other countries, particularly those with Westminster style democracies.
A recent example of this was the consultation with the Republic of Ireland. The Electoral
Commission also observed elections within OSCE countries.

There were rules about how political parties could fund election campaigns. Each overseas donation
was limited to £200 and any donation or loan over £1000 had to be reported to the Electoral
Commission. £2 million was available for policy development grants to political parties. These grants
were intended to balance the resources of the Government party in developing policy. During an
election period parities also had access to free television broadcasts and free postage for election
material. Spending by parties was limited to £19 million across all seats in the United Kingdom being
contested. At the end of campaigning parties needed to submit an account of their spending which
would be published. In 2005 some elements of the spending, such as how much was spent on hair
stylists and fizzy drinks, attracted a lot of media attention. The Electoral Commission educated
political parties in compliance. This work focused on the 20 most active parties as they were at most
risk of breaching the rules. Most sanctions available for breaches of the rules were criminal
sanctions and most breaches did not warrant this. There was pressure to introduce more civil
sanctions.

There were 45 million people on the electoral register and the most recent estimate was that
between 8-9% of people eligible to register were not on the register. The Electoral Commission had
spent time raising public awareness of the need to register to vote. Currently registration was by
household but there were move to register by individual instead. Elections were run by local officials,
the Electoral Commission ensured that Parliament got the framework right and that local officials got
the process right.

91
There had been changes to elections and how they were run. The number of people who chose to
vote using postal voting had increased. A legal framework for allowing European Union accredited
observers had been introduced.

Although they were rare, the Electoral Commission also had responsibility for referendums including
regulating funding and raising public awareness.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin MLA (Quebec, Canada) asked whether internet voting was being
explored.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked whether there was a possibility of fraud if voters moved
from one constituency to another shortly before an election and what the cut-off date for registering
at a new address was.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that there had been a problem in Jamaica with
boundaries being redrawn to give an electoral advantage. How were boundaries determined in the
United Kingdom?

Mr Wardle said that the drop in voter turnout meant that there was an interest in new forms of
voting. Between 2003-2006 internet voting was piloted. It was found not to deliver value for money.
There were concerns about fraud and there had been technical problems. It was also difficult to
verify the results of internet voting and ensure that votes were not tampered with. It was important to
be open to new channels of voting but at present internet voting would not allow for robust
regulation. Moving towards registering individuals with personal identification details made it more
likely that internet voting would be introduced in the future. It would not be possible to use pencil
marks and ballot boxes forever as everything else would move on.

In terms of registering to vote a canvas was taken at a particular point in the year. If someone
registered to vote at an address in October 2009 and then moved they would remain registered at
the first address until the canvas in 2010 unless they themselves asked to be registered at their new
address. There had been allegations of people registering at a new address close to an election but
there was no evidence that this was deliberate roll-stuffing and it was more likely that they forgot to
register at a new address until an election was approaching. There was a danger that someone
could create bogus voter registrations and there were a limited number of cases of this happening.

The Boundary Commission decided constituency boundaries and they had similar rules to the
Electoral Commission in terms of independence. The Boundary Commission would make
recommendations that were then discussed at a local hearing presided over by a judge. On the
whole, changes would be accepted.

Hon. Headley asked what determined a decision to change a boundary.

Mr Wardle said that it was based on the number of voters. The Boundary Commission tried to keep
the population of constituencies roughly the same, although they also tried not to put boundaries in
inappropriate places.

92
Hon. Samuel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) said Kenya had recently had a difficult election and the
Electoral Commission there had been disbanded and was now in the process of being reorganised.
If the United Kingdom Electoral Commission was to include four Commissioners appointed by
political parties in the future would this not politicise the organisation.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked if voters had to register every year even if they did not
move and what the minimum voting age was.

Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda (Clerk, Sri Lanka) asked what would happen in the event of a tie.

Mr Wardle said that he was not sure how having direct political appointees as Commissioners
would work. It would be beneficial if it stopped politicians of accusing the Electoral Commission of
not understanding politics. One potential disadvantage was the Electoral Commission would have to
ensure there were no allegations that one political party was being favoured above others. This
would be possible due to the United Kingdom having a tradition of senior political figures who were
no longer active as politicians being appointed to positions with constitutional responsibilities.
However, it would be the first time political figures had been asked to put aside party allegiances on
such important electoral issues. The Electoral Commission hoped that the introduction of four
Commissioner appointed by political parties would not undermine its impartiality.

Voters had to register every year but this meant they did not have to show identification to vote.
There would probably be a move away from this system to a system of personal registration and
identification. The minimum voting age was 18. In the event of a tie the vote was decided by flipping
a coin or drawing lots. Usually that happened only during local elections.

The Chairman said that when he had stood as a candidate in a local election the result had been a
tie and a coin toss had decided the result. His opponent had called tails and lost.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked whether third parties were allowed to campaign on
behalf of political parties.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) asked what could be done about the decline in voter
numbers.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how many registered political parties there were in
the United Kingdom.

Mr Wardle said that there were rules on third party campaigning. The reduction in voter turn-out
was a problem and politicians were looking at the issue. Advanced voting was one option being
looked at to increase voter turn out. It was cheaper and more secure than internet voting. There
were 372 registered political parties in the United Kingdom.

Mr Pierre Lauofo Fonotoe MP (Samoa) asked what was required of political parties in terms of
registration.

93
Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) asked whether there were concerns about observers
passing information about counts to other people and what role party representatives played in
registering voters.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked how frequently the register of voters was updated.

Mr Richard Ssendege (Clerk, Uganda) asked how political parties would make direct appointments
to the Electoral Commission.

Mr Wardle said that political parties were required to follow the rules of registration. They must
name the party leader, the treasurer and a third official and they must provide a scheme showing
how they would comply with the rules, for example fielding candidates in elections. There were also
rules about the conduct of observers. They must not interfere in any way with the voting or the
counting. It would not be possible to observe internet voting whereas parties were able to send
observers to a physical count. Party representatives were less involved in voter registration and
there were sometimes problems when they got too involved. The register was updated yearly.

The nominations for three of the four politically appointed Commissioners would be made by the
three largest parties in the House of Commons. Up to four of the smaller parties in the House could
make a nomination and the Speaker’s Committee would decide who the fourth Commissioner would
be. It was important to remember that the political appointees would not be there to represent their
own political party but political parties in general.

The Chairman said that the United Kingdom had a tradition of unusual political parties such as the
Monster Raving Loony Party. There had been some good questions and that was a testament to Mr
Wardle’s presentation.

94
Tuesday 10 March 2009

HOW IS PARLIAMENT RUN?

Speakers: Dr Malcolm Jack (Clerk of the House of Commons)

Mr David Beamish (Clerk Assistant, House of Lords)
Mr Nick Harvey MP (Conservative; Member, House of Commons Commission)

Chairman: Mr Roger Gale MP (Conservative)

The Chairman told delegates that he represented North Thanet, a constituency about 15 miles
away from Dover. He was a member of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen and the Procedure
Committee, but he was sure that he would also learn a lot from the morning’s session. Explaining
that the speakers would leave time for questions at the end, he asked Dr Malcolm Jack to take the
floor.

Dr Malcolm Jack thanked Mr Gale and commented that he had heard that the seminar was going
well. He explained that one of the paradoxes of the running of the House of Commons was that
before 1979 the House had not been in control of its own business at all. The House had been in
charge of procedure, but financial administration was then in the hands of the Treasury, which had
controlled the Commons’ money.

In the late 1970s the House of Commons had decided that the Executive should no longer be in
charge. In 1978, alongside many other reforms, the House of Commons (Administration) Act was
passed. The Act set up a House of Commons Commission, chaired by the Speaker. Nick Harvey
was currently the spokesman for this body. A Commission had existed before 1978 but had been
made up entirely of ministers (with the exception of the Speaker). Peculiarly, the House of
Commons Commission was a statutory body rather than a Committee of the House. However,
under the terms of the Act by which it was established, the Commission had to be made up of
Members. The Act also formally made the Commission the employer of all House of Commons staff
except for one or two Crown appointments. Another direct result of the Act was that the House was
able to stop using a horrid green paint, also used by the then Department of the Environment, which
had made parts of the Commons look like a large lavatory!

The House of Commons (Administration) Act was very short, which was always the best sort of Act.
It set out the principles of the new administration of the House, but left the details to be developed.
However, there was one important specific phrase in the Act: the complementing, grading, pay, and
pensions and similar benefits of staff were to be kept broadly in line with those of the Home civil
service. This had become difficult now that terms and conditions in the civil service had evolved into
something very diffuse.

The House of Commons Commission considered accommodation, allowances, staff, staff conditions
and so on. Underneath the Commission there was a myriad of other bodies. The House’s
governance was very complex, which could be seen just by looking at an organogram of senior
management. The House of Commons Commission was supported by the Finance and Services
Committee. Chaired by Sir Stuart Bell, a member of the Commission, this Committee was

95
responsible for looking at the financial side of Commission decisions. In the last financial year the
Commission had spent £150 million in cash terms on administration, and the same again on
Members’ allowances. Dr Jack was the accounting officer for both these budgets.

There were two other Committees involved in the running of the House. The first was the
Administration Committee, which represented Members’ interests as they saw them. Dr Jack
appeared before this Committee every six months for a friendly, or sometimes not-so-friendly, chat.
He viewed the Committee as an important one, since it provided a voice for backbenchers. The
Commons was after all a House for Members. The second Committee was the Committee
Members’ Allowances. This had only just been set up, after a long saga over Members’ expenses.

To one side of these Committees was the Management Board, which was made up of the heads of
the four departments of the House of Commons, who were known as Director Generals. These
individuals had responsibility for the day to day running of their departments. The Board had made a
lot of progress in the last year and half since a review by Sir Kevin Tebbit on the organisation of the
House of Commons had made recommendations for how it could better provide services for
Members in a modern context, particularly with regard to IT. Members were now demanding a
similar level of service in their constituencies to that which they received in Westminster. The IT
department, PICT, had now become a joint department with the House of Lords.

Another issue for the Management Board was the enormous challenge of maintaining the
parliamentary estate. The Palace was beautiful, but it was not the most practical of buildings and it
was very expensive to run. The iron clad roofs needed replacing, but they were a very special type
of roofing that hardly existed anywhere any more. The project to strip out and replace the entire
mechanical and electrical infrastructure, which was all past its useful life, was going to cost
hundreds of millions of pounds. The House had never had to deal with a project on that scale
before. The Tebbit review had come just in time, as the House would not have been able to handle
such a project without bringing in external expertise.

The Chairman thanked Dr Jack. He explained that Michael Pownall, Clerk of the Parliaments, was
unfortunately ill. David Beamish, Clerk Assistant, had agreed to attend in his place to explain how
things were run in the House of Lords.

Mr David Beamish said that when he had spoken to delegates last week about the legislative
process he had been able to say that the process was basically the same as that in the Commons.
He was not able to give the same message today. The House of Lords did not have an equivalent
Act to the House of Commons (Administration) Act. Its governance had just sort of grown up. The
main Act relating to administration of the House of Lords was the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824
and its main purpose had been to stop the Clerk of the Parliaments from being able to take his
salary while getting others to do the work.

Mr Beamish explained that he had joined the House of Lords in 1974. It had been very interesting to
see what had changed during his career. A lot more was now run from within the Palace of
Westminster. The purchase of additional buildings across the road had made a huge difference.
There had also been changes in publishing – previously the Government had published House of

96
Lords papers. Now Her Majesty’s Stationary Office had been privatised and the House of Lords had
a contract with The Stationery Office (TSO).

The House of Lords did not have an equivalent provision about terms and conditions needing to stay
broadly in line with the civil service. However, the Lords did try to follow the House of Commons and
the civil service in this respect although, as Dr Jack had said, this had become more difficult
following decentralisation of Government departments. Civil service pay had been set by the
Treasury but now Government departments were responsible for setting all but the most senior
salaries. This had caused difficulties within the civil service too - for example, there had been
problems during the merger of the then Agriculture and Environment departments because one had
been traditionally mean with salaries. The House of Lords now negotiated with the trades unions. Mr
Beamish considered this quite a disproportionate effort given the numbers of staff involved - about
500 in the House of Lords.

The Speakership in the House of Lords was also very different. The Lord Speaker had a lot less
power than the Speaker in the Commons. The House of Lords did have a House Committee, which
was the closest thing it had to the House of Commons Commission, but this was not a statutory
body. The Committee was the principal supervisory body for the House of Lords Administration. The
House of Lords had a rotation rule according to which Members could not stay on a Committee for
more than four or five years. This had the advantage of bringing in fresh blood, but it also meant that
Committee Members were often only interested in the short term rather than in long term strategic
thinking.

The House of Commons Management Board had just got a non-executive member. However, the
House Committee would not let this happen in the House of Lords, as Peers said that they were the
administration’s non-executives. However, Peers often did not speak with the same voice.

The House of Lords was more constrained than the House of Commons in spending public money
since it was subject to greater control by the Treasury. Often the House of Lords administration
joked that the House of Commons had it easy.

The House of Commons and House of Lords were increasingly devising ways for cooperation. Often
people were surprised at the extent to which the two organisations were separate. There was now a
bicameral group on business continuity planning. The entire building was also now looked after by a
body in the House of Commons which also served the House of Lords as customers in a shared
services model. The two Houses also shared a contract with the Metropolitan police (they were
unable to employ their own security services). The contract with The Stationary Office was also
shared, although with separate parts for the Lords and Commons, as was the contract for shorthand
writers.

Catering continued to be done separately in the two Houses. There were too many political
considerations at stake for this to be done jointly, namely the Lords believed they might lose out.
Canada had separate Post Office counters for the two chambers, so Westminster was at least doing
better than that. The Canadians had established a joint library and in Australia there was a joint
Department of Parliamentary Services. PICT was the first fully joint body of the two Houses in
Westminster. An Act of Parliament had been required to set up PICT. It had added complexity, for

97
example, there was now a third party to consider in pay negotiations. However, computer support
was now far better, particularly for Members.

The Administration Committee in the House of Commons used to be four separate Committees. The
House of Lords still had four domestic or user-group committees: the Administration and Works
Committee, the Refreshment Committee, the Information Committee, which considered both
information services to members, including library and IT, but also the information given to the
public, and the Works of Art Committee. The latter Committee’s most difficult challenge was picking
a House of Lords Christmas card every year.

The Chairman thanked David Beamish and invited Nick Harvey MP to take the floor.

Mr Nick Harvey MP introduced himself. He was a Liberal Democrat Member for North Devon, a
constituency in the South of England, and Defence Spokesperson for his party. He also had a role in
the House of Commons administration. As Dr Jack had explained, the administration of the House
had changed 30 years ago. As a Member from the second opposition party, he often felt that the
House of Commons was not independent enough of Government and looked at other countries’
separation of powers with envy. However, the Commons did have responsibility for its own
administration and this was very important. Otherwise it would be reliant on the Government of the
day for its pay and rations – a position the Government could manipulate. The system in the House
of Commons was not perfect, but it did at least have this quality.

Mr Harvey had shuddered when he heard Dr Jack describe the paint in the corridors. In the 1990s
he had had to visit the then Department of the Environment, which was in a hideous 1960s concrete
tower block. He was waiting to see John Gummer who was late, when a party of Eastern Europeans
came out. Mr Harvey asked them what they had been talking with the Minister about and they had
replied the quality of the built environment. He had reflected that the Department of the Environment
was unlikely to be able to offer much advice on moving away from concrete tower blocks.

Mr Harvey explained that having a non-executive member of the Management Board had been a
welcome development. However, MPs did provide this function also. Dr Jack and the other Director
Generals made up the Management Board. The House of Commons Commission sat alongside
this, but was responsible for looking ahead. It was a strategic body rather than a day to day body,
and was responsible for setting budgets and strategic plans. Some of these could take 20 to 25
years to complete. It was important that decisions were taken as effectively as possible to ensure
that projects went ahead without threatening the democratic work of the House of Commons. Dr
Jack attended meetings of the House of Commons Commission and the other Director Generals
attended when relevant. The Commission met approximately once a month for two or three hours,
or eight to nine times a year. This was not very often when you considered how large a levy
Parliament placed on the public purse and the responsibilities of looking after a Grade 1 listed
building and World Heritage Site.

The Administration Committee was not well named. It was a Committee of MPs, who formed a user
group of the House services. They examined issues and brought recommendations to the
Commission, which then decided whether the recommendations were justified, whether the
expenditure involved made sense and the wider context. The Audit Committee was made up of

98
Members and outside personnel. It considered audit issues as well as risk management. There were
moments when this dispersal of responsibilities could be quite frustrating. Members’ Allowances had
been horribly contentious over the last two years.

Members frequently nobbled Mr Harvey to raise micro points with him. Whenever somebody told
him that they had an idea, he would shudder, in the same way as he did when constituents told him
they had an idea at his surgery. He always urged Members with ideas to go to the Administration
Committee first, so that the Committee could act as a filter.

PICT had been a radical breakthrough. In terms of the responsible management of public money,
there had to be more scope for this sort of joint working between the two Houses. This would be
difficult with catering, though, since certain Peers would be apoplectic if they had to share their
services with the Commons. Many still hankered after meals they had eaten in public schools sixty
years ago. Yet the general public would be mystified by the extent to which everything was
organised separately. PICT should prove that it was perfectly possible to service different needs
within one organisation.

In his role as spokesman for the House of Commons Commission, Mr Harvey had two functions.
First, he was responsible for responding to Members’ questions. There were a good number of
written questions every week and an oral session once every five weeks. He did his best to answer
questions in as much detail as possible. Many Members were used to short and dismissive answers
from Government departments. He thought of himself as among friends and colleagues and
encouraged clerks who drafted initial responses to provide more information. Often he would ask
clerks to include information they had put into the background note for him within the actual reply.

The House of Commons could appear to be very introspective to outsiders. Parliamentary

sketchwriters were often rude and scathing about Mr Harvey’s replies, as if he had chosen the
questions himself. One Member had even asked what happened to the passes worn by visitors
when they left. Mr Harvey had had to read out the relevant percentages while trying to keep a
straight face. He could see sketchwriters in the gallery at the time.

