House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Nov 1995

Mr. Skinner: The awkward squad.

Sir Peter Emery: If ever there were a leader of that squad, it is the hon. Member for Bolsover, who is sitting opposite me now. I believe that a majority of hon. Members are in favour of the proposals on the Order Paper. I urge that they be carried, without amendment, into the Standing Orders of the House.

Column 425

5.10 pm

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): I strongly support all the changes that appear on the Order Paper today. I believe that they are a first and a minimalist step toward what I hope will be a fundamental root-and-branch reform of the way in which we do business in this place. I understand perfectly the honourable, respectable and good tradition of the "awkward squad" in this place. I hope that that will always be the case. There will always be a role for hon. Members who have bona fide reasons for giving the Government of the day a hard time. That is one of the functions of debate in this place. Having said that, I believe that people in the community find it difficult to understand the way in which the House does business currently. They find the procedures arcane, outmoded and inefficient. I pay credit to the Leader of the House for going the last mile in trying to ensure that the minimalist changes have a basis of consent. I hope that he will not give up on reform once he has banked the changes--because I hope that that is what will occur--this evening. I hope that it is just the beginning of a momentum for change that will ensure that the House of Commons is a modern Chamber that is fit to govern in the 21st century. Unfortunately, at present the public do not believe that that is the case.

5.12 pm

Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington): I wish to raise two points in the debate. I have already raised the issue of not sitting on certain Fridays with my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), by way of intervention. One may align that with the fact that we often have less urgent business on Thursday evenings, which allows hon. Members to return to their constituencies to perform their constituency duties properly. It does not take too much imagination to realise that, if the time of hon. Members is too restricted, they will not be able to make essential contacts with their constituents--including industrialists, schools and local government organisations--on a non-political basis.

Consequently, the proposal is very welcome. I have been in this place for a long time and, like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I believe that the change should have occurred years ago. I only hope that the next reforms will not be so long in coming.

Mr. Dalyell: The people of Warwick and Leamington are not deprived of the hon. Gentleman's presence because of what occurs in the House of Commons on a Friday. If he wishes to return to his constituency, he is able to do so under the old system that we are abolishing. [Hon. Members:-- "At 3 o'clock."] Exactly. Hon. Members are rarely prevented from returning to their constituencies on a Friday.

Sir Dudley Smith: The answer is that one cannot have it both ways. If hon. Members are able to return to their constituencies on a Thursday evening, they may make appointments there at 9 o'clock or 10.30 the next morning. Many of us have not attended the Chamber on a Friday for that reason and, consequently, our attendances on Fridays are extremely poor. Because of constituency commitments, we are often unable to participate in the important and interesting debates on Fridays. That factor must be taken into account.

Column 426

I support the reforms almost unreservedly, but I must address the question of time limitations on speeches, to which the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) referred. I hope that we shall not go too far in timetabling speeches. Despite what anyone says, that would discourage interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, which are the kernel of our debates. Many effective and important interventions have been made over the years and they have always been part and parcel of the procedures in this place.

Anyone who has had experience of parliamentary procedure on the continent will know that interventions are a fairly rare occurrence. Those who have had experience of parliamentary assemblies associated with international and European organisations will know that the practice of intervening in the speech of another is very much frowned upon, if not banned. Consequently, there is a set pattern of speech after speech without any of the variety and intensity of debate that occurs so often in this place.

Our Parliament is often criticised for being confrontational because the parties sit opposite each other; we do not adopt the same soft line as the Europeans. I believe that that makes our debates a darn sight more interesting: they have flavour and they are often very pertinent indeed. One only wishes that Parliament received better media coverage generally so that we could put our case to the people. That could only benefit the institution of Parliament. By and large, I welcome the procedures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tonight.

