Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 28th, 2019

[The Vice-Chair, Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC)]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, and welcome to meeting 144 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Today, as we begin our study of parallel debating chambers, we are pleased to be joined by Sir David Natzler, the Clerk of the United Kingdom House of Commons, who is appearing by video conference from London, and who is retiring.

Congratulations on your retirement, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Natzler, for making yourself available. Please go ahead with your opening statement.

[Sir David Natzler, Clerk of the House, United Kingdom House of Commons]

Thank you.

It's a great pleasure for me to be talking to you. I think I did talk to your committee some years ago on the subject of child care.

Today is indeed my last day as a Clerk. This is practically my last hour, and there is nowhere I would rather be.

You've had a paper from us about Westminster Hall. What I thought I would do is just make a few general points, and then I'm happy to answer any questions.

My first point is that 20 years ago when this started, a lot of people thought it was a pretty batty idea. How could the House sit in two places at once? Either everybody would go to Westminster Hall and the chamber would be empty, or nobody would bother to go to the parallel chamber in Westminster Hall. There's no possibility of having votes there, so what's the point of having parliamentary business when you can't come to any decisions that are at all controversial? They thought the thing would be a dead duck.

It wasn't an original British idea, as you probably know and as the memo sets out. It actually comes from our Australian cousins, who'd had a parallel chamber for some years, which we'd observed. It was a straight steal from them. Therefore, if you do take it on, please remember where the parliamentary copyright belongs: It is in Canberra, and you might like to ask my colleague in Canberra for his experiences over a longer period.

Over the last 20 years it has become an absolutely understood part of our parliamentary life here. As with you, we have a lot of members. We have more than you; we have 650. You're all members; many members have speeches and issues they want to raise, and they don't have enough opportunity to do it. Westminster Hall offers them that possibility through a series every week of around 12 debates of different lengths, but most importantly, all of them are answered by ministers.

In other words, it is not a graffiti wall. This is a series of policy issues that are answered by ministers. In the longer debates, the opposition has a slot, as does indeed the second-largest opposition party.

It has also proven a popular space for doing slightly new or different things. It has always been a little more relaxed than the main chamber, partly because it's smaller and partly because of the layout. It was a deliberate decision to lay it out not in the face-to-face style that I know you have and that we have in the main chamber, but in a couple of horseshoes so that there is less of the sense of party. I wouldn't overstate that, but there's less of a sense of party. It's also slightly better lit and less panelled and forbidding, particularly for new members, who often start by making a speech in Westminster Hall before they make a speech in the main chamber. The Speaker allows that, so their maiden speech is in the chamber, but they can, as it were, get used to the idea of speaking in front of colleagues in Westminster Hall.

It's also, on a very domestic note, a good breeding ground for our clerks. Our more junior clerks are in charge there, sitting next to the chair, and both the chairman and the clerks benefit from that.

It has, to my mind, no downsides. There's no real evidence that it sucks people out of the chamber. The two buildings are very near one another. It is true that the chamber retains a type of seniority in that people will have a debate in Westminster Hall sometimes for an hour or 90 minutes, and then a couple of weeks later you hear in the chamber, “Well, we've had a debate in Westminster Hall, but it's time we had a debate in the chamber”, as if that were somehow slightly higher status.

In terms of the debates raised by backbenchers, it has no more or no fewer practical consequences, but there is that inherent pecking order. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. As I say, it has massively increased opportunities for individual backbenchers or groups of backbenchers to have debates heard and answered in reasonable time.

I'll add one more thing. We have an e-petition system that you may know about. If more than 100,000 people sign a petition online, it's not guaranteed, but they're given a very strong steer that it is likely to be debated. Those are debated on Monday evenings. It's the only thing we do on Mondays between 4:30 and 7:30 in Westminster Hall.

It is very popular with the public. It's not that they come along, but they watch online in astonishing numbers. It is, of course, a subject they themselves have chosen, an often slightly unexpected one—slightly off centre, if you like. We tell the petitioners that this is when the debate is going to be and that they might want to watch or listen to it, and they do.