Mr Harvey was also responsible for answering enquiries from the media. Sometime such queries
were not very fair, particularly on money. However, there was a lot of public expenditure involved,
and the Commission did have to account for this. There were also questions about the
environmental performance of the House, on which Mr Harvey’s response was always that the
Commission was trying to do as much as it could within the constraints of being a World Heritage
building. Heritage officers from English Heritage and UNESCO were very particular about what the
Commons could and could not do. For example, English Heritage had made detailed requirements
when a covered walkway was built. The walkway was built in an area in which there had been lots of
nasty slips in wet weather. Mr Harvey had initially thought that the project would be very
straightforward. However, heritage officers had insisted that the cover could not touch the existing
building and had to be self-standing, which had led to enormous costs. There had been a lot of
media comment, ridiculing the amount of money spent.

Mr Harvey had also read newspaper articles questioning the amount of expenditure on Mr
Speaker’s garden. Such pieces gave the impression that it was a private garden for the Speaker

99
with an arbour and so on, when in fact it was just a small bit of grass right next to Westminster
bridge and certainly not a place for sitting out in. The money had in fact been spent on making the
area more secure.

However, the biggest controversy in the media had been on Members’ expenses and allowances.
The word saga did not even begin to do justice to how dreadful this had been. From 1 April there
would be new rules and audit arrangements in place, which should place Members on the same
footing as the rest of the public sector. This new system might be uncomfortable for some Members.
However, Parliament’s reputation had taken a big knock over expenses and it was hoped that this
new expenses structure would help rebuild that reputation.

The Chairman thanked Nick Harvey. He told delegates when he had looked at a series of drawing
of the Palace, drawn after the fire in 1834, he had noticed that there was an empty chimney across
five floors, the height of Big Ben. This was because a mad leading engineer had decided to duct all
coal smoke through one chimney. The chimney was still there – Mr Gale had been inside it. The
House had wanted to use this space, but Heritage Officers would not give permission for the
chimney to be used, so it had to stand empty.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked about the numbers of staff working in the House of
Commons and House of Lords. He also wondered if any of the presenters knew the weight of Big
Ben.

Dr Jack replied that there were 1,700 staff working in the House of Commons, plus 2,500 Members’
staff, which amounted to a large amount of people.

Mr Beamish added that the House of Lords had approximately 500 staff. However, the comparison
between the Commons and Lords was a bit misleading as the Commons staff ran the building. The
only area in which Lords staff took the lead was the archives, but this only employed 20 people. The
number he had given delegates also did not include cleaners and contractors.

The Chairman explained that Big Ben was the name of the bell rather than the tower. He did not
know the bell’s weight and would have to give the usual ministerial reply: that he would write to the
delegate on that.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A.C.T., Australia) asked whether Parliament or the Executive
determined funding.

Dr Jack said that the House of Commons Commission determined funding levels. The Management
Board drew up requirements and submitted them to the Commission. The figures were also
published in the Commission’s annual report. The House was of course affected by political
pressures and what was happening in the public sector more widely. It was not a free for all.

Mr Harvey explained that there were two lines of expenditure: the Administration Estimate and the
Members Estimate. The latter paid MPs’ salaries, their staff salaries and other expenses. The first
was entirely in the control of the House. The second was in the hands of the Government. Only a
Minister of the Crown could lay an estimate to incur more expenditure on the Members Estimate.

100
Mr Beamish told delegates that in the Lords there was only one estimate. This was on the same
principles as a Government department although on the whole the Treasury did not make very much
of it. The only recent occasion in which the Treasury had looked very closely at the estimate was
when the Lords bought a new building for £50 million.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked how the members of the House of Commons
Commission were selected.

Mr Harvey replied that the Speaker was an automatic member and chair of the Commission. The
Leader of the House of Commons, who was a Cabinet Member, was also an automatic member.
The Leader of the Opposition could nominate a member. By custom, this was the shadow leader of
the House. The other three members came from each of the main parties. The process was the
same as that of nominating Members for select committees. Although the details might vary from
party to party, ultimately it was the whips who put names forward.

Hon. Brian Ntundu MP (Zambia) asked what the salary of an MP was, including allowances. He
explained that in his Parliament the Clerk of the National Assembly received five times as much as
Members. He asked whether it was the same in Westminster. He also questioned whether
Members’ allowances included car or house loans.

The Chairman jokingly asked Hon. Ntundu which newspaper he worked for.

Mr Harvey replied that an MP’s salary was £63,000. Historically it had been linked to that of a
middle ranking civil servant, but it had not really kept its value. Of the 1,700 parliamentary staff, 70
earned more than this salary. It was important to bear in mind that allowances covered real costs,
such as travel to and from a constituency, employing three or four staff, running a constituency
office and staying overnight in London. They did not form part of a salary package, but covered
actual expenses.

The Chairman stressed that the issue of expenses was a hot potato. It was also widely
misrepresented. The press, whose own expenses were legendary, tended to lump expenses
together with salary and make the false claim that Members were paid £250,000 a year. This might
be true of a ministerial salary, (dependent on rank) or that of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker
(Committee Chairmen received an additional £10,000 a year). However, it was certainly not the
case for other Members. It was important to realise that about five years ago a Member’s salary
would have been that of a headteacher of a large secondary school. Now it was likely to be the
same as that of a head of department in such a school, so Members’ salaries had fallen back.

Mr. Amjed Pervez Malik (Clerk, Pakistan) asked about the extent to which civil service practices
were followed.

Dr Jack replied that the House kept terms and conditions broadly in line with those in the civil
service, although with the dispersal of powers to set salaries previously mentioned this could be
difficult. However, the House continued to monitor salaries, as well as pensions, in the civil service.

101
The House had also worked to improve training, including for Members. Departments were now less
insular and staff were encouraged to move between departments. In order for this to be possible,
good quality training was required. The focus was now on an individual’s potential.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (Saint Lucia) asked whether budgets were approved by the Treasury
and if the House of Commons could raise revenue.

Mr Harvey said that there had never been a total standoff with the Treasury – usually it was
possible to negotiate something. On raising revenue, the House did so with catering, banqueting
facilities and shops.

Dr Jack added that as the House’s corporate officer he was responsible for signing contracts. The
House did spend large sums. It had had to negotiate with the Treasury on the building of Portcullis
House. The Treasury had taken a close interest in this project although in the end it had not
prevented it.

Mr P. K. Grover (India) asked how parliamentary staff were recruited and who was responsible for
security.

Mr Beamish explained that the House of Commons and House of Lords had a joint contract with
the Metropolitan police. Parliament did not employ the police but it did have to pay for them.
Parliament would welcome operational authority, but hiring anyone else than the Metropolitan police
would not be a good thing. There was a Joint Committee on Security which played an advisory role.
The Speakers also had a role in oversight of security, as did Black Rod and the Serjeant.

Dr Jack explained that Parliament recruited staff in a number of ways, including through the Civil
Service FastStream, specialist recruitment as well as a whole range of other routes. Parliament was
also keen to help existing staff progress to more senior roles.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) explained that in Australia superannuation
for Members had changed recently. However, this meant that there were now two types of Members
– those under the new system and those under the old.

Mr Harvey said that the House of Commons was heading in that direction. Members’ salaries were
reviewed by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Its last report had expressed concern about the cost
of the Members’ pension fund and had recommended a fundamental review. The review had now
taken place so it was possible that a new pensions system or a higher retirement age, of say 68,
would be introduced to reduce liabilities. Mr Harvey preferred the latter option.

Concluding the session, the Chairman said that he was aware that keeping delegates from their
coffee was almost as bad as keeping Peers from rice pudding. He thanked all the speakers for their
interesting presentations.

102
Tuesday 10 March

MARKING INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY: WOMEN IN POLITICS AND PARLIAMENT

Speakers: Baroness Verma (Conservative)

Mrs Betty Williams MP (Labour)

Chairman: Mr Peter Bottomley MP (Conservative)

The Chairman told delegates he had been elected in 1975. His father had worked in the
Commonwealth Relations Office. Mr Bottomley noted that the editorial in the Times newspaper that
day demonstrated that the Commonwealth was still important. Mr Bottomley described himself as a
member of the Denis Thatcher club, in that he had been married to a woman more successful than
him. His wife had been elected to the House of Commons in 1984 at a time when the House was
5% female. There had been a significant improvement since then, but there was still progress to be
made.

Mrs Betty Williams MP welcomed the delegates in Welsh, and then translated her greeting into
English. She told delegates she represented a Welsh constituency (Conwy), and came from a once
thriving slate-quarrying area, which had since become much diminished as many quarries closed.
Her father had worked in the quarries, and died at the age of 58 from silicosis. Mrs Williams believed
this was caused by a disregard for health and safety in the workplace, because the quarry owners
were only interested in profit. There had been little concern for the welfare of workers. She had seen
great poverty in her youth. Her family lived on a smallholding on the quarry’s land, and made ends
meet by keeping cows and sheep, and growing potatoes. In her school holidays, the young Betty
was expected to spend her days helping on the farm.

When she was asked in interviews what she considered her greatest achievement, Mrs Williams
always said her contribution to legislation on health and safety at work and on the national minimum
wage. She felt her father would have been proud of her for her involvement in this legislation. Mrs
Williams said her work was also affected by her experience of caring for her 35 year old son, who
was profoundly handicapped. She believed that the personal experiences of politicians should be
used to inform policies.

Mrs Williams had been elected to Conwy Parish Council in 1967, before moving to the District
Council, and then in 1977 to the County Council, the peak of the local government structure. It had
been a great honour to be elected a Member of Parliament, but it was also a great responsibility.
Mrs Williams was planning to step down from the House of Commons at the next elections, at which
point she would have been in politics for over forty years. She would not have been able to achieve
this without the help of her mother in caring for her son. Her career had been a constant balancing
act to meet the needs of both her family and her constituents.

The use of positive discrimination and all-women shortlists in the 1997 election had transformed the
composition of the Labour benches. Some people had opposed the use of all-women shortlists. Mrs
Williams had fought the Conwy seat in the 1987 and 1992 elections, and resented the fact that,

103
when she did win the seat under an all-women shortlist in 1997, she was accused of winning only
because she was a woman. She had quadrupled her majority by the 2001 election, and thought that
was down to hard work rather than being a woman. Mrs Williams believed that women approached
politics differently from men.

Mrs Williams gave the delegates some statistics on the composition of the House of Commons. 120
women were elected to the House in the 1997 election. Of these 101 were Labour, 14 Conservative,
3 Liberal Democrat and 2 Scottish National Party. Betty Boothroyd became the first female Speaker.
After the 1997 election, women still constituted only 18 per cent of the Chamber.

In the 2001 election 118 women were elected to the House of Commons, of whom 94 were Labour,
14 Conservation, 5 Liberal Democrat, and 4 from minority parties. In the 2005 election 127 women
were elected to the House, of whom 98 were Labour, 16 Conservative, 10 Liberal Democrat and 3
from minority parties. Of the 16 women MPs in Wales and Scotland, 14 were Labour. Mrs Williams
noted that none of this would have been achieved had it not been for the suffragettes. Women
needed to salute those who had been brave enough to stand up for their political rights.

Mrs Williams then gave the delegates some statistics relating to the Welsh Assembly. First elected
in 1999, 24 of the 60 Assembly Members had been women (of whom 15 were Labour, 6 Plaid
Cymru and 3 Liberal Democrat). In the 2003 Assembly elections thirty women were elected, making
Wales the first country in the world to achieve 50% female representation.

Baroness Verma greeted the delegates. She had been born in India and her family moved to
England when she was nine months old. She said she was proud to have been nominated to the
House of Lords having been born in a different country to a middle class family. She had been
nominated to the House of Lords in 2005 and first took up her seat in 2006, having delayed the date
to coincide with her mother’s birthday. She had realised that her nomination bestowed upon her
great responsibilities, especially as a woman from an ethnic minority. She had been fortunate to
reach the frontbenches of the House of Lords very quickly, and had been the first woman of Indian
origin to sit on the frontbenches in either House. The House of Lords provided an opening for
women to achieve such things. For example, Lady Amos had become the first black woman to lead
the House, while Lady Scotland had become Attorney General. Women were much better
represented in the House of Lords, but these success stories tended to be undersold because the
House of Commons had a higher profile.

Baroness Verma had recently visited Bangladesh as an election monitor. There she had met
prominent women in the Government, and noted that some of the leading portfolios in the
Government there had gone to women. Many other countries, such as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
Rwanda and Uganda, had also made significant advances in the representation of women. In
general, there was a tendency to undervalue the fact that women operated in a different way to
men. Women had different strengths, and brought a different perspective. Women in senior
positions brought different values to government.

There was still much work to be done. Domestic violence, for instance, remained a huge problem.
These issues could only be dealt with through engagement and education, on both an academic
and social level.

104
Baroness Verma said she had not been involved in public life for as long as Betty Williams. She had
started in her career at the age of 22, helping women suffering from domestic violence. Through this
experience she had realised that there was much work to be done to ensure women were properly
supported. Real structural change was required in order to facilitate women’s representation.
Women needed support in balancing family and working lives: women were not superhuman, they
had the same frailties and faults as men.

Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan) asked whether the speakers believed there was a need to
have quotas for female representation.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked what support mechanisms and resources were in
place to help women who could not enter politics without making significant sacrifices.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked whether the speakers supported quota systems and, if
so, at what point a quota system could be declared a success and removed.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) said that Rwanda had set a target that 30 per cent of all
people in decision-making parts of Government should be women. At the August 2009 election 56
per cent of elected Members were women. Other important roles, such as the Speaker, the Chief of
Justice, and the Commissioner General of the Police Force, were held by women. At a local level,
52 per cent of decision-making jobs were held by women.

Baroness Verma congratulated Rwanda on their success. She said that the United Kingdom was
still working on support mechanisms for women coming into politics. It was very difficult because
politics was so expensive that women had to sacrifice a great deal. There was still a long way to go,
and the situation could not be improved with all-women shortlists alone. Instead, it was important to
look at the root causes of why women found it difficult to enter politics. Politics was an expensive
and often lonely profession. Baroness Verma noted that Rwanda’s success derived mostly from the
use of quotas. She said she was not entirely comfortable with this method, and would explore other
options before taking this route.

Mrs Williams also congratulated Rwanda. She said that without all-women shortlists there would
not have been anywhere near as many female MPs. It was important to persuade more women to
try to be selected as candidates. Selection was the most difficult part of the process. Those women
who had already been elected to Parliament needed to act as role models for women. They also
needed to offer mentoring and support to those trying to make their way into politics.

Each political party needed to devise its own policy on selection. Mrs Williams thought that the
Labour party was making the best progress. She noted that many women had had babies and
raised families while in office, and said that if a woman applied her mind to her career she would
succeed. At the time of the conference, 19.7 per cent of Members of the House of Lords were
women, compared to 19.4 per cent of Members of the House of Commons. The House of Commons
was expected to overtake the House of Lords at the next general election.

105
Mr Ashok Bhatt MLA (Gujarat, India) asked whether the experiences of improving the
representation of women could help to overcome other barriers to representation, such as the caste
system in India.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) said she had been elected in 1997 but was also now
intending to step down. She said that it was especially hard for African women to balance the
demands of personal and professional life. She asked whether there were any female caucuses in
Parliament.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) said that the Tanzanian constitution specified a quota of at
least 30 per cent women in the elected assembly, and a process was underway to raise this to 50
per cent. She asked how political parties in the United Kingdom were encouraging women to
compete in elections.

Mrs Williams said it was up to political parties to establish their own systems to encourage women
and help them to become elected. She said that whenever she addressed schools in her
constituency she tried to persuade girls of the value, experience and enjoyment of politics. She
noted that she had needed her family’s support. She said she was impressed by the achievements
in Commonwealth countries, and believed that the UK could learn from their experiences.

Baroness Verma said that some sort of mechanism would need to be put in place to help people
from India’s lower castes to rise up through the political system. There was still significant
discrimination at caste level. However, there were some positive signs. As the largest democracy in
the world India should be seen to take a lead. As part of that, India needed to eradicate the caste
system itself instead of just creating an artificial system that would allow all castes to participate in
the political process.

It was unfortunate that the media were often not interested in positive stories about women in
politics. As such, women with successful political careers had a duty to promote their message and
act as representatives of women in parliament. Both women MPs and women peers had to work
very hard indeed.

The Chairman said he had learned a great deal from the session. He said that any substantial
change would derive from a determination to make a difference. He noted that men were five times
more likely to apply for seats once they were on an approved list. Women needed to be encouraged
to apply in the same way. A strong commitment would be needed if change was to be achieved.

106
Tuesday 10 March 2009

OPEN FORUM: REPRESENTING DIVERSITY

The delegates elected Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) as chairman of the open forum
on representing diversity.

Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) introduced the session, which would be an open
discussion. The topic of diversity was salient around the world, and covered different cultures,
religions and other factors. The issue before the delegates was how members of parliament dealt
with such issues.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) said that diversity could be cultural, ethnic or political.
Political diversity was required in every democracy and represented a diversity of ideas. It required a
tolerance of difference, including different cultures and different political views. Diversity acted to
strengthen democracy.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) said that New Zealand had a unicameral parliament that until 1996
was elected by a first past the post electoral system. Following the recommendation of a Royal
Commission, in 1996 the electoral system changed to being a mixed-member proportional system.
That had resulted in a dramatic change in the composition of the House of Representatives, with a
wide range of ethnicities represented. 36 per cent of MPs were women. There were three official
languages in New Zealand: English, Maori and sign language. Any citizen could choose Maori as
their nationality.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) said that Zanzibar was part of Tanzania but had its own
administrative structure. It was represented at the seminar by its parliament’s deputy speaker. There
were at least 120 tribes in Tanzania, all of which were represented in its parliament. A number of
other groups were also represented. However, in their day-to-day activities parliamentarians put
their tribal differences to one side.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) said that diversity was present in the elected Consultative
Council. Each of 61 districts was allocated one or two seats, according to the population. There
were 84 members in total. To be elected, candidates had to be 30 or older. Voters had to be 21 or
older. There was no gender discrimination in the parliament; the civil service recruited on merit, and
without discrimination; and labour laws allowed for no discrimination.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked why, despite the measures that had
been discussed, so few women were present at the seminar. Australia had strong anti-discrimination
laws, which made forms of discrimination a criminal offence. 45 per cent of the members of her
parliament were women; it also contained Aboriginal members, Chinese-born members and two
lesbians.

Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho MP (Zanzibar) said that his parliament was representative of the
different tribes in Zanzibar due to the work of his predecessors. Although there were many different

107
tribes they all spoke a common language: Swahili. Voters did not vote only for members of their
ethnic group.

Hon. Juhar Mahiruddin MLA (Malaysia) said that Malaysia had large numbers of people of
Chinese and Indian descent. There were almost 150 different dialects. The ruling government was a
coalition of parties based on ethnic and religious groups, which had ruled for 50 years, since
Malaysia’s independence. Its success had been based on the mutual respect between the groups.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) was interested in the diversity of her own constituents.
Within her constituency there was a diversity of educations, occupations, classes and cultures. She
sought to meet the needs of all her constituents. On seeking to become an MP she had to win an
internal party election. She had subsequently reached out to those in her party who had not voted
for her. Similarly, she sought to represent constituents who did not support her party, as the office of
an MP should welcome all constituents.

Hon. Yu Yan Tommy Cheung MP (Hong Kong) said that there was not a great deal of diversity in
Hong Kong: over 90 per cent of residents were Chinese. Most members of the Legislative Council
were Chinese. The Council had 60 members: 30 directly elected by geographical constituencies and
30 representing functional constituencies. He represented licensed restaurants. In time there would
be direct election to all seats, but there was not significant movement towards that at present.
Approximately one-sixth of members were women. In Hong Kong female longevity was the greatest
in the world, though men were catching up.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) was the member for St Michael East. St Michael was divided
into 11 constituencies. There was diversity within the city between rural and urban areas. Each
constituency had a constituency council with a budget for 15 people to look after constituents on
behalf of members of parliament. That system aided diversity. The Deputy Speaker of the Senate
was blind and a very independent person.

Hon. Harbans Kapoor MLA (Uttarakhand, India) said 50 per cent of representation on certain local
bodies in rural areas in Uttarakhand was reserved for women. There were also reservations for
different castes and tribes, and for women within castes and tribes. One-third of his party were
women.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) said that Uganda was very diverse. Geographically it was not
big, but the population was 31 million. The parliament represented all groups, including young
people, disabled people, women and religious groups. 30 per cent of members had to be women.
There were four main parties, who had all worked together since independence in 1962. No single
party was dominant. People in Uganda came from different ethnic backgrounds and spoke different
languages, but there was one official language, which was English. There was a diversity of ages of
members of parliament, and no discrimination operated in parliament.

Hon. Deependra Singh Shekhawat (Rajasthan, India) said his parliamentary system had an
ingrained democratic ethic. Different parties were represented in it, and different parties took power.
His province was looking at parliamentary reform, and he would be interested in assistance from the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

108
Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) said that six or seven of the 125 members of his
province’s parliament were from outside Canada. Native groups were not represented in the
provincial parliament, although there were 80,000 or so natives in the province. That did not set a
good example. He was interested in examining solutions to it.

Mr Pierre Lauofo Fonotoe MP (Samoa) said that the Samoan Legislative Assembly had 49
members. Four of them were women. Of those, three were in the governing party and were
members of the cabinet. The other woman was a member of the opposition and had attended
previous CPA seminars. 47 of the members were chiefs, and two were untitled. To become a chief
(and therefore a candidate) required election by families and villages, and a window of three months
for objections. It was not an easy process. The two seats for untitled representatives were reserved
for citizens with no connection to chiefs.

Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) thanked all delegates for a useful discussion. A
common thread in it was an increase in efforts to make governments and parliamentary structures
more diverse. The CPA could help those efforts. Diversity could require legislation. He closed the
session.

109
Tuesday 10 March

MPs and the Internet: Challenges and Opportunities

Speakers: Mr Derek Wyatt MP (Labour)

Ms Kerry McCarthy MP (Labour)
Ms Nadine Dorries MP (Conservative)

Chairman: Miss Elspeth Macdonald (Assistant Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates.

Mr Derek Wyatt MP, Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, demonstrated his website to the
delegates. He explained that his aim had been to exceed the circulation of the three weekly
newspapers in his constituency and that he was now doing so with approximately 15,000 views
each week. The site was updated about five times each day and, after eight years, consisted of
9,000 pages. He emphasised that sites needed to be friendly and welcoming, and highlighted the
tools available to make sites accessible to those with poor eyesight.

Mr Wyatt demonstrated some features of his site – many of which were installed free from Google or
other suppliers – including: a map, graphically representing recent constituency activity; a Flickr
account for photographs, posted without copyright and available for media use; a poll which
hopefully engaged visitors and encouraged them to visit again; and a mini-site showing videos of
Parliamentary and constituency activity. News articles were filed as Parliamentary news, local news,
or campaigning activity. A weekly diary piece was also posted to allow constituents and the media to
know his plans for the forthcoming week.

Mr Wyatt concluded by emphasising the need to keep the home page of a site up-to-date, and to
provide opportunity for comment and interaction.

Mrs Nadine Dorries MP, Member for Mid Bedfordshire, explained that as well as maintaining a web
site she also published a blog (i.e. a web diary). She had started blogging at a party conference at
the request of a television company, and based on the positive feedback she received, had
continued. She wrote on her life as an MP, and meetings which she attended. The blog made
business at Westminster more accessible to her constituents.

Mrs Dorries used the example of her campaign to change abortion limits to demonstrate the impact
of her blog. In the month of the vote on abortion limits her site had received 500,000 hits. However,
the subject matter was controversial and the site had received explicit and unprintable comments.
She had taken the decision to prevent comments being made as she felt moderation of comments
of this nature was not fair for her staff. She had also sent some comments to the police after she
became concerned that a site user might threaten her. However, she emphasised that this was a
relatively small downside against the fact that she had been able to use the site to promote her
campaign and make more people aware of the debate. She hoped to allow comments again in the

110
future. In general, readers preferred being able to make comments which were published online
quickly and as a consequence her staff had checked comments on her behalf before publication.

Mrs Dorries advocated publishing a variety of articles – including lighter, more personal stories – to
maintain interest in a website, adding that using the blog had changed the relationship she had with
her local newspapers. However, the online community was very quick at discovering and
highlighting any mistakes or inconsistencies, so care was needed. As a busy MP, she struggled to
find the time to write and tended to do so while commuting or between meetings. She urged
delegates to double-check items before publication, particularly for potentially libellous statements
and for comments that would upset the party whips.

Mrs Dorries highlighted the advantage of using the internet as a communications tool in large rural
constituencies. It was possible to monitor where viewers were based; for example, her 40,000
regular viewers were not all in her constituency. Although it was commonly held that most website
users were younger, she had had pensioners quoting her blog to her during meetings which
demonstrated that the internet can be used to target all groups. In summary, she argued that
websites let constituents feel more engaged with the political process.

Ms Kerry McCarthy MP, Labour Member for Bristol East, began by explaining that her website was
now on its third incarnation. She added that it was important to have a site which could be updated
without routing material through a developer. Her site included a facility to sign up to receive e-mails
from her, a prominent charity link on the front page, articles promoting the work of volunteers in her
constituency (“local heores”), a diary for the week ahead (including forthcoming House business),
and details of constituency and Parliamentary work. She explained that she was also aware that the
site was not only viewed by her constituents.

Ms McCarthy explained that the website was often the first port of call for people trying to make
contact with her. However, a trial of online surgeries for constituents had not yet been successful.
Parliamentary rules meant that websites paid for by public funds could not be party political and in
consequence she only included news and details of her activities. A blog was published as a second
site where she posted political comments as well as occasional frivolous items. This allowed her to
comment on current issues and let her constituents know her views. In common with Ms Dorries,
she had received a high volume of personal comments following some posts about controversial
items. She highlighted the risk that she, as operator of the site, might be held responsible for, or
associated with, defamatory comments posted on the site.

Ms McCarthy concluded by noting the emergence of Twitter, a web tool which facilitated “micro-
blogging” (i.e. short posts of up to 140 characters, which could be made by mobile telephone as well
as online). This was increasingly popular with MPs, some of whom had started using it in the
Chamber to respond at Question Time or to debates.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and invited questions from the delegates.

Mr Blaine Pedersen MLA (Manitoba, Canada) noted that many rural areas did not have broadband
access. He asked how much time the panel spent each day on updating their blogs.

111
Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) expressed concern that those without internet access, and the
illiterate, would not benefit from the information placed online.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) asked how the panel’s websites were funded, and
about the rules regarding partisan material on websites. He also asked whether the blogs recorded
the identity of those leaving comments.

Mr Wyatt explained that lack of access to broadband was also an issue in the United Kingdom: only
60% of the population had home broadband but nearly everyone had access to it. Innovative
solutions were being found, such as local pubs installing wireless links and then allowing customers
to use wifi. Widespread broadband had come about following a policy to install it in schools and
libraries.

Mr Wyatt said that his video website was funded by the House and as a consequence it could not be
political. He paid for the rest of the site and this meant he was able to include interesting content
which attracted more visitors. He used the site data tools to track visitors and thus knew that 80% of
hits came from constituents.

Mrs Dorries explained that her main site was also funded by the House and that the blog cost her
£120 per year. It was important to maintain the separation as political opponents would report any
breach of the rules.

Ms McCarthy added that her blog was hosted for free. The location of those leaving comments
could be worked out if needed. However she believed that even the nasty comments were
harmless. She had spent several hours on one post to ensure there was no way it could be
misconstrued as the press were often trying to reinterpret blog posts. It was also important to check
facts.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) noted that her constituency lacked telephone service in
some areas and that would be a priority before broadband, although infrastructure was improving.
She asked the panel what measures they had in place to avoid their sites being hacked.

Mr Wyatt emphasised the need for a reliable IT partner when installing broadband in communities,
and suggested that those areas without broadband install mobile broadband technology. He
suggested that some of the mobile telephone companies would be able to provide funding through
their charitable trusts and gave the example of improvements to crop productivity in India thanks to
the installation and provision of wireless broadband and telephone handsets. He emphasised that
an online presence was an additional form of communication and not a replacement for other forms
of contact.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) asked whether the panel’s families had read the offensive
comments left on their blogs.

Mrs Dorries noted that it was possible to block all comments on a blog. She noted that larger
websites than hers had found that not allowing rude comments meant that those attempting to post
them eventually gave up.

112
Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether there was a balance between posting online and
continuing to be effective as an MP. He also asked whether the main purpose of the sites was to
provide information to the public or self preservation.

Mr Wyatt said he spent thirty minutes each day on his site which did not stop him performing other
functions and added to his effectiveness as an MP.

Mrs Dorries believed her site had provided information and helped promote her to her electorate.
Everyone present had a majority to defend and using the internet allowed MPs to put their point of
view across before the newspapers were published.

Mr Wyatt noted that the newspaper industry was struggling to find a business model which could
make money online. He was confident that newspapers would catch up and that MPs would need to
continue to improve their websites in order to stay ahead.

113
Tuesday 10 March 2009

BROADCASTING PARLIAMENT

Speaker: Mr Peter Knowles (Controller, BBC Parliament)

Chairman: Rt Hon. the Lord McNally (Liberal Democrats)

The Chairman said that he was pleased and honoured to be chairing the session as he had long
been committed to promoting the broadcasting of the UK Parliament. It had not been a smooth
process allowing outsiders to see what went on in Parliament. Parliament had cautiously allowed
the broadcasters in and had then been pleasantly surprised as people began to better understand
Parliament. He was delighted to introduce Peter Knowles, the Controller of BBC Parliament, as BBC
Parliament was a real asset in bringing Parliament to the people.

Mr Peter Knowles said that the IPU had done a survey of the many Parliamentary channels across
the world and had found that no two were the same; there was no consistency of coverage, and the
broadcasting of some Parliaments was under the control of the Parliament itself whereas, in others,
the broadcasting was under the control of broadcasters. As the Controller of the BBC Parliament
television channel he was employed by the BBC, not by Parliament.

He was the Editor of Parliamentary Programmes which meant that, as well as BBC Parliament, he
was in charge also of the radio programmes Today in Parliament and Yesterday in Parliament, the
former having regular listening figures of half-a-million people every night. Radio still delivered a
mass audience even in the face of new technologies, and a five minute round up every morning of
the previous day’s Parliamentary business had an enormous impact.

The BBC had eight UK TV channels but BBC Parliament was small scale in terms of both budget
and people. There was an assumption amongst its viewers that they were the only person watching
the channel whereas, over the latest four month period, it was being seen by 1.6 million people –
twice as many as watched it two years ago. In common with other digital channels, the schedule for
its programmes was the same each week, so that people knew exactly when the particular
programme they were interested in would be shown. Online, the channel had three broadband
streams which would be developed into a web portal of eight streams for televising both Chambers
and committees of both Houses.

If the debates being covered were dull and dry it was sometimes hard to explain why anybody would
watch. As Bismarck had said, making laws was like making sausages – you don’t really want to
know what goes into them! When the UK Parliament was good though, it was very good, as there
were real debates; it was not just Members reading out pre-written speeches. As many of the
debates took place during the day, BBC Parliament offered a good alternative to the usual daytime
television.

The national audience rating system calculated that some 850,00 homes a month watched BBC
Parliament at some time, though it could not tell whether the channel was on all day or for just five
minutes (long enough to register that a channel was being watched). The fact that so many people

114
were now watching could be down to one of three reasons. Firstly, politics in the UK had become
exciting with the possibility of a change of Government and a new seriousness engendered by the
financial crisis. Secondly, distribution; a channel wouldn’t get an audience if it didn’t have a major
distribution platform. BBC Parliament had been available on satellite and cable for several years
and was now available full-screen on the Freeview digital channel, rather than appearing as a
quarter-screen sized box. Finally, thought had actually been given as to how best attract an
audience. For example, 2009 marked the 30th anniversary of the vote of no-confidence which had
brought down the Callaghan Government, so special events and programmes would be shown to
attract viewers. The channel was also getting a mention on BBC 1, which was helping to bring in an
audience.

The audience was split 3:1 men:women and was predominantly over the age of 55. Both could be
explained by the fact that it was being watched mainly during daytime television hours; men
preferred it to other daytime television and it was mainly the retired and semi-retired who were at
home and therefore able to watch it. There was an even spread of viewers across all social classes.
Figures for radio listeners were similar, though there were more female listeners than viewers. The
younger audience were watching mainly through the channel’s web service. Provided that there
were strong, and agreed, rules of coverage in place, it was easier for broadcasters, than it was for
politicians, to decide what shown be shown.

The Chairman said that there was one important restriction, in that proceedings in the House of
Commons Chamber took precedence over what happened in the House of Lords. At that very
moment in the Lords, one of the most powerful Ministers in the Cabinet was speaking on a very
controversial piece of legislation. However, Mr Knowles’ team would have to be covering Points of
Order in the Commons instead!

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether there were any rules on what could, and could not,
be broadcast of the UK Parliament.

Mr Knowles said that when broadcasting had first been allowed, the rules of coverage were very
tight with nothing other than a mid-shot of the person actually speaking, and a cutaway to the
person responding, being permitted. There had, however, been some relaxation of the rules and
reaction shots were now allowed so that the broadcasting of Parliament was more like other outside
broadcasts. The rules of coverage for the US Congress were very rigid with a head and shoulder
shot of the person speaking being the only one acceptable, the reason being that Members of
Congress simply turned up to read out speeches; as a result, not many Members were ever in the
Chamber.

Mr Roy said that the rules were still very tight in New Zealand.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said that in Australia broadcasters could
only show the person speaking and they were not permitted to pan across to other Members. She
asked if it was permitted in the UK to show the Speaker if he was naming a Member.

Mr Knowles said that that was permissible. It was also now allowed to show Members listening to
debates, though operators were not permitted to show, for example, people yawning! There was a

115
slight problem with the House of Lords in that loud speakers were built into the back of the benches,
so it could look as if their Lordships were falling asleep when, in fact, they were following the
debate.

The Chairman said it could look even worse if they closed their eyes whilst trying to concentrate!

Mr Knowles added that their Lordships had allowed the broadcasters in first and this had convinced
the Commons that the sky wouldn’t fall in if the cameras arrived.

Mr Amjed Pervez Malik (Clerk, Pakistan) praised C-SPAN saying it was the exemplar for all
Parliamentary channels.

Mr Knowles agreed that the network was magnificent and a good example to follow. He reminded
delegates that C-SPAN was the US cable public affairs network which operated three TV channels,
a radio channel and a website. It provided an invaluable service due to the paucity of other public
service broadcasters. It based its service on providing coverage of Congress, but also covered
other political events - including Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) from the House of Commons-
as what happened on the Floor of Congress was not as exciting as other events. It was, however,
very costly; he estimated it would now be costing in the region of $60-70 million per year and
employing some 200-300 staff. In contrast, BBC Parliament cost £2 million and employed some 20
staff, including engineers. An advantage C-SPAN had was that if anyone in the US wanted to
subscribe to cable, they had to take C-SPAN who, as a consequence, received about 4 cents from
every US cable subscriber, whether or not they watched the channel.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (Saint Lucia) asked whether the proceedings in the UK Parliament
could be broadcast live in Saint Lucia, and if BBC Parliament ever provided a spoken commentary
on what was happening in the Chamber.

Mr Knowles explained that the footprint of the satellite system used to broadcast BBC Parliament
covered Europe only; if it was to cover the Americas the signal would have to be boosted; this would
be both expensive and have to be paid for by the country that would be receiving the signal. BBC
Parliament was not allowed to intervene in Parliamentary proceedings and so did not include
commentary during its coverage, although written captions were put at the bottom of the screen and
there were round-up programmes when commentary was permitted.

