| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise a debate next week. However, credit approvals have been reserved for the infrastructure work for the project, but resources are still needed for the rolling stock. We have promised urgently to consider providing credit approvals for the rolling stock in the financial year 1992-93, but we cannot make a decision until the end of the public expenditure round this autumn. I advise those who say that it is too late and that there should be instant responses to such matters that one of the features of the Government, which has added greatly to the strength of our economy in the 1980s, is that we have had financial disciplines and proper financial approaches to such matters. The Labour party, which already would increase public expenditure by £35 billion, would freely go on adding to it. We shall be watching very carefully between now and the general election for all the additional
Column 1147
spending commitments to which the Labour party is committing itself. It is quite clear that it has no financial discipline and no regard for the taxpayer.Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle) : My right hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency borders Manchester airport and that there was a terrible disaster there some years ago. Following an inquiry, a recommendation was made that smoke hoods should be introduced. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Civil Aviation Authority has refused to recommend the use of smoke hoods, despite all the research-based evidence, despite the recommendation, and despite the support of the Select Committee on Transport?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that there have been reports that members of the Civil Aviation Authority take smoke hoods on to aircraft with them? Does it not seem that double standards are applying? Because of the great concern about the fact that the Civil Aviation Authority does not seem to be accountable to anyone--although it is technically accountable to the Secretary of State for Transport, it is not accountable to the House-- will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on its role and accountability?
Mr. MacGregor : For the reasons that I have already given, I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on this matter before the House rises for the recess, but he can use the opportunities that are open to him to raise the matter in the House. Although I am not aware of these matters, I shall draw what my hon. Friend has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes an early statement on the levels of dioxin that were discovered and monitored the other day at two farms in Bolsover, as was reported in Hansard yesterday in an answer to a planted question? Will he also ensure that there is a thorough and public investigation into the way in which the dioxin reached that area, thus depriving farmers of their livelihoods? Will he bear it in mind that, at the end of 1990, the safety levels were raised by a factor of 10 and that many other farms in Britain might have been caught in the net if that change had not taken place? Will he ensure that compensation is paid to all those who are affected, and arrange for a statement to be made as early as possible?
Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already said that his Department will be carrying out further food surveillance in the Bolsover area and undertaking detailed studies to learn more about the mechanism for the transmission of dioxins. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Milk Marketing Board has concluded that the milk does not meet the conditions of its standard terms of sale for producers and will not accept it into the food supply. We welcome that prompt action, which shows that the board is determined to uphold the highest quality standards.
As I served at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food myself, I know that the Government are determined, through our surveillance of the food supply, to ensure the fullest possible protection of the public. Although I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request for another statement,
Column 1148
such a statement would be premature before the studies are complete. I shall, however, convey to my right hon. Friend his concerns and his requests for a further statement at the appropriate time.Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East) : Notwithstanding the fact that we are in the middle of the public expenditure negotiations, can I tempt my right hon. Friend to break recent precedent and to arrange an early debate on public expenditure? I am sure that he will agree that there is widespread confusion in the country and, to a degree, in this House about how the Labour party will fund the £35 billion-worth of pledges that it has made. We should like to know whether that will be done through increased taxation or whether some of the pledges will be scrapped.
Mr. MacGregor : I do not think that there is any confusion because it is clear from the costings that have been carried out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the Labour party appears to have committed itself to the figure of £35 billion, or an extra 15p on income tax. It is now up to the Labour party to show how it will meet that bill or what it will cut from its spending pledges. We shall have an opportunity to consider such matters when the Finance Bill returns to the Floor of the House. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to pursue his points then.
Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) : Will the Leader of the House initiate an urgent debate or arrange for a full statement to be made on the appalling crime figures that were announced yesterday? Is he aware that those figures show a 30 per cent. increase in crime in Leicestershire? He must recall that at business questions throughout the lifetime of this Parliament hon. Members of all parties have raised with him the need for extra police officers in Leicestershire and that I have presented successive Home Secretaries with petitions for more police officers. Despite the excellent work of Michael Hirst, the chief constable, and his police force, the crime rate continues to rise. Will the right hon. Gentleman please arrange for the Home Secretary to initiate a debate on this important matter?