5.16 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who said that the past parliamentary Session was not typical. I think it is very dangerous to measure procedural experiments in an untypical Session. I believe that it would have been better to allow the informal arrangements to continue for three or four years, perhaps trying a few more experiments and observing how they worked, and then include them in the Standing Orders. I realise that the Standing Orders may be changed in the future, but I believe that the House should be very cautious in accepting that all the reforms are beneficial. I welcome the fact that hon. Members may be able to leave the House at 7 o'clock on a Thursday night. That is a very sensible proposal. However, we must be very careful that that does not change the nature of the whole of Thursday. I have been surprised by how difficult it is to persuade people to attend meetings within the House--not in the Chamber--on a Thursday because they assume that they may be able to return to their constituencies on a Wednesday night. Therefore, Thursday becomes a quieter day. If one compares Prime Minister's Question Time on a Thursday with Prime Minister's Question Time on a Tuesday, one sees that there are far fewer hon. Members in the Chamber on a Thursday.

Having business questions and then a statement on a Thursday leaves only two hours, or even less time, for debate. Therefore, there is a tendency not to have major debates on a Thursday--unless the Government are being particularly Machiavellian and want to squeeze the time

Column 427

allowed for debate. The business on Thursday is less likely to have a three-line Whip and, for that reason, I suggest that we are changing the nature of Thursdays.

Hon. Members who serve on Standing Committees may have noticed how reluctant Committees are to meet on Thursday evenings because other hon. Members are likely to have left the building. Committee members often find themselves wandering around empty corridors like ghosts. We must look carefully at the implications of the proposals for Thursdays. Perhaps business questions could be moved to Wednesdays to allow time for a guaranteed three-hour debate on Thursdays. There are two strong arguments for retaining the possibility of debating money resolutions. One hopes that there would be agreement among hon. Members, and no one would need to use the time allocated for money resolutions. However, if many hon. Members were competing to get into a debate, one could always make it clear that, if one's speech could not be squeezed in, one would speak on the money resolution. It was amazing how often Front-Bench spokesmen were prepared to give up a little more of their time to make sure that everybody got in. Money resolutions represented an important opportunity to guarantee that people got into the main debate. They were also a useful muscle for the Opposition. If there was a disagreement, the Opposition could threaten to debate the money resolution, and everyone would be delayed a little longer. The more those opportunities are reduced, the more hon. Members have to turn to more disruptive activities to get across the passions that they feel. It was a Conservative Member who picked up the Mace, but the more we remove the means of putting pressure on the Government, the more we encourage hon. Members in such activities as picking up the Mace. I urge the House not to remove all the ways for hon. Members to demonstrate rebellion and disagreement.

I now refer to the motion for shorter speeches. One of the most disappointing developments since I have been in the House is that the debate often deteriorates in the evening, and restricting speeches to 10 minutes makes it worse. We might as well have a room upstairs where people can deliver a speech to a mirror, as once the 10-minute rule is imposed there are no interventions. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that the Chair could use its discretion, but all too often there is no chance of that, because hon. Members do not give way if they have only 10 minutes, so there is no question of the Chair exercising discretion. Matters would be greatly improved if speeches were 10 minutes excluding interventions.

We have now removed all opportunities for Back Benchers to cause votes on motions. That is an amazing reduction in their powers. The Government have the right to table motions. The Opposition have Supply days and so do the minority parties, but Back Benchers will now have no opportunity to vote on a motion.

There was a time when, if hon. Members put their names to an early-day motion, there was a chance that it would be debated. One trick that could be played if one came first in the ballot was to pick up an early-day motion that had support from hon. Members on both sides of the House who had claimed to their constituents that they were in favour of it. One could then table a motion using exactly the same words, to find out whether they really supported the early-day motion to which they had put their name.

Column 428

Now there will be no way for Back Benchers to test the opinion of the House. There will be cosy agreements between the Front Benches, but no rights for Back Benchers. I accept that it was unusual to come first in the ballot and that it was rare to have a vote, but the Government should consider finding some way of giving Back-Bench Members the right to table motions and have votes on them as a safeguard.

Mr. Mackinlay: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that only a few votes were taken on private Members' motions. However, on 1 July 1994, a majority in the Chamber supported the call for a Minister responsible for veterans' affairs, and the Government did not dare divide the House because they would have lost. Apart from the Opposition, a commanding majority of Conservatives supported the idea of a Minister responsible for veterans' affairs, so the Government did not divide the House. To say that only 12 per cent. of motions resulted in votes hides the fact that on many occasions the Executive get the message and dare not have a Division.