The Chairman felt that sometimes it would be helpful if it could be explained to viewers what would
happen to a particular Bill.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (ACT, Australia) asked whether broadcasters had a sense of what
people wanted to watch and if there had been any research into the matter.

Mr Knowles said that he thought he did know what people wanted to watch, but that he didn’t worry
too much about it, and C-SPAN had a deliberate policy of not wanting to know what their viewing
figures were. The highlight of the week was PMQs, but, as it was possible to watch these from
many other sources, viewing figures were relatively low when compared to other major
Parliamentary occasions. BBC News took many of the main speeches live and then switched to

116
commentary and interviews. Whilst most people tended to then stick with the News channel, a
sizeable minority switched to BBC Parliament so that they could watch the rest of the speeches.
Just before Christmas 2008 there had been considerable controversy about police being allowed to
search an MP’s office at the House of Commons. The viewing figures for the ensuing debate on this
matter were higher than for the debates on the Iraq War and on tuition fees. There was a feeling in
Britain that interest in politics was dead, so it was most encouraging that BBC Parliament’s viewing
figures showed that ever more people were watching.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that the Jamaican Parliament met in plenary for one
day a week with the rest of the sitting week taken up by committee meetings. She asked if there
were any Parliamentary committees that could not be covered due to, for example, security
concerns.

Mr Knowles said that provided a committee met in public then the cameras were allowed in. About
40 committees met in public each week, and Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings were each
week set aside to show five committee hearings; with the new web portal it would be possible to
show more. It cost £400 each time a committee was filmed and, although he would like to broadcast
more committees, he was limited by time and cost implications. For example, that particular day he
had wanted to cover two Commons and one Lords committee but, in the event, was only able to
cover two of the three. He did not know of another Parliament that charged broadcasters for
pictures.

Mr P. K. Grover (Clerk, India) said that Lok Sabha ran its own dedicated service, and that they
charged if broadcasters wanted to use its output.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) said that the Australian Legislatures also
charged broadcasters for footage.

Mr Knowles said that he wished he hadn’t heard the last two comments, as it weakened his hand in
discussions with the UK Parliament!

Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho (Zanzibar) asked whether there were any proceedings in the Chamber
which could not be broadcast.

Mr Knowles said that they were not permitted to broadcast Prayers before the start of the sitting.
They were also not permitted to show any disruption in the Public Gallery, although disruptions at
the Scottish Parliament could be shown.

Hon. Harbans Kapoor MLA (Uttarakhand, India) asked if there were any restrictions on showing
committees live.

Mr Knowles said that there were no such restrictions; if a committee was sitting in public then it
could be broadcast live if the broadcasters wanted.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked if BBC Parliament ever broadcast from individual
constituencies.

117
Mr Knowles said that, with the exception of proceedings at the Greater London Assembly, they
didn’t cover local issues; such issues would be covered by regional TV and local radio stations.

Mr Ashok Bhatt MLA (Gujarat, India) asked if any actions had been brought against broadcasters
because they had covered statements made by Members making use of Parliamentary privilege.

Mr Knowles acknowledged that sometimes Members used Parliamentary privilege to say things in
the Chamber that they couldn’t say outside it for fear of being accused of slander. Provided
broadcasters simply reported what was said in Parliament they would also be protected.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) had noticed that, at night, BBC Parliament repeated old
debates, and wondered who would be watching them. She asked also what did the channel
broadcast when Parliament was in recess.

Mr Knowles said that the UK Parliament sat for more hours on more days that any other Parliament
in the world and, therefore, there were few instances of debates having to be repeated. During short
recesses BBC Parliament would, for example, broadcast a whole sequence of select committee
hearings on a particular subject or, if they were sitting, broadcast proceedings at the devolved
legislatures. During the summer recess, a sequence of political programmes would be broadcast;
they would be run automatically so there was no need for journalists or engineers to be present in
the studio. Even during the peak summer month of August the channel still attracted one million
viewers.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that in her Parliament some committees had
difficulty in getting a quorum. In the UK, did the fact that a committee was going to be televised
mean that there would be no such difficulty.

Mr Knowles doubted whether the broadcasters had that much influence on attendance! He had
recently attended Question Time for the First Minister – ie, the equivalent of PMQs - at the National
Assembly for Wales in Cardiff and had been appalled by the lack of Members in the Plenary Hall. Of
some 30 seats behind the Minister only seven were occupied. He wondered whether any one would
bother watching such proceedings on TV if Members themselves couldn’t be bothered to turn up.

The Chairman said that in the UK Parliament a phenomenon known as “doughnutting” had grown
up, whereby the few Members present would cluster around the Member speaking so that it
appeared as if the Chamber was more full than it actually was.

Mr Knowles said that one opposition party was particularly adept at this practice!

The Chairman said that he couldn’t possibly comment! He thanked delegates for a most interesting
session and particularly thanked Mr Knowles who was a professional journalist and broadcaster but
one whose love of Parliament clearly shone through.

118
Tuesday 10 March 2009

ENGAGING WITH THE MEDIA

Speakers: Miss Julie Kirkbride MP (Conservative)

Ms Sally Keeble MP (Labour)

Chairman: Miss Elspeth Macdonald (Assistant Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman began by introducing Miss Julie Kirkbride, Conservative Member of Parliament for
Bromsgrove. She said that Miss Kirkbride had previously worked as a TV and print journalist, so
was excellently placed to talk about the subject for the session, engaging with the media.

Miss Julie Kirkbride MP welcomed the delegates and began by stressing the importance of
politicians having a good media profile. She said that politicians and the media had a mutual need
for one another: politicians needed the media to report their stories, and at the same time the media
needed the stories that politicians had generated. Miss Kirkbride said that there were ways for MPs
to make things easier for themselves, and that she personally had worked very hard on her
relationship with the media. However, she accepted that she was fortunate that there were only two
local weekly newspapers in her constituency, which was easier to manage than the multiple
newspapers in big cities. She said that cutbacks in journalism had created a gap in the media world,
which politicians were able to fill themselves. As a result, she had always returned journalists’ phone
calls, and had always kept a camera with her, in case she had a chance for a good photograph in
which the papers would be interested. She concluded by stating that effective engagement with the
media allowed politicians to show that they were “around”, were “doing something”, and were
“relevant”.

The Chairman then introduced Sally Keeble, Labour Member of Parliament for Northampton North.
She told the delegates that Ms Keeble had previously worked in print journalism in South Africa, and
in the Labour Party communications team before becoming an MP.

Ms Sally Keeble MP said that there were three reasons why politicians had to work hard at their
media work. Firstly, it was an effective way of getting information across to constituents, far more
effective than mail drops. Secondly, it provided the opportunity for politicians to promote themselves,
particularly around election time. Finally, it offered the opportunity to fulfil democratic responsibilities,
for instance by replying to constituents.

Ms Keeble stated that politicians had to think about how they were presenting themselves to the
media: words, pictures, and TV interviews were all very important. She said that she had run a
project called Schools for Africa (a partnership between schools in her constituency and schools in
Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe) which had not only proved a success for the students, but had
also boosted her local media profile. She said that this was one example whereby a difficult policy
issue had been broken down and had generated positive media coverage. She concluded by stating
that if you were promoting a minority message, it was often worthwhile to get a well known
figurehead to support your campaign.

119
The Chairman said that she felt sure all the delegates had had both positive and negative
experiences with the media. She invited questions from the floor.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (Saint Lucia) asked how politicians could get the appropriate balance
between promoting themselves as a “jack of all trades”, while concentrating on a few key issues.

Miss Kirkbride replied that some MPs were regularly asked to comment on news stories. She said
that in these instances it was important not to be deliberately inflammatory to ensure high profile
coverage, but to be true to your own beliefs.

Ms Keeble advised the delegates to concentrate on a limited number of issues that they felt
comfortable commenting on. She recalled how, during her time as a journalist, it was possible to set
public figures up for a fall if they were not careful with their comments to the media.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked what strategies might be used to build a good
relationship with the media.

Ms Keeble replied that to build productive media relationships, politicians needed to talk to
journalists. She said it was important to work out the most effective media channel to use (radio, TV,
or print), and then be willing to put in the time and effort to build a good story.

Miss Kirkbride advised the delegates to call back journalists quickly, in order to meet their
deadlines. She also suggested meeting the local media face-to-face, for instance by inviting
journalists out to lunch.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether there were any media courses available
for new MPs in the UK.

Miss Kirkbride replied that Parliament did not provide such courses, but that the political parties
typically did. She said that it was worth new MPs getting media training, and that simply asking
someone to film you and then watching the recording back was a very worthwhile exercise.

Ms Keeble said that Labour MPs had a lot of media training when they were candidates. She said
that she had learnt to condense what she wanted to say into a soundbite of 100 words which
allowed her to get her points across. She advised the delegates to adapt their message and their
means of delivering it, according to their target audience.

Miss Kirkbride stressed the need to keep the message simple, and to keep repeating it. She also
suggested putting photos on the web and making them downloadable for use by the media.

Ms Keeble commented upon the need for MPs to look their best on television by wearing make-up.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Australia- Northern Territory) said that she was not able to do media
work without the permission of her party. She asked whether it was the same in the UK.

120
Ms Keeble said that she was astonished by this requirement, and that it was certainly not the case
in the UK. She said that the Labour Party would never have been able to do that, and that, if you
spoke common sense, the party would shut you up at its peril.

Miss Kirkbride said that her party would have loved to shut up its MPs, but that it wouldn’t get away
with it.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) asked how MPs should deal with being misquoted by
journalists.

Miss Kirkbride accepted that it was difficult, but suggested that taking up the issue with the editor,
or even suing, were possibilities. However, she said that this would often result in a lot of hassle.

Ms Keeble expanded upon this view by stressing that, by choosing to sue, the relationship with the
newspaper would then be in a permanently bad state. She said that it was important to weigh up
what was most important: maintaining a good relationship, or making the story more accurate.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked whether MPs should call press conferences.

Miss Kirkbride said that this was rarely necessary. Instead, journalists were often found waiting
outside high profile meetings in an attempt to hold impromptu interviews.

Ms Keeble said that there was always the danger that no-one would turn up if you called a press
conference.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (Australia- A.C.T) reflected that there had been a lot of coverage about
“hatchet jobs” on MPs in the past week. He asked how MPs could deal with such instances.

Miss Kirkbride said that if you knew a story was likely to be hostile against you, it was worth
keeping your head down for a while.

Ms Keeble said that it was an inevitable consequence of a free press that journalists would come
after you. She accepted that, because she was in elected office, she was fair game.

The Chairman brought the session to a close by commenting that the relationship between the
media and politicians was a subject close to everybody’s hearts.

121
Wednesday 11 March

THE SERJEANT AT ARMS

Speaker: Mrs Jill Pay, Serjeant at Arms

Chairman: Baroness D’Souza (Cross-bencher; Member, Joint Committee on Security)

The Chairman introduced Mrs Jill Pay, the Serjeant at Arms. Mrs Pay had worked for the House of
Commons for 14 years. In October 2004 she had been appointed the first female Assistant Serjeant
at Arms and, in January 2008, had then been appointed as the first female Serjeant at Arms.

Mrs Jill Pay said that the first Serjeant at Arms, Nicholas Maudit, had been appointed by King
Henry V in 1415. Henry V had several Serjeants; one had been sent to recruit troops for the army,
another to recruit sailors for the navy and another to keep order in the House of Commons, which
was very unruly in those days. The Serjeant took his mace, still today the symbol of the monarch’s
authority, to help him keep order. The Serjeant’s job description was “to attend the Speaker of the
House of Commons” and therefore all ceremonial events and security matters were under the
control of the Serjeant. In the Chamber, the Serjeant acted as the Executive Officer for the Speaker
(or the Deputy Speakers if one was in the Chair). The Serjeant was also, as the House official
responsible for security matters, a member of the Joint Committee on Security.

The Serjeant had responsibility for access arrangements to the House of Commons. The House
received some one million visitors a year, including school parties, film crews and visiting VIPs.
Until the recent reorganisation of the House of Commons Service, the Serjeant had formerly been
the head of their Department; now the Serjeant was head of one Directorate within the larger
Department of Chamber and Committee Services. With the assistance of a Deputy and an
Assistant Serjeant she was in charge of the Doorkeepers, the Pass Office and the Admission Order
Office – the latter being, in effect, the House of Commons’ “Box Office”. She also liaised with the
Head of Security, a senior serving Police Officer, and, working closely with Black Rod in the House
of Lords, oversaw the contract with the Metropolitan Police to provide the 500 plus police and
security officers.

The Serjeant had a key ceremonial role on State Opening Day. As Black Rod approached the
doors of the Commons, they were slammed shut on her order; they were eventually opened, again,
on her order. The Serjeant then led the procession of Members of the House of Commons to the
Lords Chamber to hear the Queen’s Speech from the Throne. On other sitting days the Serjeant,
carrying the Mace, led the Speaker’s Procession from his office to the Chamber, and then placed
the Mace on the Table of the House. Other aspects of the Serjeant’s duties included accompanying
the Speaker on official engagements, such as foreign leaders addressing both Houses and for
lyings in State, the last being for the Queen Mother in 2002.
As well as the three full-time Serjeants, she could call on two Associate Serjeants, who worked for
her for one day each fortnight covering duties in the Chamber; this was a new position she had
created following the House departmental reorganisation.

122
As would be expected, security was the House’s main concern. There were three layers of
protection; the outer perimeter which involved vehicle and personal security searches and utilised
armed police officers and the recently introduced access control system, which made use of
proximity cards and an individual pass holder’s PIN number. In order to keep the outer perimeter
secure, in addition to armed police, the Houses were also able to call on other areas of the police
force and the security service. Once inside the House, internal control was enforced by police and
security officers who randomly carried out some 1000 checks a month on the photo passes of all
people on the Parliamentary Estate. Access control had also been strengthened where public and
private areas interfaced and physical presence and technical security had been increased in public
areas. The final level of security involved the core areas, specifically the Chambers and Central
Lobby, where armed and unarmed police would prevent unwarranted access to the Chambers.
Prime Minister’s Questions represented the week’s highest risk half an hour in the week. The one
million visitors each year were now photographed and given visitor photo-passes before they
entered Parliament

Mail was another source of potential risk; all letters and parcels destined for Parliament were now
screened off-site for any offensive or hazardous material. The biggest challenge was, however, the
unknown. For example, protesters against a third runway at Heathrow had launched a rooftop
protest. Regular joint exercises with the House of Lords were carried out to test out the response in
the event of Parliament not being able to meet in Westminster.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Pay and invited questions from delegates.

Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) asked how the Serjeant at Arms was
recruited.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked how the House dealt with mail delivered by couriers,
whether perimeter security affected constituents visiting their MP and whether MPs were allowed to
approach and touch the Mace.

Senator Evaristus Jn Marie (Saint Lucia) asked whether there had been any additional security
costs following the events of 9/11.

Mrs Pay said that the Serjeant was recruited in the same way as other senior House of Commons
managers were recruited – through internal and external open competition. Mail arriving by courier
was screened on-site; if there was, however, any doubt about its safety it was sent to the off-site
facility. Visitors were only allowed unescorted access to public areas such as Westminster Hall or
Central Lobby. The public having appointments with Members had to be escorted by a pass holder
if they were visiting private areas. Crowd control was still low-tech and relied on the human element
– this was easier if the person doing the controlling was in uniform, though not necessarily a
member of the Police; Doorkeepers and Visitor Assistants often participated in controlling visitors at
Westminster. Concerning the Mace, it was the Serjeant’s job to protect it; no security officers were
allowed in the Chamber but the Serjeant was able to call on the Doorkeepers to assist if necessary,
as had been the case recently. There had been many additional costs since 9/11 connected with
employing armed police and installing the security screen in the Chamber and “blockers” as people
drove into the two Houses.

123
Mr Kevin Shiels (Clerk, Northern Ireland) asked who was the Serjeant’s equivalent in the House of
Lords and whether Members of Parliament cooperated with the House authorities during
evacuations of the House.

Hon. Jane Aagaard MLA (Northern Territory, Australia) asked whether staff of the House and
Members’ staff were security screened.

Mrs Beverley Isles (Clerk, Canada) asked if Members had been involved in the exercise for the
relocation of the Chamber and if the House’s technology had been tried out in the new location.

Mrs Pay said her equivalent in the House of Lords was Black Rod; they worked together closely on
security matters as anything affecting one House could also affect the other. MPs were not keen to
evacuate the House, and therefore sometimes they had to be persuaded as it was for their own
personal safety. All staff, whether Members’ or House, were criminally and security vetted. The
only pass holders not so vetted were MPs, Peers and their spouses. She confirmed that Members
were involved during the relocation exercise and the House’s technology was tried out during such
exercises.

Hon. Samuel Kambi MP (Kenya) asked whether, as in Kenya, issues of security in the House of
Commons were covered by Standing Orders.

Mr Ashok Chandulal Bhatt MLA (Gujarat, India) asked how the House was defended against the
use of biological agents, which couldn’t be identified by X-ray machines.

Hon Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how MPs’ email accounts were protected against
viruses.

Mrs Pay said that, in the House of Commons, Standing Orders dealt only with the House’s
Procedure; instead, matters such as security issues would be dealt with by protocols, which would
be communicated to MPs by their respective Whips. She agreed it was difficult to detect biological
agents but sniffer dogs were used and other discreet measures were in place to detect them. The
House of Commons computers were protected by a firewall to prevent outside viruses, etc, from
infecting the system.

Mr Bernard Joseph Dalinting (Clerk, Sabah, Malaysia) asked how often the House carried out fire
drills.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) asked what briefing the House provided for new MPs.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked how the Serjeant built up a good working
relationship with the Speaker and other MPs.

Mrs Pay said fire drills were carried out once or twice a year; everybody was expected to cooperate.
House Staff acted as Fire Marshalls and they, police officers and fire fighters were responsible for
checking offices. A lot of effort was now put into briefing for new MPs; a reception area was set up

124
on the first floor of Portcullis House for new MPs to get information from, for example, the Pass
Office, Finance Office, Clerks and security personnel. Police and Crime Prevention Officers also
advised new MPs on how to protect themselves, their staff and their House and constituency
offices.