Mr. MacGregor : I am not familiar with the precise position in Leicestershire, but in Britain as a whole the numbers of police have been rising, and rising considerably. I do not think that it will be possible to find time for a debate in Government time on the matter taking the United Kingdom as a whole, or indeed England, before the House rises for the simple reason that we have an enormous amount of business to do. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : As Supply days are allocated on the basis of the number of hon. Members in each political party, and as we have a party within a party on the Opposition Benches, would my right hon. Friend care to give consideration to allocating a Supply day to the hon. Members for Liverpool, Broad Green (Mr. Fields), for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) so that the House may have the benefit of the views of the Militant Tendency from within the Labour party?
Mr. MacGregor : I think that my hon. Friend knows that I am not responsible for choosing the subjects for
Column 1149
discussion on Supply days, as those days are given to the Opposition. However, my hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is noticeable that in the current by-election in Liverpool certain Members of Parliament are conspicuous by their absence and their silence because they do not want to frighten the voters.Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) has just mentioned me in connection with Militant. Clearly he wishes to leave the impression that I am a supporter of or sympathiser with Militant Tendency. As such an allegation is entirely unfounded, I hope that the hon. Member for Wyre will see fit to withdraw it immediately.
Mr. Speaker : That was exactly why I called the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The term "Militant", although not unparliamentary, is highly offensive to some people here. In view of what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) says, the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) should withdraw his comment about him.
Mr. Mans : I am more than happy to withdraw the term "Militant" if, indeed, the views of the hon. Member for Bradford, West have changed.
Mr. Speaker : Order. That really is not good enough. Come on.
Mr. Mans : I withdraw the term, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Madden : I am most grateful to you for your protection and assistance, Mr. Speaker. I now turn to the Leader of the House. Will he arrange in next Tuesday's debate on housing for the Minister who will speak in that debate to tell us what he intends to do to ensure that speculation in private homes built with taxpayers' money is not allowed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that private homes are being built in Bradford, Halifax and Bolton with taxpayers' money? They are wide open for speculation because there are no rules to prevent people from buying such properties and renting them out or selling them immediately for a profit.
Therefore, I hope that the Leader of the House will warn the Minister that I and other hon. Members will be chasing him on the matter. We hope very much that the Minister will announce some new rules to prevent speculation in private homes built with the help of taxpayers' money.
Mr. MacGregor : I am not familiar with the examples to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I do not know the background or the justification for the charges that he makes. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to a point that he might wish to make in Tuesday's debate. I will alert whichever Minister is to reply to the debate to the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that a large number of hon. Members were unable to speak in yesterday's debate on developments in the European Community, which was curtailed by the business statement before its commencement. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that I am probably not alone in believing that the issue is so important in British politics at present that the arguments and the consequences of the decisions which will be made
Column 1150
in Europe in the forthcoming six months need to be ventilated in this place so that the British public can understand the issues? I hope that it will be possible for us to have a further debate on the subject in the near future.Mr. MacGregor : I have followed the obligation that has been undertaken by the Government to allow a one-day debate on European matters every six months, normally in advance of the meeting that is taking place this weekend, as will be the case in the future, and I certainly intend to stick to that obligation. I am sure that there will be opportunities other than that one-day debate for issues affecting the European Community to be debated. Indeed, such opportunities will be quite frequent, and my hon. Friend will know that one such opportunity will occur when the Prime Minister makes a statement next week, following the weekend's meeting.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate to take place urgently on the plight of students this summer? Is he aware that Newport borough council has expressed alarm at the fact that there will be a sharp rise in homelessness in the borough because of the cuts in the hardship scheme for students and the fact that unemployment in the area has increased by 50 per cent. in the last year, meaning that there are no part-time jobs? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme likelihood that city cardboard-type encampments will spread from London throughout the land? Does he appreciate that students face a bleak summer because they will have no hardship allowance scheme, no income support, no housing benefit and no jobs?
