| Home Page |
Column 21
Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any request from Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to report to the House on the delicate negotiations being conducted by Mr. Rolf Ekeus on behalf of the United Nations in Baghdad?
Madam Speaker : No, I have not been informed that any Minister wishes to make a statement.
Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will be able to help. On the first page of today's Order Paper there are 13 Welsh Office questions. Seven of them are from Conservative Members and six are from Labour Members. There are 38 Welsh Members.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire) : My mother is Welsh. [Interruption. ]
Mr. Powell : On numerous occasions, I have been reminded that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. One of your predecessors, Viscount Tonypandy, used his influence to inform the House that Welsh Members have only rare opportunities to put questions to the Secretary of State for Wales, usually on a Monday and usually once a month. Surely you could use your influence, Madam Speaker, either to change the computer to a Welsh one or to persuade Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies not to ask questions. Today, five Conservative Members and three Labour Members were called in the 35 minutes. However, 11 Welsh Members who were in their places did not have an opportunity to put their questions to the Minister. Will you use your ingenuity to devise a different system, so that Welsh Members have at least an opportunity to present their constituency problems?
Madam Speaker : I make it quite clear that I am not prepared to tamper with the ballot or with the computers in the House to see that some Members rather than others receive priority.
Several hon. Members rose--
Madam Speaker : Order. I have not finished.
On today's Order Paper, only 22 questions were tabled for the Secretary of State for Wales. Usually, 30 questions are printed. Insufficient questions were handed in to the Table Office.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. A substantive point has arisen. The Secretary of State for Wales has umbrella responsibilities for subjects such as education, roads, housing, local government and the Welsh Development Agency, which is of considerable importance. He is responsible for a whole gamut of subjects. Because Conservative Members with English constituencies put down questions, they dictate the subjects that are to be answered. Notwithstanding the fact that we can put
Column 22
supplementaries, that limits the areas that can be discussed. That limits the oversight of the functions of the Welsh Office and its democratic answerability.Is there any way in addition to Question Time--which clearly English Members want to get in on--such as additional time for questions in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff, in which Welsh Members can get answerability from the Welsh Office?
Madam Speaker : I can answer the hon. Gentleman only by saying that he did not table a question today-- [Hon. Members :-- "Oh!"] Order. Indeed, 50 per cent. of his parliamentary party were called to put supplementaries.
Several hon. Members rose --
Madam Speaker : Who is next? I am now crossing the Chamber and I call Mr. Bruce.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can we have some form of clocking on and off, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has often suggested? Two weeks ago, very few Welsh Labour Members turned up for social security questions, despite their being of interest to their constituents. They were thus not here to table Welsh questions for today and have only themselves to blame.
Madam Speaker : Whether or not we clock on, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not going to be the convenor.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Welsh questions, you ruled as unparliamentary the expression "stool pigeon", as it is your right to do. The matter can be confusing at times. I refer hon. Members to pages 381-2 of "Erskine May" so tht they can decide what is an unparliamentary expression.
"Erskine May" used to contain a list of unparliamentary words such as "blackguard", "curmudgeon", "dog", "rotter", "cad" and the and all the other words that we could apply collectively to Conservative Members. That list has now been removed, but it would help the House--I hope that this is a helpful point of order--if that list were reinstated. I have a number of words that I should like to run by you, and it would be helpful if they could appear in "Erskine May".
Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has often used picturesque language. However, I feel that certain expressions are wholly unacceptable in a House of grown-up individuals who should be able to express themselves without using mediocre language.
Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), Madam Speaker. There is a genuine sense of anger about what has happened today. The views expressed by my hon. Friend reflect the views of many Labour Members when English Members of Parliament come here, not to pursue matters of concern to them, but to shield the Secretary of State from questions put by Welsh Members.
I very much endorse the view expressed by my hon. Friend Ogmore because of the first five questions on today's Order Paper were tabled by English Members with no constituency interest in Wales. Six of the top 10 questions were tabled by English Conservative Members.