In order to build a working relationship, the Serjeant was always available to individual Members,
both inside and outside the Chamber, to offer advice and assistance. With the Speaker, any
relevant information the Serjeant receives was passed on to him; for example, if the Serjeant had
been informed that a lift had broken down, this could affect Members being able to vote in time if
there was a Division. Similarly, each day the Serjeant, together with other senior Officers such as
the Clerk of the House and the Clerk Assistant, attended the Speaker’s Conference to discuss the
day’s business. The Serjeant would report details of, for example, any Mass Lobbies taking place
or other events that could have an impact on the business of the House.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Pay and delegates for a most interesting discussion and declared the
session closed.

125
Wednesday 11 March

PAYING FOR PARLIAMENT

Speakers: Mr Andrew Walker (Director General of Resources, House of Commons)

Mr Jonathan Smith (Head of Finance, House of Lords)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

Mr Andrew Walker gave a presentation about the finance arrangements for the House of
Commons, and the governance of those arrangements. He explained that there were two separate
‘Estimates’ or budgets, one for the administration and one for Members. The Administration
Estimate (£258 million for the coming year) was the budget for running Parliament and covered
costs such as staff salaries, building maintenance, staff computers, a grant in aid for the CPA UK
Branch and select committee and delegation travel by Members. It was approved by the House of
Commons Commission, laid by Mr Speaker and was under the control of the House itself. The
Members Estimate (£183 million) was laid by Treasury as part of the main Government supply. It
provided the finance for Members acting as individually elected representatives and covered the
costs of Members’ salaries and allowances.

With regard to the governance arrangements, Mr Walker explained that there were two Audit
Committees; the Administration Estimate Audit Committee and the Members Estimate Audit
Committee. The membership of the two Committees was the same. There was also an internal
audit service, and external audit was provided by the National Audit Office. The role of the Finance
and Services Committee was to oversee the expenditure of the House of Commons and to propose
its budget. Each autumn it received budget proposals from officials and made recommendations to
the House of Commons Commission.

Turning to the pay and allowances system, Mr Walker said that new arrangements were being
introduced and a revised, principles based edition of the guide for Members, (the ‘Green Book’)
came into force on 1 April 2009. A new Select Committee, the Members Allowances Committee
would adjudicate on what claims were allowable under the revised scheme.

Any increases in Members’ salary would be implemented on 1 April each year: the Senior Salaries
Review Board would have the responsibility of writing to Mr Speaker with details of the pay
increases which would be calculated according to a previously agreed formula.

Mr Jonathan Smith explained that he had the day-to-day responsibility for running finance
arrangements for staff and Members of the House of Lords. The House of Lords had one single
budget, which was provided via HM Treasury. This provided a resource budget, a capital budget
and cash. The House of Lords had a five year strategic plan; each office annually prepared its plans
for the coming three years and these were collated and reviewed by the Management Board so that
they could be presented to the House Committee for approval. A large proportion of the budget
related to book entries, for example for depreciation, partly because of the exceptional nature of the

126
premises. The four main categories of expenditure were Members expenses, staff pay, upkeep of
the Parliamentary estate and security. The House of Lords was audited in a similar way to the
Commons. The Clerk of the Parliaments was the Accounting Officer. He was supported by an
internal review team and supported by an audit committee, which had two external members.

Mr Smith explained that most Members of the House of Lords did not receive a salary, but could
claim expenses for those days on which they attended Parliamentary business. These expenses
were for travel, overnight subsistence, daily subsistence and office costs. The guide to the
allowances system was published on the internet. Around nine per cent of those Members entitled
to claim expenses did not do so. The Senior Salaries Review Board reviewed the arrangements
every three to four years and recommended whether rates should be increased; the House voted on
these recommendations and usually accepted them.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether there were any restrictions on MPs
taking on additional paid employment and questioned the lack of a salary for Members of the House
of Lords.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) asked about the provision of insurance and
pensions for Members of both Houses.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked about assets shared by the two Houses and whether
there was a single Accounting Officer for Parliament.

Mr Walker said that there was no restriction on MPs having other employment; some Members
were qualified lawyers, accountants or doctors and a few continued to practice. All that was
required was that MPs should register their interests. MPs did receive a generous pension and
were insured for public liability, travel and some legal costs, but did not have health or life insurance
provided.

Mr Smith suggested that salary was less of an issue for Lords who were appointed because of their
experience, and many of whom had another career. Only the very few salaried Members could opt
to receive a pension and the only insurance provided was for travel associated with Parliamentary
duties. Mr Smith explained that the main asset shared by both Houses was the Palace of
Westminster building. For accounting purposes this was allocated 40 per cent to the House of
Lords which was broadly in line with its space allocation. The Clerk of the House was the
Accounting Officer for the Commons, and the Clerk of the Parliaments for the Lords.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked for further clarification about the allowances available to
Members of the House of Lords and Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho (Zanzibar) asked about those
available to Speakers.

Mrs Beverly Isles (Clerk, Canada) queried whether performance audits were carried out.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) requested information about resources available for the
education of Members’ staff.

127
Mr Walker explained that there were additional salaries paid to the Speaker and Deputy Speakers
and other office holders.

Mr Smith said that in the Lords, those who received a salary generally could not claim expenses. In
both Houses, the National Audit Office was sometimes requested to carry out performance or value
for money audits, but there was no legal obligation for them.

With regard to capacity building for Members’ staff, Mr Walker explained that there was a budget for
Members’ staff training and that courses were provided throughout the country, so that staff in
constituencies were able to attend.

Mr P. K. Grover (Clerk, India) asked whether the arrangements for providing the Estimate via the
Government could be seen to compromise Parliament’s independence.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) suggested that the Houses seemed to be operating as two
separate organisations rather than two branches of the same one.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked whether there was a pay grading system.

Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) asked about Ministerial pay.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) queried whether there were funds for Members to buy cars.

Mr Walker said that in practice the Government could not interfere with the Estimate and that the
system was as independent as possible.

Mr Smith explained that the Commons and Lords were two distinct Houses, each of which wanted
to guard its independence. However, there was much joint working behind the scenes. Mr Walker
said that there was no external pay grading system, decisions rested with the House. Ministers
received a Ministerial salary which was paid by Government. There were funds available for the
main opposition party, called ‘Short’ money, to enable them to cover costs such as staff, research
and travel. With regard to funds for Members to buy cars, the mileage rate included an element for
depreciation which was intended to contribute to the wider costs of running a car.

128
Wednesday 11 March 2008

OPEN FORUM 4: RUNNING PARLIAMENTS [PMQS COMMENTARY]

Speaker: Mr Liam Laurence Smyth (Clerk of Bills, House of Commons)

Chair: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman introduced Mr Liam Laurence Smyth, House of Commons Clerk of Public Bills.

Mr Liam Laurence Smyth began by noting that the previous week delegates had watched Prime
Minister’s Questions (PMQs) with Harriet Harman standing in for the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown,
and William Hague standing in for the Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron. The Prime
Minister had been in the United States and had spoken to both Houses of Congress, while David
Cameron had been away due to a family bereavement.

Delegates were directed to take note of key ministers taking their seats and how the general
ambience of the Chamber changed as PMQs approached. Delegates were also told of key
techniques to anticipate what questions would be asked by backbench MPs. For example, press
coverage that day and over preceding days could suggest some of the issues that might come to
the fore. In addition, the order paper and the names of individual MPs might suggest constituency
based questions. For example, if a particular industry was based in a constituency an MP might ask
a question around that industry. On that basis, it was suggested that some questions might be
based on banks, Northern Ireland and the car industry. Before the Prime Minister started, delegates
were also encouraged to watch how the Speaker of the House of Commons managed questions.

The Prime Minister began by offering condolences to the families of those members of the security
and police forces who had been killed in Northern Ireland since the previous week’s PMQs. It was
noted that a sombre mood had entered the Chamber and that both the Prime Minister, the Leader of
the Opposition and subsequent speakers refrained from overtly political stances to reflect this.
Several of the speakers who made contributions regarding Northern Ireland had held Ministerial
posts associated with the province, such as Peter Hain, or represented Northern Ireland
constituencies. It was noted that it was quite unusual for the Chamber to be so quiet at PMQs. The
manner in which the Speaker chose questions from all sides of the House, especially with regard to
MPs representing different communities in Northern Ireland, was also highlighted. The Prime
Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both appeared to speak for the whole country rather than
as opposing politicians.

It was also noted how one of the MPs, Dennis Skinner, brought humour to the proceedings and that
Mr Skinner occupied a seat once used by Winston Churchill. Mr Skinner was a good example of a
Parliamentarian with an excellent attendance record and use of witty comments.

The Chairman thought that it was interesting that both Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition
wore dark suits and dark ties, which perhaps reflected the occasion and the events that had
occurred in Northern Ireland. He asked whether there were any questions.

129
Hon. Rachel Wambui Shebesh MP (Kenya) thought that more respect had been shown by some
MPs to the Prime Minister than to Harriet Harman the week before. She asked why this had been
the case?

Mr Laurence Smyth replied that if Harriet Harman had been speaking on behalf of the country as
the Prime Minister had with regard to Northern Ireland he suspected that she would have drawn the
same response. There probably would not have been the political banter that had occurred the
week before between Ms Harman and Mr Hague.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A. C. T., Australia) thought that some of the Leader of the Opposition’s
questions were interesting.

Mr Laurence Smyth was intrigued that the Leader of the Opposition had raised the issue of alleged
torture in Guantanamo Bay. Usually it would be a backbench MP that would raise such a question.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (Saint Lucia) thought that the sense of grief in the Chamber was
palpable.

The Chairman agreed that the sombre mood was very evident. He called the session to a close.

130
Wednesday 11 March 2009

RESOURCES FOR FORMER MEMBERS

Speakers: Mr Alf Bates (Former Member of Parliament; Member, Executive Committee,

Association of Former Members)
Sir John Butterfill MP (Conservative)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman announced that he would be chairing the session, as Lord Steele, who had been
scheduled to do so, was unable to attend and had sent apologies. The session would consist of
contributions from two speakers, Alf Bates a former Member of Parliament, and Sir John Butterfill, a
current Member of Parliament, executive member of the CPA UK branch and Chairman of the
Trustees of the Members’ pension fund.

Mr Alf Bates said that he was delighted to be asked to speak at the event as he was a life member
of the CPA. The CPA was an important organisation: all who believed in democracy had a great
deal to learn from each other. Mr Bates said that he had been elected a Member of Parliament 35
years previously and had been an MP for five years. There had been a large number of changes in
the services for current and former Members since that time. 35 years ago the allowance for
secretarial help for Members only covered a part-time secretary and 30 years ago, when he had left
Parliament, the allowance had amounted to one full-time member of staff. Now Members were able
to staff their offices adequately to serve their constituents.

Mr Bates said that when he had been beaten at the General Election in 1979, he had been given
one day in which to return and clear out his office and say goodbye to his secretary. His secretary
had in effect been sacked but had received no resettlement help. As a former Member he had
received a modest resettlement allowance. All of these matters had been modernised and now there
was proper help and assistance for both former Members and their staff.

Mr Bates said that when he left Parliament it had been difficult to find another job. He had claimed
unemployment benefit as any unemployed person would have. It was important to remember that in
a democracy a Member would sometimes lose their seat in an election, but the reality of losing an
election and with it a livelihood was very hard. At some elections only a few incumbent Members
might lose their seats, in others, such as 1979 and 1997, when there was a change of Government,
many lost their seats, including a number who did not expect to do so and were unprepared for the
trauma of being made redundant at a stroke.

The Association of Former Members of Parliament was a fairly recent organisation. It had begun in
2001 when the then Leader of the House, Margaret Beckett MP, moved a resolution in the House. It
had been formally established in 2005. There were currently approximately 340 members, including
two former Prime Ministers and 30 former Ministers. The initial purpose of the Association had been
to give support to former Members of Parliament as they tried to cope with the shock of losing their
seat, from others who could understand what they were going through. The Association also
allowed former Members to stay in touch with former colleagues, and to facilitate this the

131
Association had negotiated a right of access to the House for Former Members. The third thing
which the Association wished to do was to provide both a forum and a negotiating voice for former
Members to raise matters of common concern, such as pensions.

The Association produced a newsletter three times a year for Members, and also had undertaken
research, in association with the University of Leeds, about the impact on a Member of Parliament
of losing their seat. Mr Bates said that the Association would be happy to forward a copy of either its
newsletter or its research to Commonwealth colleagues. Looking to the future Mr Bates said that he
believed the expertise of former Members needed to be harnessed, for instance to talk to schools
about democracy, and to engage with organisations such as the CPA and the European institutions.

In conclusion Mr Bates said that he wished to share with the group a personal view: he believed
democracy as it was in the UK was not perfect. He felt that it was becoming ancient and creaky and
that the UK had much to learn from the newer and more vibrant systems found in many parts of the
Commonwealth, just as, as one time, Commonwealth countries had had much to learn from the UK.

Sir John Butterfill MP said that he would first discuss what the reward package should be for a
Member of Parliament. Firstly it was important to attract people from every walk of life in order that
Parliament benefited from a variety of skills and expertise. It was important that MPs should have
diverse backgrounds, such as academic, business, trade union, manufacturing etc. Such people
would be likely to have been successful in their own fields, meaning that their remuneration might
well have been more than they could expect when they became a Member of Parliament. There was
a balance to be struck between paying enough to attract the right people and not attracting people
for money alone. A Member of Parliament needed to wish to serve their electorate.

An appropriate pension was also very important, even if a former Member might not be able to draw
on it for some years after losing their seat. There were two main types of pension in the UK, defined
benefit and final salary. Currently Members’ pensions were final salary based, up to a maximum of
two-thirds of a Member’s final salary. An independent body assessed what salary Members should
be paid, and made recommendations to the Government on the matter. Recently the
recommendations of this body had been quite controversial as successive Governments had paid
less than the recommendations of the review body, meaning that over the past eleven years
Members’ pay had increased by less than the cost of living. The average tenure of a Member of
Parliament was ten years, with the average age of entry being 42 and of exit being 52. Therefore
Members were interrupting another career at a time when their earning capacity was at its peak.

Sir John explained that the costs of running a final salary scheme, which included a Board of
Trustees, investment advisers and lawyers, were high. Also, in recent years, legislation had been
introduced which inhibited the ability of the Trustees to run the scheme in an efficient manner. For
instance it was now compulsory to value the Fund every three years, and to take action to make up
any shortfall. Sir John said that he believed this to be a damaging exercise – the three year
assessment was a snapshot, which would largely depend on the value of the stockmarket at that
time, creating peaks and troughs in value. Instead Sir John supported using actuarial advice to
assess the value of the Fund over a fifty year period to allow a judgement to be made as to whether
there were sufficient funds available over a reasonable timeframe.

132
The biggest unknown factor for any pension fund was the longevity of its beneficiaries. People were
living much longer than previously, meaning that they would be paid their pension for longer. This
needed to be allowed for. Many schemes, including state schemes in a number of European
countries, were attempting to do so by increasing the retirement age for employees.

Finally, Sir John turned to allowances. Originally Members had received no assistance to undertake
their work, and had to pay for their own staff, travel and expenses. That had changed over time and
Members now received a number of allowances to assist them. Most controversially most Members
received an allowance to cover the cost of maintaining a second home. Members also received an
allowance to cover travel to and from and within the constituency. Finally Members received a
staffing allowance, equivalent to roughly two full-time staff. Postage and stationery for official use
was provided free of charge. Sir John said that the modern age had changed the way in which he
communicated with his constituents, as most now preferred to correspond via email. On a typical
day he received approximately 20 letters and 120 emails. The difficulty with email was that
constituents often expected an immediate response, whereas with a letter a constituent would
expect a reply to take a few days to arrive. A final way of connecting with constituents was through
the sending of a newsletter; the House had recently voted to introduce a Communications
Allowance to allow Members to do this. This was also controversial as it could be seen as favouring
the incumbent Member.

Mr Henri-Francois Gautrin (Quebec, Canada) said that it was inevitable that everyone attending
the conference would lose their seat at some point. The biggest challenge would be re-entering the
workforce, especially if the Member’s party had lost the election concerned. In Canada a Member
was entitled to transitional payments to ease their path, and he wondered if this was the case in the
UK?

Sir John said that in the UK those who lost their seats were entitled to up to one year’s salary,
depending on their age and length of service. On average a former Member received six months
salary, but the formula for working out what a Member was entitled to was very complex. The
Member was also entitled to retain his staff for one month to tie up loose ends and hand over
constituency work. Following this staff received a statutory redundancy pay under law, plus as the
employer the Member could decide to give a bonus which doubled the amount of redundancy pay
given to the employee. This bonus was paid by the Department of Resources.

Mr Bates said that when he had lost his seat all Members had received three months salary,
regardless of length of service, and their staff received nothing. The improvement since that time
was welcome. He personally had been out of work for nearly a year following his defeat at the 1979
General Election.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) said that in New Zealand anyone leaving Parliament received three
month’s backbench salary. There had been much bad press relating to Members pension
entitlements in New Zealand, and currently Members contributed to their pension scheme on a one
for one basis and Members could choose where to invest this from a number of approved funds.

Sir John said that normal contribution rate for Members in the UK Parliament was 10 per cent of
salary.

133
Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh (Kenya) said that for Members in Kenya the second election was
extremely important as a Member had to serve two terms to be entitled to a pension. In Kenya there
was no compulsory retirement age. Did Members in the UK have to retire once they reached the UK
retirement age?

Sir John said that there was no requirement for Members to retire at any point. It was their own
decision. The national retirement age was 65, and a Member who retired before then would receive
a reduced pension. Members who carried on after 65 and then either retired or were defeated at an
election received less resettlement grant than younger Members due to their entitlement to their
pension.