Mr. MacGregor : Those issues have been debated on a number of occasions, not least when the Student Loans Bill, as it then was, was taken through the House. Because of the pressure of business, I see no opportunity for a separate debate in Government time. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the subject, he will have to find other opportunities for doing so.
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : I, too, urge my right hon. Friend to find further time to debate the issues surrounding the Common Market and the two intergovernmental conferences. It would seem appropriate for us to have a debate immediately following the Prime Minister's return from Luxembourg. Yesterday, because of the organisation of business and the fact that we finished at 10 o'clock when we could have gone on til 11 o'clock, we heard only the most senior right hon. and hon. Members express their views. That shows that the debate was seriously imbalanced--indeed, that it embarrassed you, Mr. Speaker--when that would not have been the case had the business been better arranged.
Mr. MacGregor : Sometimes I make arrangements for business and find that we almost run out of speakers. It is always difficult to get the balance right. I was following the normal practice yesterday in allocating one day. There will be other opportunities to debate European matters and to question my right hon. Friends on the issues involved, and I repeat that there will be an opportunity next week.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Has the Leader of the House noticed that there is considerable traffic chaos in London, that the underground system does not work properly, that the roads are overcrowded and that there are high levels of pollution throughout central
Column 1151
London because of the increased car traffic? In those circumstances, will he arrange for a statement to be made to the House about the Government's policies for traffic in London, including ending the nonsensical red route experiment and instead trying to prevent cars from coming into and out of central London and putting an end to any proposal to deregulate London's bus service, which would lead to even greater chaos?Mr. MacGregor : I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement or even a debate. I think it unlikely that I shall find time for that to happen before the recess.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : May we have an early debate on the policies and actions of the London Civil and Fire Defence Authority, which is Labour-controlled, bearing in mind its proposal to take away a fire engine--one of two--from Northolt fire station? Is he aware that such action would be to the enormous detriment of the people of Northolt, Greenford and the surrounding areas? My constituents want the fire engine to be retained, and I ask for an opportunity to express in debate the good reasons for their wish in this matter.
Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend has already made his point. If he wishes to elaborate on it, I am sure that he will do so. If I understood him aright, the issues should be addressed to others than my right hon. Friends, and I am sure that he will lose no opportunity of doing that as well.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Although there will be a debate on the Army next Monday, may I press the Leader of the House for a statement on the position of the three injured Grenadier guards, one of whom is my constituent, Sean Povey, who, with his two colleagues, lost both legs? In that statement, would the Government explain why there is strong feeling in the country that the soldiers should receive compensation, on both sides of the House and among senior officers of the Grenadier guards, one of whose names I am not allowed to mention, while only the Government are determined to make those three soldiers continue to suffer, not knowing what the outcome will be in the courts? Has he seen what my constituent, who is now in a wheelchair, has said in the paper, about how he is feeling sad and depressed? He is only 21 years of age and has been crippled for life, but the Government insist that in no circumstances will they pay compensation. What sort of justice is that?
Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently referred to this matter, and I have discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, following questions raised by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members during previous business questions. The matter can be raised in the debate on Monday.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members would welcome a debate on top people's pay, and especially on the pay of top trade union leaders such as Mr. Scargill, who is better known for destroying rather than for creating jobs, who pays himself nearly £1,000 a week, and whose salary has increased, relative to the number of members in his union, by 900 per cent. in the past decade?