Column 23
Only three Welsh Members, during Welsh Question Time, had the opportunity to raise matters with the Secretary of State relating to questions that they had tabled.I ask you, Madam Speaker, to give careful consideration to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others. I believe that there is now a case either for extending Welsh questions--perhaps transferring the forum in which we can ask them--or using your good offices with the usual channels to get the Government to accept that, unless they are prepared to ask English Members voluntarily to desist from disrupting Welsh Question Time, the only conclusion must be that the Secretary of State is not prepared to face questions from Welsh Members.
Madam Speaker : If the hon. Gentleman wants to extend Welsh questions, that is a matter for the usual channels, and he must take up the matter there. He also raised a point about the ballot. If the ballot system is to be changed, that must be agreed upon by the whole House. He knows that questions are not selected by me or by the Minister ; they are selected by ballot.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, however many hon. Members representing English constituencies tabled questions, during the whole of Welsh Question Time only one Member from the Opposition Benches was called who did not represent a Welsh constituency. The remainder of supplementary questions were from Welsh Members.
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I tabled a question, which became Question No. 9. I was only the third Welsh Member in the top 10, but we did not reach even Question No. 9. I did not seek to be called to ask a supplementary question on an earlier question, because I assumed that we would at least reach Question No. 9. In view of the imbalance, may I suggest that you should have endeavoured to move on, so that Members representing Welsh constituencies were called?
Madam Speaker : If the hon. Gentleman reflects and reads the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that that is precisely what I did. If hon. Members take a long time to ask questions and Ministers take a long time to answer them, we shall not get through the Order Paper.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We should not mince words. As millions and millions of pounds of United Kingdom taxpayers' money goes to Wales for regeneration--and Wales is doing awfully well--we are entitled to a say--
Madam Speaker : Order. That is not a point of order for me. I remind hon. Members that they are taking precious guillotine time.
Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I was the person who called the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) a "stool pigeon" but, on your instructions, I withdrew my comment unequivocally. There is a feeling, however, that, because of his inadequacies, the Secretary of State for Wales is being protected, and that his Parliamentary Private Secretary or someone else is running around
Column 24
looking for a person consumed with ambition to table questions in order to protect the right hon. Gentleman, the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and all the others--Madam Speaker : Order. That is not a point of order for me. I do my best to protect the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he does not get into difficulties, and I asked him to withdraw. I am very much the hon. Gentleman's protector, and I shall take care of him in future, too.
Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East) : You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that I have spent some years in the House and, indeed, that I am a member of your Chairmen's Panel. It seems to me that Welsh questions have become rather farcical. I remind you that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said that, when in your Chair, Mr. Speaker Thomas, now Viscount Tonypandy, told English Conservative Members that he was reluctant to call them, and that Welsh questions had been instituted so that Welsh Members could question the respective Welsh Ministers, which I thought perfectly good advice.
Madam Speaker : As I said earlier in answer to a point of order, if the hon. Gentleman reflects and reads the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that that is what has happened. I can understand his disappointment. He had tabled Question No. 12 ; if hon. Members and Ministers did not take so long over their questions and answers, we might proceed much more quickly through the Order Paper.
Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen) : I was one of the victims of this afternoon's Question Time. I drew Question No. 11 but, unfortunately, six of the first 10 questions were from English Conservative Members. My question was highly topical, being about the Welsh Development Agency, and other hon. Members would have liked to contribute.
May I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to comments by the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for The Wirral (Mr. Hunt), at a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff on 8 March this year ? He also acknowledged that there was a democratic deficit in Wales, and envisaged a larger role for the Welsh Grand Committee. Simultaneously, the Secretary of State for Scotland was talking about an enlarged role for Scottish Question Time. Would you please look into these possibilities ?
Madam Speaker : These are not matters for me. They are matters for the Procedure Committee, and the hon. Gentleman might like to take his points there.
Mr. Simon Coombs (Swindon) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I assure you that my question on the Order Paper was not planted by anyone else ? It reflected my interest in heart disease. If Opposition Members are not interested in the state of the health of the Welsh nation, they should be.
Mr. Ian Bruce : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker--
Madam Speaker : Order. We will now make some progress. I have a statement to make which I am sure will be of interest to hon. Members.
Column 25
Adjournment Motions
Madam Speaker : I remind the House that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Tuesday 27 July, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Wednesday. A ballot will be held on Thursday morning, and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
Diseases of Animals
That the Diseases of Animals (Therapeutic Substances) (Revocation) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, 1331) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Lightbown.]