In the last few years, I think eight of the 10 most-watched debates in Parliament here have been in fact on e-petitions at Westminster Hall. The most watched was not the debate as to whether we should extend our bombing campaign of northern Iraq into Syria, as you might expect, but a debate, which sounds facetious, on whether we should exclude President Trump from visiting the United Kingdom. He wasn't at that time a president, but that was a very heavily signed petition. Something like, from my memory, 300,000 people watched it, and not just from the U.K., but from literally almost every corner of the world, including southern Sudan, so don't imagine that Westminster Hall, because it doesn't have the main party debates on second readings or report stages of controversial bills, is not of interest to the public.

That's probably enough.

Did you hear all of that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes. Thank you very much. That was very helpful.

We're excited to have you with us on the last day of your 43 years in office. Hopefully if you come to Canada, you'll visit us. You could probably tell us a lot more. You're welcome to come to our committee.

Thanks, Stephanie, for filling in for me.

We're going to have some questions now to see what we can mine from your 43 years of experience.

Go ahead, Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Yes, and I have a very short period of time to do it, Mr. Natzler.

My name is Scott Simms. I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you so much for being here.

I have a couple of specific questions, but before I get into the specifics, I want to ask you about participation rates in the parallel chamber. I've read quite a bit about Australia and the experience in Westminster.

Would you say that since its inception, participation rates have been better than expected, lower than expected, or as expected?

[Sir David Natzler]

It's very nice to meet you.

I don't think anything in particular was expected, and that's not being evasive.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I understand.

[Sir David Natzler]

Most of the debates are in a standard format. A member puts in for a half-hour debate, makes a 15-minute speech, and is then answered by a minister for 15 minutes. The minister is normally accompanied by a parliamentary private secretary—in other words, another member—an unpaid assistant, and/or a whip. However, the party representative from the opposition is not allowed to take part, and other members are not expected to take part. You only expect three members, and it would be unusual if there weren't, and there nearly always have been.

There were some misunderstandings early on with the government—they perhaps didn't take it with the full seriousness that they later realized they should—in that they were either supplying the wrong minister or mentioning that a whip could answer the debates. That was a very brief early misunderstanding, and they're now fully answered by sometimes senior ministers at Westminster Hall.

For the longer debates—and there are about three 90-minute debates and two 60-minute debates a week—other members can be expected to join in, and they do. In the application, the member is meant to show a belief that there are going to be people there, because it is a competitive process to get the slots. When that has happened, there have nearly always been more than enough people to have a decent number of speakers, if I can put it that way.

What we don't do is keep an exact count of who is there for any one debate. We have at times done that—about 10 years ago, I think—and it showed unexpectedly high participation. Members like going there. It's easy to drop in. It's easier, psychologically, to drop in to Westminster Hall than it is to the chamber. You're still meant to be there for the opening speech, but there's slightly less of the atmosphere of going to church, which we still have with the chamber.

I don't know if you have that in Newfoundland, but—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Yes, we do. It's my cabin in the woods.

I want to ask you about something brought in that's not part of the Canadian Standing Orders, but it is part of the British. I want to see how it fits with the second chamber, and that is government programming. I believe it was in the 1990s when you programmed the bills. We don't have programming per se. You call it guillotining, I believe, when it comes to a certain debate; we call it time allocation.

When it comes to programming of the bill, when you proceed in the main chamber, will that go over into the second chamber, the parallel chamber, and be part of the debate on the legislation?

[Sir David Natzler]

No. The Standing Orders originally conceived that non-controversial orders of the day—that's to say government business, predominantly bills—might be taken in Westminster Hall. In practice, in 20 years it has never happened, and I think it never will.

Two provisions make that inappropriate for anything that's at all controversial and that also requires a decision, which is different from being controversial, and there's a really important distinction.

One is that you can't have a vote. If the question is opposed at the end of the business, if somebody shouts “no” and other people shout “yes”, the chair can simply say, “We can't decide it.” In theory, we remit it to the chamber. In practice, because the business doesn't require any decision, it's just been a take-note debate, in effect, on the motion that this House has considered a particular matter. Only on one occasion has time ever been found to have a pro forma division in the main chamber. In sum, no controversial business is ever put there.

In terms of bills, you're right. Nearly all government bills are now programmed, which means that after second reading there is a motion put to the House, and generally agreed to, that says how long the public bill committee has to look at it—in other words, the date by which it must be reported—and it also usually provides one or, occasionally, two days for the report—that's the consideration stage—back on the chamber. Virtually all bills are programmed.