Column 1152
Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend has made his point and, if he wishes, he could perhaps elaborate it in the debate on two industries on Tuesday, as I have no doubt that general remarks will be made in that debate.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Has the Leader of the House really understood why about 120 of his colleagues were kept late out of their beds on Monday night? Will he reflect, as I have asked his office to give him notice, on early-day motion 1031 in light of the fact that it was opposed in the House of Lords by those who knew most about it, the Government's own appointee, the Earl of Cranbrook and my colleague Lady Nicol?
[That this House, concerned that Lords Amendments, inserted at a late stage, changed the very nature of a Bill from that which was proposed at Second Reading and in Commons Committee, calls on Her Majesty's Government to delay implementation of the Scottish Heritage Bill, until such time as further consideration has been given to second-guessing of scientific decisions.]
Also, they could not get the vote of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)--faithful Sir Hector--in the House of Commons, who had piloted the Bill through in 1981 and cared deeply about it. Does the Leader of the House understand that the issue is the double-crossing of a Commons Committee--
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a continuation of the rather long speech by the hon. Gentleman on that subject, which indeed did keep us up rather late. Will he please come to the question?
Mr. Dalyell : This is the only way that Opposition Members of Parliament can challenge that exercise--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am not criticising the hon. Member. He is absolutely within his rights, but he must ask a question.
Mr. Dalyell : Will the Leader of the House discuss next week the deceit of Parliament on Second Reading because the Bill that we put through was totally different from the Bill which was fundamentally altered in the Lords? Will he send for the most obscure member of the Administration, Mr. Tom Strathclyde, to ask why he gave in to some maverick peers--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that we do not refer to members of another place by Christian names. They are noble Lords.
Mr. Dalyell : The noble Lord Strathclyde--aged 30 or whatever--who has never been elected by anyone to anything and who through a something muddle--I will not say it--has fundamentally altered the Bill on which his colleagues and mine sweated our guts out upstairs in Committee, has enraged the heritage organisations in Scotland and it is all the result of a mistake. Cannot the Leader of the House get hold of that inexperienced man and get the thing put right?
Mr. MacGregor : The debate went on at some length on Monday evening and it would not be right for me to go over it all again. As regards business, I understand, and I am sure, that the Lords amendments in no way changed the nature of the Bill as proposed on Second Reading, and the Government will proceed with the establishment of Scottish Natural Heritage as planned.
Column 1153
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House confirmed that there is to be a debate on the Army on Monday, and we know that there is to be a debate on the Royal Navy later today. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that, although individual service debates may be of minority interest, they provide a unique opportunity for a well-structured examination of the individual services and the problems that they face? Will he resist any temptation--although I hope that he has none--to change to a system whereby just two days would be allowed for defence debates, other than those in connection with the White Papers on procurement and the armed forces? If that happened, the individual services would certainly suffer.Mr. MacGregor : I note my hon. Friend's comments. I am aware that there are differing views on that subject in the House. This year, I followed previous practice, but we will certainly want to review it because, as there are differing views, it would be right to do so. There will be discussions on that matter through the usual channels, and my hon. Friend's views will also be taken into account.
Mr. John Browne (Winchester) : I refer my right hon. Friend to early -day motion 1017.
[That this House congratulates Paul Woolwich, Clive Edwards, Ian Pollard and all members of the Thames Television's This Week team on their production of Casualties of Peace ; notes that it highlights the quite disgraceful lack of compensation awarded to British servicemen grievously injured in the line of duty ; believes that Her Majesty's Government should bow its head in shame ; and calls upon the Prime Minister in the national interest to instil forthwith an attitude of genuine concern, common sense and compassion.]
Column 1154
Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the Government continue to resist the payment of ex gratia compensation to the three injured Grenadiers they will be effectively challenging those mutilated men to take on, in a legal battle, the mighty Ministry of Defence? Their suit would, of necessity, have to be based on the findings of the board of inquiry, whose report is still classified--though why I cannot imagine--and therefore unavailable even to the guardsmen's legal representatives.My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will recollect that Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, assured the House that no one was to blame for the accident. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the board of inquiry took no evidence whatsoever as to why the 76 mm HESH blind round was lying on the range in the first place?