Question agreed to.
Column 26
Education Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth) : I beg to move
That the Order of the House [15th December ] be supplemented as follows :
Lords Amendments
1.--(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight. (2) Subject to the provisions of the Order [15th December ], each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.
TABLE Proceedings |Lords amendments ------------------------------------------------------------- Nos. 7 to 24 |7.00 p.m. Nos. 25 to 177 |8.00 p.m. Nos. 178 to 253 |9.30 p.m. Nos. 254 to 333 |10.30 p.m. Remaining amendments |midnight
2.--(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above--
(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended ;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and, subject to sub-paragraph (2), shall--
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment, as amended ;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment ;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by the Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment ; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments ;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.
(2) In the case of proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at midnight the Speaker shall, instead of putting any Question required by sub -paragraph (1)(b)(iii) above, put
Column 27
forthwith with respect to all of the designated Amendments which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments.(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Extra time
3. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at this day's sitting for two hours after Ten o'clock.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments 4.--(1) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion
(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair ;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item ;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal ; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings 5.--(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or for the appointment and quorum of the Committee. (3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
(7) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this paragraph, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Column 28
I start by apologising to the House on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his absence from this debate. I am sure that all hon. Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend is indisposed and is unable to be here, as he would very much have wished.I do not want to spend a great deal of time introducing this supplemental order. Even those hon. Members who enjoy the occasional wrangle over procedural matters will agree that our time would be much better spent by discussing the substance of the amendments made to the Bill in another place.
We have already spent an enormous amount of time on this vital Bill, and we are about to spend another eight hours or more on it this evening. A timetable is an essential tool if the business of the House is to be conducted efficiently, not least if we are to ensure that there is no delay in implementing important aspects of the Bill for the next educational term. To that end, we will be seeking Royal Assent before the end of the month--provided, of course, that the House accepts this order, and provided that we complete all the parliamentary stages in time.
We have already spent 150 hours discussing the Bill--including, at the Opposition's request, two days on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and a further two days on Report. In addition, the other place has given the Bill 114 hours of close scrutiny, including an additional day in Committee, which was again requested by the Opposition. That is a not insignificant amount of parliamentary time, especially when we consider that parts II and IV of the Bill are largely re-enactments, with a little tidying up, of earlier education legislation.
To help the House, I should take a few moments to categorise the 570 or so Government amendments made to the Bill in another place, which we will consider today. I can deal with rather more than half the lords amendments in one fell swoop. More than 300 of the Government amendments approved by the other place are purely technical consequential, drafting or tidying-up changes flowing directly from the Bill as it left this House. Such changes are inevitable in a Bill of this size and importance. I will give some examples to set that in context.
Amendment No. 395 revises the index to the Bill. That is an important element, but I very much doubt whether it is worthy of debate. Amendment No. 515 updates the definition of "school" in the Value Added Tax Act 1983 to take account of the definition in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
We also have 16 purely technical amendments on middle schools ; 23 amendments to ensure that local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools, as appropriate, can pay for the provision of places at boarding and independent schools, so as to secure continuity with LEAs' existing ability to make such arrangements ; 34 technical amendments to provide for the transfer of schools to new sites ; and 40 amendments to provide for the detailed arrangements for grant-maintained school premises, covering the conveying of interest to trustees, the conditions of grant for premises and the details to be included in proposals.
I can already hear some hon. Members--I cannot, actually, but that is what it says in my notes--saying, "What about the rest?" As for the rest, they flow from three sources--first, the White Paper. That included, as I am sure all hon. Members will recall, proposed new
Column 29
arrangements for education, as the jargon goes, otherwise than at school. That of course, caters for the most vulnerable pupils on our schools.We wanted to make sure that the proposals were absolutely right and took full account of an extended consultation period. That is why the introduction of these vital proposals took place in the other place, where indeed they received thorough scrutiny, as we would expect. Secondly, we made commitments in this House to amend the Bill in a number of respects. We promised amendments on grant-maintained acquisition, to shorten the ballot period, and on religious education and collective worship.