Mr. Bennett: I understand how the Government manoeuvred to avoid a vote, but real and direct pressure was put on the Executive by the possibility that there could have been one. The Leader of the House has to find a way of restoring that right to Back Benchers, either by accepting amendments (a) and (b) in my name or by considering the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that we have ballots on Mondays. I do not mind whether it is Wednesday morning or Monday afternoon, but it is important to restore to Back Benchers the right to have votes.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I would like to express my concern and that of all Back Benchers. The issue is clearly of considerable importance with the present balance of arithmetic in the House, but in future, if we have a balance of parties with no overall majority for the Administration, it will be even more important that Back-Bench groups can find opportunities to vote on important issues of principle. Therefore, there will be widespread concern on both sides of the House that the Leader of the House should listen to that point this evening.

Mr. Bennett: We should also examine the ballot procedure. We were assured from the Chair that Madam Speaker has an arrangement for balloting for Wednesday morning debates. I make a plea that it should be more transparent.

The old way in which hon. Members went into the Lobby, signed their names in the ballot book, and the raffle was carried out by the Chair, was a transparent procedure. One got a slot before announcing what one wanted to debate. It was a way of putting pressure on the Government. I remember at least one occasion during the last Labour Government when someone allegedly from the awkward squad came first in the ballot and there were frantic negotiations and deals struck between the Whips as to what motion that individual would table. None of that exists in the present procedure. If the majority of Back-Bench time is to be controlled by ballots run by the Speaker, other Members should know which hon. Members have put in their names, what they have selected and who has been successful or otherwise.

Column 429

The Government should not stop the experiments; they should continue to have experiments, but they should not rush into making them permanent until we have had more time to see how they work in the long run. Particularly in respect of the rights of Back Benchers to cause votes, the Government should think again.

5.26 pm

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): It is important to remember that tonight's debate is the culmination of a number of occasions in the past 20 years when power has been taken from Back Benchers and handed to the two Front Benches. The practice has not been confined to the Tory party, as it is on this occasion--it happened under the Labour Government of 1974-79. Today we are removing a little more power from Back Benchers and handing it over to the Government of the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred to the Consolidated Fund Bill. We could keep debate on it going ad nauseam through the following day, not because we wanted to be awkward but to stop some lousy Government business that would affect our constituents. On the occasion to which my hon. Friend referred, we were extremely successful. Not only did we have a vote on the Consolidated Fund, but we stretched out all three stages of the Bill. Gradually such opportunities were whittled down, until the debate finished at 9 o'clock without a Division.

Today's debate represents an extension of the exercise embarked on earlier this year when the Jopling proposals were introduced. Let us make no mistake about it. It is not about Labour versus Tory in terms of power. If Tory Back Benchers were worth their salt, there would be scores of them here today. They can see a Labour Government staring them in the face and they will not have the power that they had between 1974 and 1979 when they led the Labour Government a dance hour after hour through the night. I could recite all those occasions when Tory Back Benchers gave the Callaghan Government hell. That opportunity has been taken away. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr): I was in the House during those years. Perhaps my hon. Friend recalls the occasion in mid-1974 when Conservative Members, in opposition, kept the House going on a Consolidated Fund Bill so long that it was stopped only by the appearance of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. That was over the slag heaps affair. A Tory Government is removing that right.

Mr. Skinner: That adds to my argument that Parliament is changing. Most members of the Government and many of our Front Benchers want that change, but it takes power from Back Benchers.

When I first entered the House, there could be a properly designated Adjournment debate before every recess--it was the real thing and could not be stopped. If 50 hon. Members wanted to speak, the Government had to invoke the closure procedure to stop them. That meant that the Government had to keep their troops here.

One weapon that Back Benchers have is the ability to occupy the Government's time and space. That applies to the Opposition in general, both Front Benchers and Back

Column 430

Benchers. The only real power that they have is to show that they are not prepared to take Government proposals lying down. A good example of that involved Geoffrey Howe, when he was Leader of the House for a short spell. He did not like that job, which had been given to him by Margaret Thatcher. Many of us kept the Government up for several nights and Geoffrey Howe pulled up stumps. He was not having any more of that. That was another occasion when the Government decided to limit the power of Back Benchers. We have lost the ability to keep Adjournment debates going more than three hours. Such debates have been slipped into Wednesdays.