Mr. Winnick : That is absolutely right.
Mr. Browne : Is it clear, as was asked by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), that--
Mr. Speaker : Order. In fairness to both sides of the House, let me point out that those are detailed matters. The hon. Member may ask for a debate or for a statement, but he must not rehearse the arguments.
Mr. Browne : Is it clear to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, if equity is to be achieved, the board of inquiry must be reopened? If the Government do not order that to be done immediately, may we have a debate on the subject?
Mr. MacGregor : As I intimated to my hon. Friend, and as you, Mr. Speaker, made clear, it would not be right for me, as Leader of the House, to comment on those detailed matters. We are now talking about the business of the House. I said that the issue can be raised in next Monday's debate.
Column 1155
Procedures of the House
4.27 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : A number of important reforms to our procedures and working practices this year are already in place or under way.
First, the changes to the management of the House, following the report by Sir Robin Ibbs--which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) played such an important part in initiating, and which we debated earlier this year--are far-reaching.
They will make it possible for the House to determine its priorities, and to reflect those priorities in decisions about the budget for works, as well as other expenditure, and they will introduce a new Committee and management structure that will reflect, to the extent appropriate, best practice outside.
Secondly, the new procedures for private Bills following the report of the Joint Committee of both Houses in 1988 require primary legislation. As the House knows, the timetable following the consultation period on the Government's response to the Joint Committee, which was published last summer, meant that it has not been possible to prepare the necessary legislation for introduction this Session. The Government have now made their response. That matter clearly affects the sittings and hours of the House, and I have already told the House that we shall introduce the legislation as soon as we can.
Thirdly, on the scrutiny of European Community legislation, we have been able to establish the two European Standing Committees this Session, and have gained valuable experience of how they work in practice. They have also had implications for the hours of this Chamber. As the House is aware, I shall review the operation of those two Standing Committees at the end of this Session.
Many other procedural reforms are being implemented following recommendations from the Procedure Committee, including the new arrangements for oral questions. However, right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House share the feeling that we need to take a wider and deeper look at our procedures and at the hours that we sit. Over recent months, I have consulted widely about the procedures and practices that determine the variety and amount of business dealt with on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and how long we spend on it. I have found that there is widespread agreement that the way we operate in this place needs review, and widespread disagreement on the solutions. I therefore propose to set up a Select Committee to look into those matters and I am pleased to say that I have reached agreement through the usual channels on how that will be done.
The suggested terms of reference and the membership will be set out in a motion which I will table very shortly. The Select Committee will be able to range widely, looking at the whole way we handle public and private business, the order and timing of
business--including the use of timetable motions--the length of Sessions and the organisation of the parliamentary year, as well as the hours of sitting. The Committee's work will obviously extend into the next Session of Parliament, and I hope that it will be able to make recommendations that can be considered for implementation in the next Parliament. If a dissolution intervenes, it would obviously be desirable that
Column 1156
the work of the Committee is continued in the new Parliament. We for our part would certainly wish that to be the case, and I hope that the same would go for those in other parts of the House. I am particularly pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has agreed to chair the Select Committee. The breadth and depth of his parliamentary experience make him particularly suited to take on that important task and I am sure the whole House will be grateful to him for agreeing to do so.I appreciate that Members on all sides will wish to consider the review I am announcing today, and I intend to provide time for a debate before the House rises for the summer recess so that the Committee can be established immediately thereafter.