Mr Bates said that when he had been a Member of Parliament, Members had been required to
make five years of contributions before being entitled to a pension. This had now changed.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that in Jamaica former Members of Parliament not
only had access to Parliament, they were given preference above currently serving Senators on
certain special occasions.

Mr Bates said that his access to the House was restricted, and was limited to the Strangers Bar and
certain restaurants at certain times. There was no right of access to the majority of the working parts
of the Parliament such as the Library, which was understandable as Parliament was a very busy
place. The Association of Former Members had discovered that practice varied dramatically
between Parliaments, and in some European Parliaments former Members were able to speak, but
not vote, in debates.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) said that in his country with up to five years’ service a
Member was entitled to a pension at 40 per cent of salary, and with more than five years’ service
this increased to 80 per cent of salary.

Sir John said that that was similar to the benefits enjoyed by Members of the French Parliament.

Hon. Zubier Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) said that he had two questions, firstly whether gratuities
were paid to Members in addition to allowances and secondly what happened to the staff of
Members if the Member stood down or was defeated.

Sir John confirmed that Members were not paid gratuities in addition to allowances. Members of
staff were entitled to redundancy, as he had already explained. But any decent member of staff was
likely to get snapped up by an incoming Member.

The Chairman said that in the UK the hiring and firing of staff was the responsibility of the Member,
while pay was administered by the Department of Resources, who also provided assistance with HR
matters.

Sir John said that it was important to note that the Member was the employer in law – for instance
the cost of being taken to an employment tribunal would be borne by the Member not by Parliament.

134
135
Wednesday 11 March 2009

WORKING RELATIONS IN PARLIAMENT: ENSURING EXCELLENCE

Speakers: Mr Mark Hutton (Clerk of the Overseas Office, House of Commons)

Rt Hon. Alun Michael MP (Labour)

Chairman: Professor the Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative; Shadow Minister for Health)

The Chairman welcomed delegates and introduced the speakers.

Mr Mark Hutton explained the organisational structure of the House of Commons. All staff of the
House of Commons were employed by the House of Commons Commission whose head was Mr
Speaker. The House of Commons Service was independent, however the terms and conditions of
employment it provided for staff were broadly comparable with that provided by the Civil Service.

Until October 2007 the House of Commons Service comprised six departments. After a review
undertaken by Sir Kevin Tebbit, the Service was reduced to four departments. The reorganisation
had streamlined the service provided to Members. Under the old structure, some aspects of the
House service were removed from the work of MPs– the people they ultimately worked for. The new
structure had made the service to Members more joined-up. That new approach was demonstrated
by the new one-stop-shop, staffed by people from each of the House departments, which had
opened recently in Portcullis House. It was intended that Members could visit the new facility and
receive information about different aspects of the House in one visit.

The Commission had delegated a number of important functions to the Management Board by an
Instrument of Delegation. The Management Board, which also advised the Commission on strategic
matters, was chaired by The Clerk of the House, Dr Malcolm Jack. The heads of the four House
Departments were also represented on the Board: the Director General of Committee and Chamber
Services, the Director General of Facilities, the Director General of Information Services, and the
Director General of Resources. The Management Board could also appoint up to two external
members.

Despite these changes, the House remained a complex organisation. MPs carried out a wide and
varied range of tasks in a building which was not designed for modern working practices.

As a House of Commons Clerk, Mr Hutton had spent his entire career, apart from a period on
secondment to the Foreign Office, working closely with Members. Staff in the Department for
Chamber and Committee Services (DCCS) worked closely with Members. If a Clerk worked in a
procedural office they would be required to provide Members with instant advice in response to any
number of queries about House procedures. Examples included how to table a parliamentary
question or how to draft an Early Day Motion. In the Committee Office, the staff of the Committee
tended to work closely with Members over a longer period of time. Committee Inquiries were more
of a common endeavour and staff were expected to offer advice more proactively.

136
A striking aspect of Parliament was that many staff had worked there for a long time. A significant
number of staff remained in the House for the entirety of their career. Indeed many remained for the
whole of their career. It was an advantage to the House that it had many experienced and
knowledgeable staff but it was important that staff appreciated how complex the House organisation
was, particularly to new Members.

It was important to remember that politics was at the heart of everything that happened in
Parliament. In the end, everything was decided by a political imperative. In that respect it was very
different from other places of work. That was one of many factors that made parliament an exciting
and rewarding place to work.

Rt Hon. Alun Michael MP said that some House staff were very visible to Members whereas others
were not. The example given was that staff who worked in procedural offices were usually well
known to Members. However other staff, including those who worked in the Facilities department,
were not so visible even though the work they did was important to the smooth running of the
House.

It was important for MPs to develop good relationships with Clerks. Not all MPs had a good
understanding of the rules of procedure or had the inclination to acquaint themselves with it. They
therefore relied on Clerks for advice in many aspects of their work. However, MPs tended to want to
get things done quickly whereas Clerks wanted to do things in a procedurally correct way. There
was therefore a potential for frustration on behalf of MPs. It was necessary for both sides to
appreciate the other’s perspective.

Democracy was not a straightforward process. From time to time it was necessary to update certain
procedures so that it worked efficiently.

For Parliament to work effectively, clear rules of procedure were important. However, on occasion,
there were no rules to deal with a particular situation and conventions were necessary for the
system to work flexibly.

New MPs often arrived with strong values and principles which they wanted to demonstrate in
Parliament. However, many soon felt frustration with rules and conventions which they felt worked
against their interest as an MP. Parliamentary rules and procedures should uphold democracy but
should not be used to stop change.

The constituency link was vital and should be maintained. When Members spoke in the Chamber,
they were referred to by the name of their constituency, never by their real name. That practice had
for many years served as an important reminder that, although party loyalties were important,
Members were elected first and foremost to represent their constituents.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that in her experience Clerks were excellent at
their job. They ensured that Parliament was run smoothly and efficiently.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether Clerks or Members were the ultimate
authority in the UK Parliament.

137
Mr Michael said that Mr Speaker was the ultimate authority in the House of Commons. His rulings
were final. Once an MP had been made the Speaker by his colleagues, he gave up his party
affiliation to serve all MPs. On retirement, Mr Speaker would remain above party politics.

In the Welsh Assembly the Presiding Officer remained an active politician. That situation had
caused many problems within the Assembly and was a weakness in the Welsh system.

Mr Richard Ssendage (Clerk, Uganda) noted that in the Parliament of Uganda all staff, not just
Clerks, performed an important function.

Mr Hutton agreed that all staff should be valued for the work they did. In the House Service, efforts
had been made recently to move towards a common pool of research staff which comprised
researchers in the Department of Information Services and Committee Specialists who worked in
the Department of Chamber and Committee Services.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) believed that good communication between MPs and staff
was important. The Parliament in Kampala held regular training workshops so that an understanding
of the two rules was developed.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) wondered what procedures were followed in the House of
Commons when staff showed political bias.

Mr Hutton responded that the staff handbook was very clear on that matter. Senior Commons Staff
were not allowed to engage in politics at all. That meant that they could not stand for election to a
political office or express political opinions publicly. More junior staff were more allowed to engage in
local politics.

Within Parliament, all staff were required to act with integrity and in a non-partisan manner.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) said that in Ghana the Speaker was also the Leader of the
House. The current holder was not an elected politician and was a very controversial character.

Mr Michael said that in the House of Commons the roles were quite distinct. The Leader of the
House was a member of the Government whereas the Speaker’s duty was to protect the rights of
Parliament.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked whether MPs and Clerks held joint social events.

Mr Hutton said that the Sports and Social Club and the Parliamentary Choir had provided
opportunities for House staff and MPs to socialise together. Both groups also had an opportunity to
get to know each other at familiarisation workshops and other events.

Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) noted that in Pakistan Clerks were
able to stand for election once they had been retired for two years.

138
Mr Hutton said that many Clerks spent their entire career at Parliament. Once they had retired,
most Clerks had no wish to enter politics.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and delegates for their contribution.

139
Wednesday 11 March 2009

RESEARCH AND INFORMATION SERVICES FOR MEMBERS

Speakers: Dr John Pullinger (Libarian and Director General, Information Services, House of
Commons)
Ms Elizabeth Hallam Smith (Director of Information Services and Librarian, House of
Lords)

Chairman: Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP (Labour)

The Chairman began by saying that it was a pleasure to be chairing the afternoon’s session on
Research and information services for Members. She introduced Dr John Pullinger and Elizabeth
Hallam Smith, each of whom would speak for approximately 10 minutes before taking questions.

Dr John Pullinger thanked Dr Blackman-Woods for her introduction. He said that he and Elizabeth
Hallam Smith were both cheerful people as they had wonderful jobs making an unique contribution
to an informed democracy. The Libraries of both Houses were dedicated to supporting
Parliamentarians. The services they provided to Members were completely impartial and
confidential. The Department of Information Services in the Commons was increasingly taking on
the role of informing the public as well through the online publication of documents, and by going out
and giving talks around the country.

He enjoyed CPA events, in particular because they gave the opportunity for discussion with
colleagues from around the world. Talking to colleagues from relatively new Parliaments was
especially interesting. Last year, Dr Pullinger had attended and chaired an IPU conference in
Geneva on ‘informing democracy’, which had been attended by politicians, clerks and librarians. The
President of the IPU (Dr Theo-Ben Gurirab) had been elected only the day before the conference,
and had remarked to the delegates that they were the people who ensured that when he rose to
speak, he said something sensible.

Two of the biggest challenges that the Department of Information Services faced at the moment
were economic and scientific literacy amongst Members.

The House of Commons library had been founded in 1818. Dr Pullinger was the fourteenth
Librarian. The Library lost much of its original stock of books in the fire of 1834, in the time of
Thomas Vardon, the second Librarian. The Library that was built as part of the new House was quite
clearly designed around Victorian views of the role of reason in democracy. Both libraries enjoyed
excellent river-facing accommodation, and were very close to the Chambers. Dr Pullinger expressed
the view that the Library rather lost its way during the twentieth century, perhaps losing focus on its
duty to keep Members informed. During the 1940s, a Select Committee on the Library
recommended the employment of expert staff. The Library now had such a staff, the busiest of
which was the Business and Transport division.

Ms Elizabeth Hallam Smith began by explaining that the two libraries were working closely
together. She particularly enjoyed the history of the buildings in which she worked, but was aware

140
that the nineteenth century buildings had (understandably) not been designed with the needs of a
twenty-first century Parliament in mind. Her predecessor Librarians had enjoyed the provision of a
large flat on the premises with a well-stocked drinks cabinet. She had not maintained the practice of
receiving Members in her rooms.

The Library served approximately 700 Members of the House of Lords, 350-400 of whom were
regular users. Many Peers were experts in their subject areas, and had a wide range of research
needs. The thirty-five staff of the House of Lords library provided context and perspective. The
Library was working to develop a virtual library as a way of drawing together and improving
accessibility to its vast resources.

The House of Lords Library was also working to connect with the public. The ‘Lords of the Blog’
website had been very successful, and provided a model for similar projects.

The Chairman thanked both speakers for their presentations and invited questions from the floor.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) asked whether television news bulletins were archived for later
viewing.

Dr Pullinger confirmed that proceedings in the Chamber were broadcast on the internet and later
on television. Programmes were available on demand for a fortnight, and then could be retrieved, or
burnt to a DVD. Members could use the BBC’s ‘iPlayer’ service to view repeats of broadcast
television.

Ms Hallam Smith added that the ‘Parliament Live’ website kept material for one year, after which
time it was passed on for archiving at the British Film Institute.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that in Kenya, there was no culture of reading
and that information which needed hiding was safest in a book.

Dr Pullinger explained that in the modern library, people were as important as books. Library staff
gave talks, and were increasingly experimenting with new media. Some Members had strong
preferences for particular formats.

Ms Hallam Smith remarked upon the oral culture in the House of Lords. Information-seeking styles
did differ and the libraries had to cater for this.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked how much content the libraries held.

Ms Hallam Smith said that lots of information was available. Much was accessible via desktops, but
there was no substitute for telephoning or visiting the subject experts in the Library proper.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) asked about budgeting arrangements for the Library.

Dr Pullinger explained that he sat on the Management Board, which was responsible for allocating
budgets to each department. There was extra money available this year to fund a project on

141
organising information. The House of Commons’ Library divided its funds almost equally on physical
and online assets.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how far back databases were digitised.

Ms Hallam Smith said that Hansard was available online back to the early nineteenth century. Lots
of information was accessible through the Parliamentary Archives. Files could also be deposited
electronically.

Dr Pullinger said that as well as depositing documents, technology was now in place to allow
collaboration both within and without the House. The Library built links with university departments
where it could.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) asked about research services.

Hon. Claude Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone) asked whether the research that was conducted stayed
within the Library.

Mr Muhammad Khan Mengal (Clerk, Balochistan, Pakistan) asked whether the libraries only
assisted MPs and Peers.

Dr Pullinger said that the primary driver for research services was legislation. The second was
debates. Research papers related to Bills, whereas Standard Notes dealt with general topics and
were revised from time to time. POSTnotes (written by the Parliamentary Office of Science and
Technology) dealt with specialist subject matter.

The Library was seen as a place of sanctuary by Members as it was accessible only by them.

Ms Hallam Smith noted that on non-sitting days, staff of the House of Lords Library conducted
tours for librarians from outside the House. Members of the public were able to use the virtual tour
on the website.

The Chairman thanked both the delegates and the speakers.

142
Thursday 12 March 2009

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY: SUPPORTING AND STRENGTHENING

Speakers: Mr Mark Hutton, Clerk of the Overseas Office, House of Commons

Mr Ken Courtenay, General Secretary, Inter-Parliamentary Union British Group
Mr Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary, CPA, UK Branch

Mr Andrew Tuggey DL explained that his work as Secretary of the CPA, UK branch, together with
that of Mr Mark Hutton, Clerk of the Overseas Office, and Mr Ken Courtenay, General Secretary,
IPU—British Group, focussed on efforts to build and support democracy. The seminar would
explain the work they undertook but it would also provide an opportunity for delegates to help the
UK Parliament to target its work more effectively. He also noted that delegates would have the
opportunity to hear from the Speaker of North West Frontier Conference in Pakistan.

Mr Mark Hutton, Clerk of the Overseas Office, briefly explained that the work of the Overseas
Office involved facilitating visits of other parliamentarians and their staff to the UK Parliament. Each
year, parliament received over a hundred delegations from parliaments across the world. Some
came with a specific requirement in mind. For example the Iraqi Health Select Committee had
recently visited to observe and learn from the British Health Select Committee. The Overseas Office
also ran attachments for Parliamentary Officials. These attachments were extended to Clerks and
other specialist staff within the breadth of parliamentary service, from researchers to finance
professionals and lasted for 1-2 weeks.

The Overseas Office also organised outward visits. The office worked closely with the CPA, to
respond to requests from other countries to disseminate the procedure parliament. The Office did
not undertake to tell other countries how to run Parliament but rather sought to to share the UK
experience and spread good practice.

The Overseas Office was participating in an organisation called the Westminster Consortium, which
brought together a range of bodies to provide advice, assistance, training and resources to six
Parliaments, two of which were in Commonwealth countries, in order to strengthen their capacity to
hold their Executives to account. This was an attempt to develop a “bigger way” of working. It was
expected that the project would require up to five years input. The Overseas Office was increasingly
looking at longer term work and hoped that countries would take the opportunity to set up such
programme and work with the UK to deliver over time a planned strategic approach to develop
parliamentary staff.

Mr Hutton noted that although the Overseas Office continued to get very good feedback it did not
mean there was no room for improvement. He asked delegates if their priority was still procedural
capacity building targeted towards clerks, or whether more focus should be on other areas? He also
asked how the Overseas Office could develop the sustainability of its work with delegates. He was
conscious that programmes had run for many years and yet in some areas there had been little
progress.

143
Mr Ken Courtenay, General Secretary, Inter-Parliamentary Union British Group, explained that the
IPU was defined in statute as an organisation of parliaments of sovereign states. The IPU only dealt
with national parliaments. He noted that there were delegates from 25 different national legislatures
in the audience. The IPU’s headquarters were in Geneva. The IPU was founded to provide a forum
where international disputes could be resolved via arbitration. Its mission was to foster contacts
between parliamentarians.

In Westminster, the IPU was a voluntary association that worked with both Houses of Parliament
and was funded by a block grant from Parliament. UK members of the IPU provided UK
representation at the IPU assembly twice a year. The UK group run a programme of bi-lateral
contacts around the world. There had been recent visits to Bolivia, Mongolia and the UAE. The
group also provided assistance to all-party country groups affiliated to IPU and also supported their
work.

The IPU worked to promote Parliamentary Democracy. In considering what defined a democratic
parliament the IPU referred to universal values, to which parliaments should all aspire and which
retained their validity whatever the system of government. According to this definition, a democratic
parliament was representative, transparent, accessible, accountable and effective. The IPU
produced a number of books such as Parliament and democracy in the 21st Century – Guide to
good practice, and a self assessment toolkit which had been produced to enable parliaments to
evaluate their democratic performance against a set of criteria. The purpose was to help
parliaments to identify their strengths and weaknesses against international criteria, in order to
determine priorities for strengthening the parliamentary institution. The tool kit was available at
www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/self-e.pdf

The IPU also promoted peace and democracy. On human rights, Mr Courtenay noted that in some
countries the human rights of MPs were badly abused. The IPU pressured for justice for them or
the ending of their suffering or imprisonment.

Mr Tuggey said that the CPA International had 177 branches in sovereign, provisional and State
legislatures. Some were small. The CPA budget was £2.5m, of which £350,000 a year was
dedicated to parliamentary staff of 14. The CPA UK branch was funded by Parliament. Mr Tuggey
and his branch were accountable to an executive committee. The CPA was essentially a charity for
Commonwealth countries, however work was sometimes undertaken in countries which had an
interest in the Commonwealth, such as Rwanda. The CPA focussed on parliamentary strengthening
and capacity building. He had a permanent secretariat of 10 staff to support CPA-UK branch
activity. He pointed out that the UK branch could also call on the 646 MPs, 700 peers and many
people who worked in parliament to support its work undertaken by the CPA. He had found that
parliamentarians worked best with other parliamentarians as they were all members of a ‘cllub’ of
those who had stood for election.