Mr. Dalyell: In their reforms, Front Benchers are being dreadfully and pitifully naive. They are taking away not only the time of the House but the concentration of the civil service and of Whitehall on what occurs in the House. The Leader of the House should not be naive and simplistic. If Parliament matters less and less--some of us think that that is to the detriment of the country--that is one reason.

Mr. Skinner: I absolutely agree. Some of my hon. Friends have already referred to money resolutions. Again, power has been taken from Back Benchers who, if they had not managed to participate in the Second Reading debate, had 45 minutes to raise issues. Again, that change does not affect Front Benchers. They still have their say, but Back Benchers lost another opportunity to contribute.

As for Wednesday mornings, I applied for an Adjournment debate on French nuclear tests and the capture of the Rainbow Warrior. Many hon. Members were concerned about the events of that Sunday afternoon, and I raised them in the House on Monday. The Speaker more or less told me that if I made an application for an Adjournment debate, I would get one. I did--on a Wednesday morning.

Under the old-fashioned system of winning a place in the ballot for a Friday or Monday, there would have been a three-hour debate. I got a quarter of an hour and was able to offer a couple of minutes to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and another hon. Member managed to utter a couple of sentences. If any 20 of us had been presented with the opportunity to ballot for a motion, there would have been a three- hour debate. In the old days, there could also have been a Division and the Government would have been even more embarrassed. Although it is argued that Wednesday mornings provide an opportunity for hon. Members to raise issues, it is not the same as before, when I was able to table a motion about imported coal to which many other hon. Members could contribute.

As for the four-day week, I understand the argument that there are things for an hon. Member to do in his constituency. My argument is that whatever gloss is put on it, the 4 million people who are unemployed will say, "Why can't Members of Parliament produce legislation for a four-day week, to mop up the unemployed and to give young men and women a chance to get a job?" That is one of the most important challenges that will face the next Labour Government. Tory Members will have given away all that parliamentary power, and they are losing their directorships under Nolan. God knows what they will do

Column 431

with themselves at night. The Government will have got their legislation through at 8 pm and the House will not sit on Fridays--there may be another 10 Fridays off. Make no mistake: that will be the new Blair agenda.

All the Tory Members who are not in the Chamber will wish that they had been here to battle for the cause of Back Benchers. They have thrown it all away. I am standing up for the rights of a few of us. We will divide the House tonight, but we will have one big laugh when they put pink curtains up at No. 10 Downing street and the Daily Mirror reporter is able to go in there any day of the week. Then again, he may not. Those days will be different from 1974 and 1979. Tory Back Benchers, with or without directorships, will rue the day that they shovelled away the power of Back Benchers. When a party is in opposition, it has loads of Back Benchers with loads of grievances. Labour Ministers will be arrayed on that Treasury Bench and they will be laughing all the way home. It will be left to me and my hon. Friends to carry the torch on behalf of Back Benchers, but we will not have the power that we used to have. Today, power is being taken from Back Benchers and handed to members of the two Front Benches, and there is no clear blue water between them.

5.38 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put his finger on the point. There may be more time on Wednesdays and a more useful arrangement of time, but that time is for opinion rather than decision initiated by Back Benchers. My hon. Friend's example of a possible motion expressing an opinion about French nuclear tests will ring a bell in the minds of the public.

Our ability to raise such matters and to threaten a Division is not for our benefit but for those whom we represent. Without that power, the House will not have the respect that it would otherwise enjoy. That is one reason why public esteem for the House has reduced. More and more, matters are fixed between members of the two Front Benches. I will deal with that when I respond to the lack of enthusiasm shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for my amendment on private Members' motions.