It may, nonetheless, be for the convenience of the House if I outline now a range of specific matters that I expect that the Select Committee will wish to take particularly into account in its work. I must pay a particular tribute here to the work of the Select Committee on Procedure, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). The whole House owes him, and all the members of his Committee, a considerable debt of gratitude, but I think that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree that to deal adequately with the remit I have in mind, it is necessary to range more widely than the Procedure Committee's remit allows. The amount of time we have in this place is determined by private business as well as public business, and the Procedure Committee can deal only with public business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has, I am delighted to say, agreed to serve as a member of the new Select Committee. That will ensure that the wealth of experience of the Procedure Committee as a whole can be brought to bear during the Select Committee's deliberations. In particular, I am sure that the Committee members will have regard to the Procedure Committee's second report, Session 1986-87, on the use of time on the Floor of the House, which most usefully summarised and analysed previous experience of morning sittings. The Committee will obviously also wish to obtain the views of all hon. Members with an interest in the subject.
Among the points that I hope the Select Committee will bear in mind are changes over the past 20 or 30 years in the quantity and complexity of Government business and European Community legislation and their effect on the balance between business taken on the Floor of the House and that taken in Committee ; the growth in the complexity and importance of the work of Select Committees ; the nature and extent of the demands made on the individual Member of Parliament, including, particularly, the volume and complexity of constituency business ; experience of overseas legislatures, especially those which follow closely the Westminster model. I should say finally that the review is not in any sense a party matter, or one where the Government and the Opposition should adopt entrenched positions. Our working practices and the hours we sit are essentially matters for the House as a whole, and I am glad that, in my capacity as Leader of the House, I have been able to reach agreement on establishing this Select Committee. When we come to our subsequent debate, I hope very much that the House as a whole will agree to the motion establishing this Select Committee without reservation.
Column 1157
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : This is a rare, perhaps unique, occasion, on which I can say that I wholeheartedly welcome the totality of the statement of the Leader of the House. I thank him for responding to the request to make an oral statement on the matter so that, at the outset, Members could have the opportunity to ask questions and make points, although I recognise the importance of a full debate later on the terms of reference and membership of the Committee.
I congratulate the Leader of the House on taking this important, perhaps historic, opportunity to have a wide-ranging review of the practices and procedures of the House, which I hope--I believe that it is his intention-- will go well beyond a simple consideration of the hours of sitting of the House. Our intention to review some of our more arcane and idiosyncratic procedures and the conduct of business in the mother of Parliaments will be welcomed inside and outside the House.
I join the Leader of the House in welcoming the appointment of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) to the Chair of this important Committee. He and I would not agree on many matters, except on what is best for Cumbria because we are constituency neighbours, but he has our full support in chairing the Committee. The Leader of the House said that after the next general election the Government will continue the work of this Committee. I assure him that that will be the case, although there may be some changes in personnel.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) asked for an opportunity to question Labour Front-Bench spokesmen. The hon. Gentleman may get that opportunity sooner than he wishes.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : It is a carve-up.
Dr. Cunningham : My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) says that this is some sort of carve-up. I thank the Leader of the House for his wide consultation and for giving all hon. Members an opportunity to speak before he makes final decisions about the terms and nature of the motion. That is the great value of today's statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has an opportunity now to question the Leader of the House.
Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Committee will have unrestricted terms of reference and that it will be able not only to examine matters on the basis of the status quo but to deal with the parliamentary year as a year? Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the important work carried out by the parliamentary Labour party review committee which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who is also chairman of the parliamentary Labour party? May we be assured that that and other evidence from minority parties or individual hon. Members will be considered by the Committee? Will he assure us again that the Committee will have the power to look at the workings of other legislatures? I join the Leader of the House in thanking the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for the work of the Procedure Committee on these issues.
Mr. MacGregor : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the statement. I thank him for his co-operation on the matter and for the support that he expressed for my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
Column 1158
It will be for the Select Committee to decide exactly how to proceed and what matters to cover. It is certainly within the Committee's terms of reference to look at the parliamentary year as a year and not to be bound by what happens now. As I said, it is open to all hon. Members to submit views to the Committee. I agree that the Committee will wish to examine the work carried out so far by the parliamentary Labour party review committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). I confirm that it will be possible for the Committee to look at other legislatures if it feels that that is appropriate and relevant to its work. Several Hon. Members rose --Mr. Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Members that the Leader of the House said that he intends to provide time for a debate on this matter before the House rises for the summer recess. In view of the pressure from hon. Members to speak in the debate on the Royal Navy, I propose to allow questions on the statement to continue until 5 o'clock. I ask hon. Members to confine themselves to questions and not to voice their ideas and thoughts about what might happen.