Guillotining was something slightly different, because it tended to cover how long you would have for second reading as well. We still have that for bills that are introduced in a great hurry and go through all stages in a day. We may be having two next week to do with Northern Ireland. They often come up in a hurry. That's the guillotine. It's a motion that you do before you've even got on to the bills. It's a really interesting point, but it has nothing to do with Westminster Hall.

I just stress that you can have controversial subjects there that can be debated, but they're not decided. You can have a debate on abortion, which is a really controversial subject; or on organ donation, but simply on the motion that this House has considered organ donation. You have a vigorous debate and speeches, but at the end of the day there's no decision expected.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Is the parallel chamber used for a lot of the subjects that you just brought up? If I were to say that I want to have a take-note debate on my particular opinion on the backstop for the Brexit situation, would that be done in a parallel chamber? Can I do that, or is it frowned upon?

[Sir David Natzler]

You could do that. It wouldn't be frowned upon. We've had quite a lot of debates on that subject.

I should have brought the Order Paper with me. Somebody may be going to get an Order Paper for today. The director of broadcasting has nimble feet—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I hope it arrives before you retire.

[Sir David Natzler]

Sorry?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I said that I hope it arrives before you retire.

[Sir David Natzler]

Yes, and I have about seven hours.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Sir David Natzler]

The source of subject might be more like.... I can tell you what is on, which is much easier than giving notional examples.

It might be a particular education issue in Newfoundland—in other words, a local issue of some national significance—or it might be a national issue, but one that not everybody wants to get passionately excited about, but some people do. There are a range of issues that members want to debate and want to build up interest in, as it were, but don't expect a decision on.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk, for supporting our bow tie Thursdays, which the next speaker was instrumental in starting.

It is Mr. Scott Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you.

Sir David, it's a pleasure to have you with us.

It looks as if the Order Paper just arrived, by the glance you gave to the side. If you need to—

[Sir David Natzler]

No. That was because of the reference to bow tie Thursdays. I'm wearing a bow tie and I'm about to go back into the chamber, but it's also the name of the television company that is running this service for us. It's called Bow Tie television. They're terribly pleased to have you on their trailers.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

It's a little extra service that we offer.

I just want to make sure that I understand this.

As I understand it, from what you said there would never be a vote in the House of Commons on an item of business that had been debated in the parallel chamber. Is that correct?

[Sir David Natzler]

This is a technical misunderstanding.

If something is debated in the parallel chamber, the Standing Order says that if, when the chairman puts the question, it is opposed, then it cannot be decided then and there and it stands over to the main chamber. However, there is in fact no provision for putting the question in the main chamber. It's not put automatically. It doesn't just appear on the Order Paper that you have to suddenly vote whether or not the House has considered the matter of organ donation. There would have been no further debate, and it would be a quite pointless vote. Nobody would know whether to vote yes or no. It would have no meaning—although we do have some of those votes sometimes. In this case, we've only ever had it once in 20 years, for a political reason, a bit of a stunt, and it wasn't popular. Members asked why we were voting on it.

It is simply a votable matter. It isn't debated in the parallel chamber. We only have these debates where the House has considered a particular matter.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Regarding the Hansards of the debates that take place in Westminster Hall, how are they recorded?

I know that everything is put online nowadays, but in my head I think of Hansard as a paper document. Would one read through the debates of the day in the House of Commons, and then separately find the debates of the parallel chamber, much as someone would have to search separately if looking for the debates of one of the committees? Why don't you tell me how it's done?

[Sir David Natzler]

As you say, there are two forms of publication—well, actually three.

There's the written record, the Hansard, as you say. Then there are the records of Westminster Hall. In this case, the decision has been taken to circulate and print them with the Hansards, the daily parts of the chamber.

Each day, you get your Hansard, and at the back is the full transcript of Westminster Hall, which you would not get of committees on bills or delegated legislation, so it is given that status. It is the sitting of the House. That wasn't uncontroversial and obviously costs a bit extra. However, it's a very interesting point and it shows that it is taken seriously.

Anyone flicking through the Hansard...and obviously, there are still old-fashioned types like me who actually read things on paper and don't necessarily go online. Online, you'd find it as easily as you would the main chamber, but it would obviously be under a separate heading.

The third one is the full audiovisual record, which is streamed and is accessible through parliamentlive.tv, for all proceedings of the House.