Delegated legislation going Upstairs automatically by a Standing Order is dangerous, because the time allowed for such legislation is usually attenuated by the Chair after a little talk and takes up perhaps 30 seconds of the time of the House. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, it takes 20 hon. Members to stand up and say no. Some years ago, it was not difficult for one hon. Member, knowing that he had 19 supporters, to make representations, after which the statutory instrument might be dealt with on the Floor of the House or there would be discussion of it. That power is being removed without adding one minute to the time of Back Benchers.

When the experiment was first suggested, many of us did not object to the Wednesdays. I am afraid that the speech by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee illustrated the problem with what is happening now. Doubling the time for Adjournment debates on Wednesdays is being used as an excuse for taking away private Members' power to speak and, more important, to divide. I hope that the media will not say that Members have endorsed the reforms. As far as Wednesdays go, I

Column 432

am not a member of the awkward squad. By all means give us double the time, but do not reduce our power under this camouflage. Independent motions are part of the fabric of democracy and form part of our ancient parliamentary rights. A century ago, the time of the House was distributed fairly evenly between private Members' time, Government time and time for private legislation. The distribution varied from Session to Session, but since then private Members' time has been consistently whittled away with the connivance of Front Benchers on both sides, because it is in their interests to do that. Of course that prevents Members from representing the views of their constituents, often on non- party issues. The debates on private Members' motions will often bring out matters that have nothing to do with party opinion. Indeed, they can show the public that Members of Parliament are reasonable people of good sense, whose concerns mirror the public's concerns.

I hope tonight for some reassurance to the contrary from the Leader of the House, because Front Benchers on both sides are diminishing the status of Parliament and of private Members themselves. That in turn diminishes the legitimacy of those who speak from the Front Benches, and people will begin to doubt whether it is worth entering Parliament at all.

An important principle is at stake here. Until last year, on no fewer than 14 occasions in the year, Members successful in the ballot were able to debate a subject of their choice. The fact that that represented a tremendous threat to Front Benchers has been shown today in various ways. Often, a Member who has been successful in the ballot can be approached by other Members with more ideas touching on issues that affect the public. A thousand choices of subject present themselves in the early-day motions on our Order Paper, for instance. The Leader of the House is frequently asked for time to debate early-day motions, and in fact they are often debated: now that chance will go.

We also often hear the Leader of the House saying that the question raised by an hon. Member is a matter of great public importance, and that he should take his chances in the ballot. After today, unless we can be reassured otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman will no longer be able to say that.

It is true, as the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, that private Members' time for Adjournment debates has been doubled. The modest amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggests considering private Members' motions on four Wednesday mornings a year, which amounts to about half an hour a week. What is wrong with that? My amendment proposes four Mondays a year for this purpose, which amounts to no more than 20 minutes a week. My hon. Friends have already demonstrated that the Government are afraid of such motions, which is why, at the same time as doubling private Members' time to discuss subjects on the Adjournment, the Government are commuting our real power. There can be only one reason for eliminating that power: such debates really mattered.

The Leader of the House should accept one or other of the amendments--I am not too bothered which. I have proposed Mondays because I think that voting at 7 o'clock on a Monday on a motion or a closure would be a better

Column 433

time. Even a closure can be a bit of a threat, for reasons of which we are all well aware. I think that that would be more convenient than voting at 2 o'clock on a Wednesday, as proposed by my hon. Friend. But if my amendment falls I will support his, since Madam Speaker has been gracious enough to allow us to proceed at some stage to both. Perhaps the Leader of the House will concede my idea of Mondays, if only because they will involve only three hours, instead of the four and a half or five hours involved in the other amendment.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury is not here at the moment. I neither followed nor agreed with what she said. I would hope that no Government will reduce the powers of Members of this House, because by doing so they would reduce the powers of the electorate as well. If the Government do that, they are demonstrating an arrogance which our democratic traditions should not tolerate. I hope that none of us, when we leave this place, will be sorry that we connived at the change.

5.45 pm

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): It comes as a great shock to me to be called one of the awkward squad when, as hon. Members will know, I have been all my life the epitome of the gentle, calm and flexible politician. However, if I am to be awkward on this occasion, I hope that I shall do so with vigour and intent. I have been here a very long time and I think it patronising to suggest that those of us who object to some of these changes do so merely because we are used to the old ways and have nothing useful to contribute. It is suggested that our objections are based, not on an understanding of what the House of Commons should be doing, but on a wish to stay as we always have been.