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the appointment of the Committee, whose powers to cover public and private business will be wider than those of the Procedure Select Committee. That is essential for a fuller review of our procedure. Will the Committee be able to consider constitutional factors, such as the size of the membership of the House, which is one of the largest democratic Parliaments? Will he assure me that the recommendations of the Procedure Select Committee will be carried out, as he has promised, and not further delayed by the establishment of the new Committee?
Mr. MacGregor : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and repeat my gratitude for his work on these matters. The number of hon. Members who are rising shows that there is great interest in the subject. I shall therefore endeavour to be as short as possible.
My hon. Friend asked about the size of the membership of the House. I did not have it in mind that the Committee would consider that. I assure him that I intend to carry through the recommendations of the Procedure Select Committee, which I have already said we wish to proceed with, before the House rises for the summer recess.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : We welcome the announcement that the Leader of the House has made, but will the Committee be wide-ranging? For example, when considering timetables, will it be able to consider fixed-term Parliaments, which offer the best arrangements to ensure certainty of business? Will it be able to ensure a balance between the Executive, which represents a party elected by a minority, and the legislature, which represents the whole community? Will it have the power to ensure that we stop the nonsense of our procedure, whereby we seek to legislate for the most minute detail in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, and devolve power so that we have less to do here and so that people have far more power near to where decisions should be taken?
Mr. MacGregor : When I table the motion, I hope that it will be clear to the House that I intend the review to be
Column 1159
wide-ranging and deep. The House will have to decide that when we debate the motion. I am simply giving notice of how I intend to proceed. Most of the points that the hon. Gentleman made will be within the Committee's terms of reference. The constitutional question of the devolution of power is not a matter for the Committee, which will have much to do and will have to consider many conflicting views from hon. Members. As it must tackle so much, I do not wish to add other matters.Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) : As the problems are here and the expertise to deal with them presumably is also here, does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be no great need for the Committee to spend much time travelling abroad?
Mr. MacGregor : That will clearly be a matter for the Committee to decide. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that it is right for me to give it powers to do so. From the representations that have been made to me and the discussions that I have had, I have found that experience of other relevant legislatures is raised. It is right not to exclude that, but it will be for the Committee to decide what it does.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Does the Leader of the House accept that this has the appearance of a carve-up between the two Front Benches? How can a Select Committee have a Chairman when it has not been announced or appointed by the House and when the Select Committee itself should elect its Chairman? Does he accept that when the report of the parliamentary Labour party review committee was discussed by the parliamentary Labour party, the overwhelming expression of opinion was against the proposals?
Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East) : There was one voice against it.
Would not it have been better to hold a debate first to ensure that the decision was completely open and the views of hon. Members were taken, rather than for something that appears to have been fixed beforehand to be rushed through the usual channels so that, I suspect, the critics of some of the changes, which will suit London Members more than provincial Members, are faced with a fait accompli?
Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman ran into the problem that I have run into in the past six months. The reaction to his remarks showed that there are divided views in the House on a number of the procedural matters. He is right that there are often conflicts between hon. Members who represent London constituencies and those who represent more distant constituencies. That will be a relevant matter for the Select Committee to consider, and I hope that it will reflect those differences. That is why it will be no easy matter for the Select Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that the arrangements that I am proposing will cover all these points. The House wants us to get on with establishing the Committee on a non-party basis. That is what I am endeavouring to achieve, but it will be for the House to make its view known in the debate on the proposal that is recommended.
| Next Section
| Home Page |