Mr Tuggey told delegates that the programme they were undertaking was the CPA UK’s flagship
programme which included Clerks as well as Parliamentarians. Next year he hoped to involve
Serjeants at Arms as well. The CPA also ran a programme of inward visits which included a trip to
Brussels to look at EU governance issues. The CPA organised conferences on topical issues. The

144
next conference would be in July and would focus on climate change. Climate change was a major
issue for parliaments across the world.

He said that the CPA’s contribution to the work of the Westminster consortium would be to run a 3
day version of this 2 week programme for each of the countries involved.

The panel was opened to questions.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) wanted to know what work the panel had done on
women’s rights. She noted that too many UN, IPU and CPU programmes duplicated work. She
asked what controls were in place to try and stop such duplication of effort.

Mr Tuggey noted that only Uganda had deployed a filter to ensure that programmes weren’t
replicated. He recognised that it was difficult for some parliaments to turn down offers. He pointed
out that the CPA only went to a country when asked to do so.

Mr Hutton pointed out that the Overseas Office required feedback from the countries it worked with
in order to target its work effectively. He was concerned that earlier work was often repeated rather
than built on.

Mr Courtenay said that the IPU had been involved in promoting women in parliament for a long
time. It regularly published a map of women MPS across the world.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) raised the difficulties of MPs in opposition parties. She
asked if the panel would respond to an opposition request for a visit rather than government?

Mr Tuggey said that when visiting the Seychelles, the CPA had been invited by the Leader of
Government business. The CPA would only come if asked by a Parliament or the Speaker. He
hoped that such visits would be supported by government and parliament. The CPA offered
seminars on how opposition and government could work better together. Requests for visits often
came through the British High Commission or DFID.

Hon. Headley (Jamaica) was concerned that the Speaker was selected from the Government party
and that the High Commission could be biased.

Mr Tuggey explained that opposition members could contact the CPA but protocol would dictate
that the CPA would have to respond through the Speaker and High Commission.

Mr Courtenay said that IPU always insisted that meetings were conducted with opposition as well
as Government MPs. He noted that, during a recent visit to Bolivia the British IPU delegation had
attended a lunch where Government MPs were sat at one end and opposition at the other. Although
the two parties did not wish to mix, the British IPU was able to meet both.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) noted that in a recent CPA visit to Uganda, the Speaker of
the Ugandan parliament had invited all members of parliament to attend the visit.

145
Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked for more information about the Westminster
Consortium.

Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho MP (Zanzibar) asked if the CPA UK branch could write to other
branches in Commonwealth to ask for relevant topics for seminars.

Mr Tuggey agreed that the delegation visit to Uganda had been a success.

Westminster consortium was funded by DFID from the global transparency fund. It was set up to
provide sustainable parliamentary centres of excellence in Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia, Yemen,
Uganda and Mozambique. 80% of funding was required to be spent in within the country. So the
consortium had to work with partners in the host country

Mr Hutton said that the vision of the Westminster consortium might provide a method of working
which could be extended to other countries. It was sustainable and output based, which enabled
people to see what was achieved in terms of value for money.

Mr Tuggey noted that communications with national branches was principally a matter for CPA
International but CPA UK might write to other CPA branches if the other branches agreed.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked if the funding for the IPU’s UK branch came from
Geneva and if there were other IPU branches?

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked how effective the work of the IPU was.

Mr Courtenay explained that the IPU was a body with its headquarters in Geneva. The members
consisted of parliaments or parliamentary groups. In the UK the Group was constituted as a
voluntary body made up of members from the House of Commons and House of Lords. In other
Parliamens, the IPU could be a group like the UK group or the parliament itself. Work undertaken by
IPU was listed at www.IPU.org

Mr Tuggey said that he could provide delegates with a brochure setting out the work undertaken by
the CPA. He thanked delegates for their questions and concluded the morning’s discussion by
introducing the Speaker from the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, Mr Khan.

Mr Kiramatullah Khan MPA (NWFP, Pakistan) thanked delegates for their time. He explained that
he lived in part of the world which bordered Afghanistan, a country that was in turmoil. Many people
had tried to leave during the Soviet occupation. Following 9/11 NATO forces had been deployed
through Afghanistan. There was a huge problem of terrorism. NATO forces were equipped with
every sort of weapon and many resources. His police force was also on the front line and faced
similar battles with far less support.

Each night at home he learnt of the deaths from that day. They were between 5 and 50. The
terrorists targeted his police force. His policemen were only trained for basic policing and were not
equipped to deal with a huge terrorist threat. He told delegates that they needed the world to help as

146
they were not fighting for themselves alone. This was a global problem and Pakistan was fighting on
behalf of the whole world.

He asked delegates to consider helping Pakistan, through moral or material means of support.
Pakistan had a good education system, and was developing an educated unemployed graduate
force for whom opportunities could not be provided. They had thousands of graduates in every field.
Mr Khan requested that delegates asked their governments to give employment to Pakistan’s youth;
they were very hard working people.

He told delegates that he would be grateful if they would help Pakistan to combat the issue of
terrorism, for if Pakistan failed, no-one would survive.

147
Thursday 12 March 2009

CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT ROLE FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS?

Speakers: Mr Elliot Morley MP (Labour; Chairman, Energy and Climate Change Committee)
Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour; Member, Energy and Climate Change Committee)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

Mr Elliot Morley MP said that he was impressed by the conference programme, which
demonstrated that the Westminster system was dynamic and adaptive. He said that climate change
was an important example of how the parliamentary system can influence debate and decisions at
all levels. The risks and implications of climate change were so severe that international
collaboration was absolutely necessary. Different members of the international community had
different responsibilities, and he accepted that the developed world had been a major contributor to
climate change. He noted, however, that the UK could not tackle climate change alone, as it
contributed a relatively small proportion of carbon emissions. It was therefore necessary to agree a
way forward between Parliaments and Governments.

He noted that there was consensus in the UK on the science of climate change. It was agreed that
climate change had been caused by the industrial revolution, was a serious problem, required tough
decisions and a major cultural shift, and that it was imperative that an international agreement be
secured in Copenhagen in 2009. There was a lack of consensus, however, on what measures
should be implemented to address climate change, how fast these might be implemented and how
emissions reductions could be achieved. He observed that debate on climate change in the UK
centred not on whether a party would address climate change but rather about which party would do
more.

He told delegates that he was the Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, a
committee established to scrutinise the work of the recently created Department for Energy and
Climate Change. He said that the creation of this department had been the right thing to do, and that
a cross-government approach to climate change was needed. No environment ministry could make
a difference on its own without the agreement of the departments for Transport, Energy or Finance.

There was also consensus within Parliament on climate change. He had co-operated with members
of other political parties through GLOBE International and through all-party groups on climate
change and energy. Cross-party select committees held the Executive to account and undertook
inquiries. It was the role of Parliamentarians to push the boundaries and to urge the Government to
go even further in its efforts to tackle climate change.

He had recently written a letter to the Times, also signed by the Chairmen of the International
Development Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee, urging the Government to
increase its green fiscal stimulus package, of which 20% would be directed towards low carbon
technologies. This would create jobs as well as reducing emissions. The technology developed
could then be shared with emerging economies.

148
He noted that it was also the role of Parliamentarians to support the Government when it was
following the right course of action. As a result of the global economic downturn, EU member states
were at risk of diluting their efforts on climate change and reducing the stringency of the targets they
had agreed. Mr Morley said that it was important that Parliamentarians continued to push for an
ambitious position.

At a global level, Mr Morley noted that the Commonwealth was in a unique position as it represented
a cross-section of all groups of countries, and could therefore act as a forum for building consensus.
He said that it was important to build on a number of coming events, such as the G20, the G8 and
the EU Spring Council, in the approach to the meeting of the parties to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen
in 2009. Decisions taken at this meeting would affect the future of the world. He said that failure at
Copenhagen would be disastrous. Unilateral action risked provoking divisions and trade wars.

Mr Morley said that it was crucial that the democratic process was used to hold the Government to
account and to ensure that ambitious targets were established. It was important to ensure that
governments did not give in to vested interests, such as energy companies.

Turning to the costs of action, he cited Lord Stern’s report in arguing that the costs would be
manageable. There would be advantages, such as the creation of new jobs and new industries.
Developed countries did not expect developing countries to take equal responsibility, but all
countries had to work together. Parliamentarians also had a role to play in educating their own
people about climate change. In the UK, a target for emissions reductions of 80% by 2050 was now
part of the law, but this would require big changes for which Members of Parliament had to prepare
the electorate.

In conclusion, he said that Parliamentarians must ensure that governments have the right ambitions
for Copenhagen, and reminded them that failure at Copenhagen would be a disaster.

Dr Alan Whitehead MP said that he agreed wholeheartedly with what Mr Morley had said. He noted
that climate change was both simple and complex: the science was simple, but the conclusions on
action to be taken were less clear. He suggested that this was an area where arguments for small
government did not work. He argued that legislatures had a fundamental role to play in how climate
change was tackled and in how governments took part in international negotiations.

He said that science demonstrated that the world would heat up if “business as usual” were to
continue. The effects on biodiversity would be incalculable, as would the effects on sea levels and
agriculture. Business as usual was therefore not an option. Even if action was taken now, it was
nevertheless probable that the world would heat up. The earlier action was taken, the lower the rise
in temperature would be.

Dr Whitehead said that it was necessary for legislatures to determine how the radical
decarbonisation of the economy could be achieved. The difficulty lay in ensuring that life could be
lived as well as possible, but in a fundamentally different way. He said that it was necessary to
produce energy on a low carbon basis, to make transport more energy efficient, and to improve
energy efficiency in homes and workplaces. He noted that the 80% target established in the Climate
Change Act represented a strong challenge. The Committee on Climate Change had recently

149
recommended levels at which interim targets and carbon budgets should be set. The UK
Government had committed to adhering to targets established by the EU, for a 20% cut in emission
reductions and for 20% of energy to be supplied by renewable sources.

Dr Whitehead said that the new Department for Energy and Climate Change was a good fit for these
imperatives, and that its corresponding select committee was a good fit for holding the department
to account. He argued that it differed from a traditional select committee in that it was not neutral:
the question posed by the Committee was not the question of what should be done about climate
change, but rather of how fast it was necessary to act. He identified the problem of inter-
departmentalism, and noted that it was important to avoid the ghettoisation of climate change. He
used the example of waste management, for which responsibility was spread between Defra,
DECC, DCLG and DBERR.

He said that the duties of a legislature were to ensure that the Government met its targets and to
ensure that it moved beyond these targets if possible. It was also the role of Parliamentarians to
support governments when they achieved their targets.

Dr Whitehead described a number of ways in which the economy could additionally reduce carbon.
He noted that household circulation pumps consumed 5% of the household’s energy, but that most
were very inefficient. He argued that Parliaments should effect a change in building regulations.
These small details could be examined by individual Parliamentarians and by parliamentary
committees. He told delegates that he was the Chair of two all party parliamentary groups, which
were able to command attention in Parliament.

He concluded by reminding delegates that it was necessary to link what Parliament was doing with
the actions of local people and local government. Measures to address climate change were
necessary at all levels of society, from international negotiations to individual actions.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) said that African countries were beginning to unite in
order to present a united position at Copenhagen. It was necessary to give climate change visibility
in Africa; while most countries placed responsibility for climate change in their environment
department, it was necessary for Heads of Government, Presidents or Vice Presidents to take
responsibility. In Kenya, the Prime Minister had ownership of climate change policy. A coalition of
East African countries had produced model climate change legislation for African countries.

She noted that Africa’s major contribution to climate change was made through logging. Since Africa
was vulnerable to climate change, it was necessary for African countries to engage in efforts to
combat it. She said that African countries were asking for support from countries that were more
advanced on this issue, and were asking for assistance in achieving food security. They were also
asking for adaptation to be made a priority at Copenhagen.

She said it was necessary for Parliamentarians to bring their people on board. Climate change was
a cultural issue and people needed to be educated about the changes they could expect to see. It
was necessary that this message reach the grassroots, especially the women who went to fetch
water.

150
Hon Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) said that climate change was a bigger problem than
AIDS. Africa’s contribution to climate change was less than 2%, and the major contributors were the
USA and Russia. These countries had not even ratified the Kyoto protocol. He said that African
countries did not have the necessary resources to manage change. He said that the developed
world must help Africa today. He asked how developed countries would ensure that African nations
could benefit from carbon credits.

Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA (A.C.T., Australia) said he had been in Bali in 2007 and noted
significant divisions between countries. He asked if this had changed in the intervening years,
especially with the recent change to the US presidency.

Mr Ashok Bhatt MLA (Gujurat, India) said that his region had created a separate department for
climate change, to co-ordinate departments and manage changes to legislation. This department
would also deal with carbon credits, water management and in stimulating a green revolution among
the people.

Mr Morley said that it was true that the USA, Russia and China were not doing as much as they
should be to tackle climate change. He hoped that the election of President Obama was cause for
optimism. He noted that China was the world’s biggest polluter, but that emissions per capita were
highest in Australia. Poorer countries contributed to climate change through deforestation. He said
that part of the deal in Copenhagen would be that developed countries would make money available
for adaptation and the transfer of technology. It was necessary that this be part of the package
offered, to reflect the differing levels of responsibility. Citing the example of African nations that had
adopted mobile telephone networks without first establishing a fixed landline network, he suggested
that it might be possible for developing countries to move immediately to decentralised renewable
power generation in local communities.

On carbon credits, he noted that African countries were not often successful at profiting from CDM
projects. Such projects offered an opportunity for money to be transferred from developed nations to
merging economies. He said that global carbon trading was important because it would place a cap
on emissions. It also offered an opportunity for a levy to be placed on credits, and money generated
by this could be channelled into adaptation funds.

He was pleased to hear about the creation of a department for climate change in Gujurat and said
that this highlighted the important role of regional assemblies. There were many examples of good
practice in regional government from which central government could learn.

He said that change in the USA was positive but that the American political system was often slow
to move. He expressed concern that change might not take place in time for Copenhagen. He said
that it would be difficult to change the position of China and India, but noted that the parliamentary
process was the means to achieve this.

Dr Whitehead said that he agreed with Mr Morley’s optimism about the situation in the USA but also
with his concern that change would not come fast enough.

151
He said that the UK’s target of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 was a sign that the UK
recognised the differential contributions of different states to climate change. He noted that the UK’s
contribution was relatively small when compared with that of the US, but said that this ambitious
target demonstrated the UK’s responsibility for climate change.

Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) said that, more than AIDS, climate change affected ordinary
women through flooding and drought. She proposed a year of action on climate change and asked
how the melting of ice sheets could be halted.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked whether manufacturers were playing a role in the fight
against climate change. He asked whether there was interaction between manufactures and
government, especially in encouraging the production of hybrid vehicles.

Mr Eric Roy MP (New Zealand) said that this was a global problem, and noted that the EU was a
net importer of food, but that responsibility for emissions produced lay with the producing countries.
He suggested that liability for emissions should instead lie with consuming countries.

Hon. Harbans Kapoor MLA (Uttarakhand, India) said that public awareness was a problem. He
also noted that in India, programmes for the development of hydroelectric power had led to
deforestation. It was necessary that Parliamentarians work to improve public awareness of the
problems of climate change.

Dr Whitehead said that vehicles were an area in which legislatures could set regulations on
emissions from vehicles. By doing so, they could drive a shift towards hybrid or electric vehicles. He
suggested that funding should be provided for the development of electric cars, but noted that clean
electricity generation would be needed to support this. It was necessary to fully decarbonise energy
generation.

He agreed that a year or years of action on climate change were necessary, noting that action
needed to be taken in the next ten or fifteen years. Further delay would have inevitable
consequences, pushing the climate beyond a tipping point and setting feedback loops in motion.

Mr Morley said that a recent rescue package for car manufacturers had been linked to encouraging
the development of green technologies. He agreed that it was necessary for consuming countries to
take responsibility for the emissions they generated elsewhere. He said that it was necessary to
work together to address this issue, and he noted that the UK had worked with China on the
development of carbon capture and storage technology.

He said that the Hadley Centre had produced excellent resources for communicating climate
science, and recommended that Parliamentarians make use of these resources.

152
Thursday 12 March 2009

THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS: BRIEFING

Speakers: Alderman Ian Luder (the Rt Hon. the Lord Mayor of the City of London)
Mr Andy Love MP (Labour; Member, Treasury Select Committee)

Chairman: Lord Paul of Marylebone (Labour; Member, Economic Affairs Committee)

The Chairman introduced the Alderman Ian Luder as the first speaker.

Alderman Ian Luder explained that the “square mile” of the City of London was the oldest municipal
authority in the country. He said that part of his job was to act as ambassador for all UK based
financial services and that he would be visiting many Commonwealth countries in that capacity in
the near future.

He said that the impact of the financial crisis on the public was akin to a bereavement; People went
through stages, from initial denial, through recognition, resignation and anger, finally to reform and
reconstruction. He said that people felt let down by “greedy” bankers, but suggested that it was time
to stop blaming bankers and to move on. He believed that the Government’s policies would work,
but that they would take time to have an effect.

He said that despite problems such as the depressed housing market and the banking crisis, the
Global Financial Centres Index confirmed London’s position as a global financial centre. His own
personal view was that the UK had a long track record of adaptability that meant it was well placed
to face the crisis.

Alderman Luder explained that 43% of the UK’s financial sector was based in London, with 5% in
the Edinburgh region and the remaining 52% throughout the rest of the UK. In 2007 financial
services provided 13.9% of all Government’s tax revenue. This connection to public spending meant
that it was vital that the sector was restored to full health.

He believed that the crisis taught that there were limits to what Government and regulators could
achieve and that regulation which set a framework, rather than attempted to make all the decisions
for the industry was more effective. Such a framework, he said, also required less funding.