On the contrary, I believe that some of the problems raised this afternoon are fundamental. It is important to have extra time for Back Benchers, and I welcome Wednesday morning debates. Indeed, it would be ungracious of me not to, as I have been lucky enough to initiate one or two of them myself. But they should not be an alternative to allowing Back Benchers the muscle that goes with a vote. I am sure that the Leader of the House is not silly enough to think that they are an alternative. He must realise that Members of Parliament know the difference between a general debate and forcing the Government to take note of a vote which expresses the opinion of all parties.

So why are we being told that these are minimal changes to which we should not object because they simply ameliorate the workings of the House and, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), make it more efficient? That is not so. I do not mind people thinking me an idiot, but I do not want them to make it too clear. In this instance, the Leader of the House does himself an injustice. He does care about the rights of Back Benchers, but he cannot genuinely believe that we are so naive as not to be able to see what is happening.

Front Benchers, for their own sensible and focused reasons, are bent on ensuring that there are ever fewer opportunities for ordinary Members to cause trouble. But trouble is what Parliament is all about. I have sat in the

Column 434

European Parliament and listened to those well organised debates in which people read out speeches without accepting any interventions and then brief representatives of the media outside the Chamber, congratulating themselves on ably representing a democratic system when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.

It is debate, fight and teasing out all the awkward things that people do not want known that is important about the Chamber. It has been like that for many centuries.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend remember the Member of the European Parliament who was least willing of all to give way at any time when she and I were indirectly elected MEPs? His name was Giulio Andreotti.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Yes, and we all know that Mr. Andreotti was exceedingly good at organising procedure. Indeed, he made an entire career out of it. I was brought up by a man who believed in procedure because he understood that, when one was in a tight corner, having control of the standing orders was the way to limit any difficult debate. He understood that knowing how the standing orders operated gave one the power to control what was going on in any committee. That is a lesson that I have never forgotten.

I agree with 10-minute limits on speeches when many people want to speak and when the debate lends itself to hon. Members making one or two individual points. That is fine. There is not a problem with that. However, it is not always suitable. In some debates, people have to have the time to make a thoughtful speech, to accept interventions and to develop an argument. That cannot always be done in a truncated speech.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Does my hon. Friend agree that not only Members of the European Parliament but parliamentarians from various long-established democracies recognise that the rights that we have had in this place far exceed what they have? Is there not a danger that we shall go their way, in the sense of sitting shorter hours and putting much more emphasis on activities outside this place? What we have established over the years--a full-time Parliament which sits for far longer than other Parliaments in Europe--is being slowly eroded and undermined. That is not good for parliamentary democracy.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is no accident that some people apparently spend an enormous amount of effort getting here and then cannot wait to spend all their time out on College green. I am old-fashioned enough to think that this is the place where we ask questions of the Government. If we have long recesses and ever longer periods when there is no one sitting in the House of Commons, Governments are not altogether unhappy because it means that they do not have to answer awkward questions. We are here to pose the awkward questions. There are already whole areas of legislation that slip through. The European Standing Committees are disgracefully undermanned and underwomaned. Many people who are well known outside the House on every television programme on the face of God's earth are rarely to be found in those boring old Committees in which a lot of the work is done hour after hour by people asking awkward questions and examining the implications of legislation.

Column 435

I believe that the Leader of the House is genuinely trying to help, but I am so worried about the way in which the House of Commons is going that I believe that the time is coming for some of us to make our views painfully clear to the electorate. The House must never become merely a backdrop for a few hours of cable television. It must never ever become a Chamber to which people come only when they think that they have their soundbites and their colours correct. It must not become a place to which people come to deal with just one tiny aspect of a complicated subject.

Parliament is dependent on the detailed knowledge and commitment of Members of all sorts of shapes and sizes. In the 30-odd years that I have been here, I have seen many people with diverse views, many of which I did not accept. They made complex speeches about aspects of legislation which I had not envisaged because I had no way of knowing the impact of a particular Bill. They succeeded in convincing the House of their view because they had something important to say. If we ever lose that diversity and become mere exponents of the brief intervention and the calm acceptance that Back Benchers are here merely as walk-ons, democracy will be damaged.