Thirdly, we have drafted many amendments as a result of points raised in the other place. For example, we have extended the range of options available to schools willing to enter into grouped arrangements. We have brought forward amendments to ensure that head teachers are properly informed about matters relating to their schools--amendments that are supported by the National Association of Head Teachers--amendments relating to securing value for money in grant-maintained schools, and, of course, amendments to clause 1. Many amendments are the product of fruitful negotiations between my Department and the Churches. They reaffirm the importance of a continuing partnership between Church and state in the provision of public education. All those amendments are before us for consideration.
It is important that we have a timetable motion. I need hardly remind hon. Members who were unfortunate enough to have to endure the snail's pace of progress in Committee before Christmas of the lengths to which some hon. Members--I will not mention any names, of course--will go to avoid serious debate about education, and even evade careful scrutiny of the Bill. But that is in the past. We have much to do in implementing the Bill, and there are reforms in it which we must not delay. For too long, too many schools have simply shrugged their shoulders at the problems which are clearly besetting them, and are causing them to fail to give their pupils an acceptable standard of education. We cannot allow that to continue. Part V allows for a range of new measures to be taken when an inspection reveals that a school is at risk. The first inspections will take place this autumn, and we are determined that rapid and effective action should be taken as soon as possible thereafter. That is why we shall seek Royal Assent before the end of the month, provided that the House agrees the timetable motion and dispatches the business in the motion this evening.
The order is essential if we are to complete our proceedings on the legislation in a sensible and effective manner. The Bill puts in place a new framework for the organisation of our education system. It offers a new start to our most vulnerable children--those in failing schools, those with special educational needs and those whose needs cannot be met in school. I look forward to the proceedings following the motion, and I commend it to the House.
3.51 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury) : The Opposition object very strongly to the guillotine motion. The Minister is acknowledging that the Government are trying to rush through many amendments without proper consideration
Column 30
--without any consideration at all, in some respects. The Government are making a farce of parliamentary procedures by asking the House to debate more than 580 amendments in eight and half hours. That works out at 53 seconds per amendment. How on earth can the House of Commons be expected to carry out its responsiblities with such a time scale? Of course, that is assuming that we will have no votes on any of the amendments. That is not proper parliamentary scrutiny ; that is not what our constituents sent us here to do ; it reduces our proceedings to a farce.That is typical of the way in which the Government have behaved throughout the passage of the Education Bill. The Bill is based on a White Paper which was published on 28 July. That White Paper was supposed to be the basis for consultation. The consultation period opened during the parliamentary recess when schools were on holiday, and it finished at the end of September. In other words, the consultation was a total sham, and, since that time, the Government have proved that they have not responded to the submissions that were made in that tight time scale. Indeed, the Government have not even published those responses, despite requests to do so.
The junior Minister said that this was a vital Bill. He acknowledged that the Opposition had been keen to press for as much time as possible to debate its vital provisions. We take legislation seriously. We take our responsibilities to scrutinise legislation seriously. That is why it is totally outrageous and unacceptable for such a time scale to be imposed at this stage.
The Bill was introduced in glowing terms by the Secretary of State for Education, who claimed that he had written it almost by himself. But he then failed to go on the Committee considering the Bill, which shows that he was treating the House with contempt and not treating the legislation as it deserved and required.
The contempt for parliamentary scrutiny went deep. This is the longest Education Bill ever to be presented to the House, yet it had the shortest debate in Committee. When the guillotine was imposed, it was the tightest ever imposed on any Education Bill. It allowed only two days for Report and is allowing us only one day--today--to debate 580 Lords amendments.
The timetable is especially outrageous because many of the issues on which the House has been asked to come to a conclusion this afternoon have been debated only in the House of Lords--they h of parliamentary scrutiny. However, it is typical of the arrogance and the attitude of Education Ministers.
The amendments that concern us are numerous. It is impossible to list all the areas where substantial changes have been made in another place, but the junior Minister mentioned some of them. There are some issues on which we hope to have a limited debate--because of the guillotine--later this evening. However, many issues may not be debated at all. I want to remind the Minister of some of the issues which have not been debated in the House or in Committee but which have been introduced by the House of Lords and should get significant time.
Amendments have been tabled on corporal punishment, the making of new curriculum orders, the imposition
| Next Section
| Home Page |