Alderman Luder said that cross-border initiatives and reforms were required; this was a global
problem which required a global solution. He said that buy-British or buy-American schemes would
cause serious problems for international trade and advised against nationalistic attitudes.

He said that the global crisis could be seen as an opportunity and that he was convinced everyone
must discover a sense of institutional and personal responsibility. Values such as honesty,
transparency and generosity were required for an effective free-market to operate. He reminded the
delegates of the London Stock Exchange’s motto: dictum meum pactum

153
He said that if he were to suggest the delegates did one thing, he would ask that they returned
home and led the fight against protectionism; that they worked to keep the lines of trade and
commerce open.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked what the role of accountants and auditors had been in
the global crisis and whether they could be sued for negligence. He also asked what the role of
Government was in bringing these to account.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) noted that in the recent decades the fashion had been to
encourage private enterprise and reduce government involvement in business. He asked how the
public could now be convinced that greater public ownership was a positive step now that this trend
had been reversed.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked what the impact would be for countries such as
Kenya which enjoy high levels of tax revenue and investment from UK and US based companies
such as Shell, BP or British American Tobacco, if these companies were to be affected by the global
crisis.

Alderman Luder said that some of the crisis had been caused by the behaviour of “crooks” but
believed that for the majority it was due to incompetent decisions. He said that auditors worked
retrospectively and were not responsible for running businesses. Poor decisions had been made,
for example regarding the taking over and purchase of banks by some of the largest UK financial
institutions, which had not been undertaken with due diligence. He said that lessons could be
learned from these failures of management. He suggested that non-executive directors of banks
should be more positively named as “supervisory directors” and that they could have a role in
challenging the behaviour of executives.

Alderman Luder admitted that there had been regulatory failures, for example where a single person
practice had been allowed to audit an international financial organisation. He did not want to suggest
that only the big accountancy firms should be allowed to audit banks, but that there should be an “A”
and “B” list, and that only those firms which were big and skilled enough should be on the “A” list
and allowed to audit the “big four” UK banks.

In reply to the second question, he said that there were times when companies should be allowed to
fail; for example, where the market had been overextended. This would usually have only had a
small impact on the economy as a whole. However, in times of recession, there was a need for
greater nationalisation and support for companies in difficulty; particularly where there was
especially low levels of credit available for small and medium sized companies. He accepted that
there was a role for government and NGOs to prop up companies with short term difficulties but
medium term prospects.

In response to the final question, he said that UK companies did have an international impact.
However, he did not believe that any of the organisations mentioned were likely to fail. He said that
this was an example of the need to work together and fight against protectionism. Any threat to
world trade also constituted a threat to entire countries and governments.

154
Alderman Luder thanked the delegates and departed.

The Chairman introduced the next speaker, Mr Andy Love MP.

Mr Andy Love MP said that this was an unprecedented economic and financial crisis, which had
recently seen previously unknown interest rate cuts, with rates currently at 0.5% in both the UK and
the US. He noted that the recent introduction of Quantitave Easing, or printing money to boost the
economy, had inflationary consequences, but said that it was necessary to avoid deflation which
had caused great difficulty during the recession of the 1930s. Flexibility was needed to face major
new problems which may still be out there.

Mr Love said that several steps had been taken to try to stabilise the situation. Firstly, on a global
basis, Governments had acted to stop the banking system from collapsing entirely. He said that this
possibility sounded dramatic, but emphasised that it had been a real danger. In Northern Rock, the
UK had seen the first run on a bank in 130 years. As a result, Governments and central banks had
pumped liquidity into the system and guaranteed depositors’ money. In recapitalising the banks, the
public sector now held majority shares in most UK banks.

Secondly, he said that economies had to be supported, by reducing interest rates and introducing
financial stimuli. He said that this also involved assisting private companies and households affected
by the declining housing market.

Finally, Mr Love said that banks needed to be supported to lend more money; in a liquidity crisis,
banks didn’t lend to anyone, including each other. Insurance schemes to cover “bad assets” had
also been affected and Governments had had to step in to provide such a guarantee. In some
countries “bad banks” had been considered, to keep bad assets away from the rest of the sector.
The key was to get banks lending.

Mr Love said that the UK was looking at reform of financial regulation. Auditors’ reports prior to the
crisis had shown no concern. Therefore there was a need to look at the whole sector and develop
an early warning system to prevent any reoccurrence of this situation.

There was also a need for international action and the G20 summit in April would be a major attempt
to agree on a united approach. Mr Love suggested that there were four possible actions that could
be agreed on.

Firstly, it could be agreed that a clear signal opposing protectionism should be sent. The USA and
France had both demonstrated tendencies towards nationalism, which Mr Love believed should be
avoided. Secondly, some countries like the USA may need even greater financial stimulus. Thirdly,
he believed that the problems were probably deeper seated than currently recognised and that the
UK would remain in recession going into 2010. He said that there may be a need to put more money
into the IMF; a controversial measure, but necessary in order to lend to countries in difficulty.
Furthermore, reform was needed to give greater voice in Washington to smaller counties. Finally, he
believed that it was necessary to maintain flows of development aid to protect third world countries
with vulnerable economies; a lesson learned from the 1930s.

155
Mr Love concluded by saying that countries must not look inward, and that global trade must be kept
going in order to reduce the effects of the recession as quickly as possible.

Mr Blaine Pederson MLA (Manitoba, Canada) asked what prediction Mr Love made of interest
rates in the next few years.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) suggested that there was a need for greater public
education regarding financial services and individual responsibility for investment.

Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (St Lucia) asked what deficiencies in financial regulation allowed the
crisis to occur.

Mr Love said in response to the last question that almost all banks had had too much leverage and
in the bull market, banks had lent huge amounts of money without thinking of their capital base. He
noted that the Spanish system had allowed banks to put capital aside during the good times to make
up for times when there was less capital available and hoped that the G20 meeting would come to
an agreement to implement some wider system to facilitate this practice.

In response to the second question, he said that the state of international markets depended on fear
and greed, and that at present fear dominated. In 2007, greed had been the dominating driving
factor and risks had been taken without thinking. Mr Love said that banks should have known better,
but accepted that if people had been educated to understand prudence and risk, this could have
improved the situation. In the UK, individual consumers lacked the basic knowledge of financial
services and products like pensions, mortgages and loans. Increased public education, he
suggested, could be a wise investment for the future.

In response to the first question, he said that interest rates would depend on where the lowest point
of recession lay. At present, we had seen an average 15% decline in house prices in the UK. A
further 15% decline was predicted. The value of the stock market had decline by 40%. Mr Love did
not know whether this would continue. He said that artificially boosting the supply of money had
inflationary consequences, and that this must be understood or interest rates could end up as high
as 10 – 15%.

Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania) asked whether the fact that signs of recovery had not yet
been seen meant that governments were treating the wrong symptoms of the crisis.

Hon. Gideon Kayinamura MP (Rwanda) asked how it was decided which banks should be saved
and which left to fail.

Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados) asked when financial regulation had last been reformed.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shabesh MP (Kenya) asked how it could be ensured that distribution of aid
to Africa avoided corruption and reached those who needed it.

156
Hon. Mohamed Haji Mohamoud Omar MP (Somaliland) asked what particular issues would be
raised at the G20 meeting and also who had authorised the use of Quantitave Easing; did the Prime
Minister make the decision or did Parliament have a role?

Mr Love said in response to the first question that in some countries, such as Japan and Zimbabwe,
there were strong suggestions that the proposed solutions had not worked. He said that his
Committee had visited Japan and attempted to find out why they could not get out of their
deflationary spiral. He believed that this was in part because they had taken a long time to come to
terms with the scale of the problem and to take action. He hoped that lessons had been learnt from
the Japanese experience and noted that this time action had been taken much more quickly on an
international basis.

He said that in Zimbabwe the government had kept printing money after it had been clear that this
had not worked. However, he was optimistic that a way forward could be found if the situation could
be stabilised through international aid.

Mr Love said that in the UK government intervention had been the only way to save banks and that
this action was necessary in order to support industries like the motor industry, as people rely on
bank loans to purchase cars. He said that stress testing had been carried out to analyse what would
happen to banks in extreme circumstances and he believed that this government action should
mean that the banks survive.

In response to question three, he said that there had been two possible courses of action. They
could have let the course of the recession run, as had occurred in the 1930s. However this had
been shown to be ineffective, and the 1930s depression had led to 10 years of deflation, only ended
by the second world war.

The alternative was for governments to take action, but Mr Love emphasised that money spent now
must be paid back, and this debt would be a problem for the future and the government must
balance these issues. He noted that in Japan the levels of national debt were greater than 100% of
GDP.

In relation to the question about international aid and corruption, Mr Love said that he had recently
visited countries in this predicament and said that aid agencies strove to prevent money from ending
up in the wrong hands. He said that they would continue to work with national politicians to improve
the situation.

In relation to printing money, the Government allowed the central bank, or the Fed in the USA, to
decide whether to undertake such measures. The Central Bank bought up Government Securities or
Gilts, which increased the capital deposits of banks and hopefully allowed them to commence
loaning to the public and one another as usual. Mr Love suggested that getting local and national
economies running normally also helped international markets and the global economy recover.

The Chairman thanked Mr Love and the delegates for an interesting discussion and said that the
Government had responsibility for addressing the problems discussed.

157
Thursday 12 March 2009

SUMMING UP AND FEEDBACK SESSION

Speakers: Sir Nicholas Winterton MP (Conservative; Member, CPA UK Branch Executive

Committee)
Dr Malcolm Jack (Clerk of the House of Commons)

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL (Secretary, CPA UK Branch)

The Chairman thanked all the CPA staff for their hard work on the conference. He also thanked
Karen Georgiou from the Overseas Office in the House of Commons. He introduced Hon. Samuel
Kazungu Kambi MP, who had agreed that morning to make a short presentation on the operation of
the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) in Africa.

Hon. Samwel Kazungu Kambi MP (Kenya) said that it was an honour to be able to make a short
presentation on the CDF on behalf of Kenya. Kenya was a small country bordering many other
countries. It also had a port. It gained independence in 1963, at which point it was a federation. This
arrangement ended within one year because, like many new African heads of State, the rulers of
Kenya wanted more power. Before independence, each region had a District Development
Committee, which could initiate local projects. After independence a new system of district
administration was introduced. It did not work because the districts were all fighting for limited
resources and there was a great deal of corruption. He joked that there was absolutely no corruption
remaining.

Every country in the world had its problems and corruption existed everywhere to differing extents.
Africa was trying its best, with very limited resources, to stamp out corruption. Its best was not yet
good enough.

Mr Kambi said that the Constituency Development Fund Bill was first introduced into the Kenyan
Parliament by an MP who was an engineer. It had not been passed because the ruling party had not
been comfortable with the idea of moving power from the Executive to individual MPs. In 2003,
however, the Constituency Development Fund Act was finally passed and the first tranche of money
had been distributed to the constituencies.

Mr Kambi’s constituency received approximately £1 million each year for development projects to
help his constituents. As an MP he was also a local patron. The money was administered by a
Committee, of which the District Commissioner was a member.

The CDF accounted for only 2.5% of the total budget in Kenya each year, but its impact was
disproportionately large. Mr Kambi believed that the Fund was used more effectively than the
remaining 97.5% of the budget. It had succeeded in lifting people away from the poverty line and in
providing them with a good education, healthcare and decent roads. Over 12% of the Fund was
spent on bursaries.

The Chairman thanked Mr Kambi and opened the floor to questions.

158
Hon. Mary Salifu Boforo MP (Ghana) said that the CDF operated differently in Ghana. Only 5% of
the money sent to the districts was available to the MP to use. Projects had to have the permission
of the Assembly before they could go ahead. She wanted to know what the role of District Chief
Executives was in Kenya if MPs had control of CDF funds.

Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman) asked who scrutinised the use of funds.

Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda) said that, in Uganda, his CDF money was only £3,500 per
year. He did not think that it was appropriate for the MP to act like the Executive at a local level. He
believed that the funds should be distributed through local government instead. He asked whether
there was a conflict of interest between the MP acting as the Executive at a local level but
representing their constituents at a national level. In Uganda, money was given directly to local
government in order to ensure the separation of powers.

Mr Kambi said that, in addition to the 2.5% of the national budget allocated to the CDF, 3% was
allocated to the Local Authority Fund. The CDF was managed by the Minister of Planning and the
expenditure was audited. He believed that the MP was the best person to decide how the money
was spent because he received representations from his constituents that showed where the
greatest need lay.

There was no regional government in Kenya. Instead there was a system of District Commissioners.
They had their own District Development Fund which derived from the Office of the President and
was also voted by Parliament.

Mr Kambi said that, before the CDF, many people in his constituency were living on less than three
dollars a day. The CDF had helped to improve this.

Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwu MP (Nigeria) said that, in Nigeria, MPs had powers of oversight over
the CDF but did not come into direct contact with the funds. They could help to choose the sector
and location of constituency projects. He observed that Kenya was operating a presidential system
and asked how it managed to ensure the separation of powers.

Hon. Natalie Neita Headley MP (Jamaica) said that the CDF had been introduced in Jamaica 18
months previously. No funds were sent to an MP’s personal or constituency account. Each
constituency had an oversight committee, which included members from the opposition. In order for
a project to be approved, it had to be properly documented and went through a rigorous approval
process in parliament where a central committee made the final decision. Before the CDF, MPs had
to go to the Minister and beg even for a road in the constituency. Now constituencies were able to
ask for the things that they needed the most.

Hon. Rachel Wambui Shebesh MP (Kenya) said that she was in favour of the CDF. Kenya was
working towards devolution. The CDF was the only way to improve development in the
constituencies.

159
Mr Kambi said that Kenyans were fighting for the equal distribution of funds because previously
money had only been given to the President’s region. MPs were not the signatories on their CDF
account – it was the District Commissioner that took that role. It was local people, not the MP, that
decided on the priorities for their area.

The Chairman thanked Mr Kambi for his presentation. He asked delegates for some feedback on
the conference, both in terms of content and administration. He would value honesty and
constructive criticism.

Mr Tuggey introduced Sir Nicholas Winterton MP and Dr Malcolm Jack, Clerk of the House of
Commons, who would present the delegates with certificates.

Sir Nicholas Winterton MP said that it was a privilege to attend part of the conference. He had
been with the delegates on three occasions during the fortnight – it would have been four occasions,
but on the fourth he was speaking in a debate.

He was fascinated by the remarks of Mr Arissol from the Seychelles. He himself had 74 thousand
constituents, almost as many as the entire population of the Seychelles. He was also greatly
amused by the comments that had been raised about levels of comfort.

Sir Nicholas said that he was very committed to the Commonwealth and was pleased to welcome
people from outside the traditional Commonwealth area. He said that delegates represented what
he believed to be the best club in the world and hoped that they would continue to be able to
influence the world for the better.

He thanked the CPA secretariat for their organisation. It was wonderful to hear so many positive
comments on the conference. He hoped to be in touch with some of the delegates in future.

He presented the following delegates with certificates: Mr Shane Rattenbury MLA, Hon. Jane
Aagaard MLA and Ms Lisa Baker MLA (Australia); Hon. Kenneth Best MP (Barbados); Mr Blaine
Pedersen MLA, Mr Henri-François Gautrin MNA and Mr Glen Hart MLA (Canada); Hon. Mary Salifu
Boforo MP (Ghana); Mr Khimi Ram Sharma MLA, Mr Deependra Singh Shekhawat MLA, Mr. Ashok
Chandulal Bhatt MLA and Hon. Harbens Kapoor MLA (India); Hon. Samuel Kazunge Kambi MP and
Hon. Rachel Wambui Shebesh MP (Kenya); Hon. Teatao Teannaki MD (Kiribati); Hon. Masier Kujat
MP and Hon. Juhar Mahiruddin MLA (Malaysia); Hon. Dr Joseph Sammut MP (Malta); Mr Eric Roy
MP (New Zealand); Hon. Kanayo G. B. Oguakwa MP (Nigeria); Hon. Rahila Al Riyami MSC (Oman);
Senator Kamran Murtaza (Pakistan); Hon. Francis Marus MP (Papua New Guinea); Hon. Gideon
Kayinamura MP and Hon. Julienne Uwacu MP (Rwanda); Senator Evaristus Jn. Marie (Saint Lucia);
Mr Pierre Lauofo Fonotoe MP (Samoa); Hon. Sandy John Arissol MNA (Seychelles); Hon. Claude
Danel Melville Kamanda MP (Sierra Leone); Dr She Hong Ong MP (Singapore); Mr Mohamed Haji
Mahamoud Omar MP (Somaliland); Hon. Unnathi Piyankara Jayaratne MP (Sri Lanka); Hon. Gibson
Hlophe MP (Swaziland); Hon. Zubeir Ali Maulid MP (Tanzania); Senator Wesley George (Trinidad
and Tobago); Hon. Ishaa Amiza Otto MP (Uganda); Hon. Brian Macloudine Muleya Ntundu MP
(Zambia); and Hon. Pandu Ameir Kificho (Zanzibar).

160
Dr Malcolm Jack said that he could not match Sir Nicholas Winterton’s ebullience, but that he
shared his enthusiasm for the Commonwealth. He believed that having both Clerks and Members
present at the conference had been a success. He warned delegates that he would probably visit
them, although he would contact them first.

He presented the following delegates with certificates: Mrs Beverley Isles (Canada); Mr P. K. Grover
and Mr Hanuman Ram Kuri (India); Mr Jeffrey Lackson Mwenyeheli and Joseph Manzi (Malawi); Mr
Bernard Joseph Dalinting (Malaysia); Mr Kevin Shiels (Northern Ireland); Mr Muhammad Khan
Mengal (Pakistan); Mr Mohamed Hassan Kahin Farah (Somaliland); Mr Dhammika Kitulgoda (Sir
Lanka); Dr Wiliami Uasike Latu (Tonga); Mr Neil Jagassar (Trinidad and Tobago); and Mr Richard
Ssendege (Uganda).

The Chairman thanked Sir Nicholas and Dr Jack and brought the session to a close.

161
162