It is not the noise that people object to in this place. It is not the shouting and the constant turmoil. It is the failure to understand that that turmoil frequently reflects genuine depths of feeling out in the country. If that ceased to be expressed, the silence would be deafening, and the result would be much more like anarchy.

5.54 pm

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). There is much in what she says with which I am bound to agree. I hope that the House will take notice of the advice that she gives from the standpoint of her long experience of parliamentary matters. I share her anxiety about the future of the House and the future powers of Back Benchers to express views and articulate the views of the people whom they represent. More and more I see the House becoming simply a rubber stamp for the Executive.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will appreciate that I speak from a particular standpoint. During the past year or so I have put myself in a position in which perhaps few Back Benchers have previously found themselves. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that the only thing that really mattered at the end of the day was the vote. That is correct. It is becoming more apparent that the views expressed in the House are perhaps listened to, but in great measure disregarded because for understandable reasons the Executive have a view as to which way they want to go and which way they want to take the country.

Sometimes, as has been proved recently, the Executive want to take the country in a direction in which the country palpably does not want to go. My colleagues and I were able to stand up to the Government during the past 12 or 18 months because we knew that the people whom we represented thought that we were right in that great debate and that the Government were wrong. Yet throughout the debate it was apparent for all to see that the only thing that the Government recognised was, not the force of the argument-- night after night my colleagues deployed an argument which was undoubtedly

Column 436

cogent and irrefutable--but the force of the vote. The Government prevailed because they had more voting power than we so-called rebels.

The single issue to which I have referred is not the point. The point is what is happening to our Parliament. It is relevant to consider what is happening to our Parliament in the context of the European Union. It is apparent for all to see--no one can argue about it--that what is decided in treaties has to go through the House even though the vast majority of Back Benchers may feel that it is wrong. By signing the treaties, the Government have signed away the right that we as Back Benchers previously had to decide matters. That was demonstrated on 24 November last year when I and eight of my colleagues had the party Whip withdrawn because we failed to support the Government in a vote to send £75 million more to the European Union. I venture to suggest that, had it been a domestic issue, we would not have been drummed out of the regiment. The Government had to deliver on that particular promise, as on all the other promises that they have made, because they have committed Britain and all the people whom we represent by signing the treaties. That is a particular development of the past 25 years. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly said, that is the wrong way for Parliament to proceed.

I am worried about how difficult it will be to explain to our electorate exactly how little power we have here as Back Benchers. At present, by and large, the electorate feel that when they send us to Parliament we can have a great influence over what goes on here, decide matters on their behalf and ensure that their view is fully represented.

We can certainly make representations, but I return to the point that ultimately the only thing that the Executive recognise is voting power. The measures that we are debating today will give more time for Back Benchers to ventilate their own private or constituency interests, but it will be at the expense of the time that we have as Back Benchers for scrutinising legislation and controlling the Executive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I now call Mr. Rooker.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it be registered that others of us were waiting to speak when you called the Front-Bench spokesman? Anyone looking for an example of Front-Bench fixing could find it in the way the two-hour motion was slipped through on a Friday. I must say to the House authorities--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. I call Mr. Rooker.

6 pm

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr): My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and many of my other hon. Friends have made valid points this afternoon, as did the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I also recall many of the examples cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from the last Labour Government.

While there has been an experiment this past year, what my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said was true. The parliamentary Session now coming to

Column 437

an end has not by any stretch of the imagination been typical of previous Sessions during my 20 years in the House, and I suspect that the Session due to start on 15 November will not be typical either. We must make it clear to our constituents that we are the law-making authority. Nothing involved in the package affects the law- making process in terms of new legislation. That is sad; I wish that it were otherwise and that we could start to reform the House and produce quality legislation. A package of 24 items was announced and agreed last December and today we are dealing with just four or five. They are all important matters, but we are not dealing with some of them--for instance, the scandalous way in which we deal with European legislation. I understand from the Select Committee report produced in July, which I read in the recess, that hon. Members have often attended European Standing Committees and virtually been asked to agree legislation of which the text has not even been available. That practice must stop, as it is unacceptable. We need more time to tackle that problem.

I have just one question of clarification to ask the Leader of the House. Will he confirm that the rule remains in force whereby, on Second Reading of a Finance Bill, the 10 o'clock rule does not apply, thus allowing any hon. Member who has not been called yet to stand in his or her place and be called to speak and continue the debate? I see that the Leader of the House nods in agreement. It is an important matter.

I can think of only three cases in the past 20 years when an hon. Member has stood up at 10 pm, after the Front Benchers have sat down, and has said, "I demand my right under the rules to be called," and has been called by the Speaker. The House is not happy when that happens. I am one of the three people to have made use of that procedure, and I was not in the House's good books. I wanted to explain to my hon. Friends that there are procedures that they can use in the House if they have a mind to, but they do not. Sometimes procedures that are not used go by default. I should hate hon. Members to lose the opportunity of raising issues on Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Wednesday mornings have proved useful. I used one in March to raise the subject of domestic violence and was told by the Minister not to worry as a Bill was coming from the other place covering all the issues that I had raised.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rooker: I cannot give way, because, for obvious reasons, my time is limited.

Change is slow to occur in this place. The sloth of this place is such that it took 34 months for us to begin the experiment proposed in the Jopling report. That is a thundering disgrace. I do not blame anyone in particular on either side of the House, but my example shows how slow the rate of change is in this place.

Procedure is not a tool in itself; it is a tool that we use to help and represent our constituents. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it is important. We must master the procedure, not let it control us; we must shape it, mould it and modernise it.

Column 438

Life should be tough for Ministers. The 13- week recess belongs in a bygone age, and it will be when we have a change of Government. We need more reform than is proposed in the measures that we are discussing today. We must create a useful Parliament which holds Government to account, creates good quality legislation and allows those affected by our legislation to wield greater influence over our proceedings. None of those improvements will be achieved through the measures, which represent a tiny pinprick in a package of reforms that is long overdue.

6.6 pm

Mr. Newton: I, too, have only a few minutes for my speech. We have been trying to allow as many speeches as possible in the debate. It is ironic that what has been said this afternoon contrasts with the cause of the earlier delay: the attempt to tease out an agreement. That period was uncomfortable for me because of the number of people who demanded the exact opposite of what has been demanded of me this evening. The great majority of hon. Members wanted the changes that we have made because they felt them to be right. While I do not dismiss--as I never seek to dismiss--points that have been made, we should be clear that the support expressed from the Front Benches and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) today is widely expressed around the House, and has been over many months. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not take much time to respond to those who have spoken in support of the measures, but respond to those comments that were less supportive. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will ensure that Madam Speaker's attention is drawn to some of the comments made about the Wednesday morning arrangements.

I cannot recommend the amendments, or any variant of them, to the House. The Jopling report specifically recommended that private Members' business should be taken on a motion for the Adjournment, to ensure that no votes were taken during a morning sitting. That system has worked well and has commanded general support. I note the proposal of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but the transfer of private Members' business to Wednesday mornings has, as has already emerged, given Back Benchers more time on the Floor of the House.

There is no case to be made for providing a further four half-days. That would be contrary to the basis of the Jopling reforms, which were designed not to increase the amount of time that the House sits, but to decrease it to a more realistic level and provide a balance. In practice, the experiment has resulted in an increase in the time available for private Members' business.

There is some irony in the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) should have made the speech that he did. I find it difficult to think of anyone who has demonstrated more clearly the effectiveness of the Chamber and the role of the Back Bencher than my hon. Friend and some of his hon. Friends during our consideration of certain recent Bills. No one who has been in the House during the past two years could say that the influence of the House has diminished and that Whitehall and Ministers need not bother about it. That is an extraordinary description of the way in which I perceive

Column 439

and feel that the place operates and is perceived. I am sorry that I have no time for further and fuller comment. I merely say that we also had a piece of vintage Bolsover.

Question put:--

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 17.

Division No. 227] [6.10 pm

AYES

Next Section

Home Page