| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclennan: I had not realised that this was the Minister's debut. May I also congratulate him on that? Will he draw the remarks that he just made about what the Government are doing on pre-publication to the attention of the Home Office, which is guilty of not consulting properly? We have heard plenty of evidence of that, including as recently as Monday, when we were considering the new proposals on asylum.
Mr. Willetts: I have noted the remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland about the work of that Department, and I will draw them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. As the hon. Gentleman said, legislation needs to be drafted clearly, accessibly and with the eventual user in mind. First parliamentary counsel is himself wholly committed to this approach, and he has been looking at
the experiences in Australia and New Zealand--which some hon. Members have cited--where innovative work is being done. The aim is for as great a degree of simplicity as is consistent with certainty. As the Hansard Society commission itself noted, there is no point in having simple statements of principle in statutes if, in the end, the law is uncertain. Certainty must be paramount.
I am not saying for a moment that we invariably get it right, but the objective is clear. I believe--as does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House--that in pursuing that objective, we are extremely well served by parliamentary counsel, for whom I have some ministerial responsibility in the Office of Public Service.
We are also looking to other sources of advice. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is conducting an experiment under which, after an open competition, several private sector contractors have been engaged to draft parts of this Session's Finance Bill. The purpose of the experiment is to test whether the preparation of legislation outside Government is feasible and cost-effective, and whether there is anything that the private sector can contribute on drafting style. It is too early for me to be able to give the House any sign at this stage of how the experiment is proceeding, but it is clearly worth while.
Mr. Maclennan:
May we take it that the experiences of the Bank of England--of which we have evidence-- which complained that it might not be permitted to talk to parliamentary counsel, will not be repeated? Will a body of that kind have something to lend to parliamentary counsel in terms of drafting?
Mr. Willetts:
I am not aware of the particular example to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is important that parliamentary counsel are not bombarded with a variety of advice from a variety of sources, but I shall certainly take account of the point that he makes.
Legislation is complex sometimes because the underlying concepts are complex and sometimes because the concepts are expressed in a way which is not easy to grasp. In his Budget statement, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced that he hoped to make a start next year on a major project to simplify tax legislation for the benefit of businesses and taxpayers generally. Yesterday, my hon Friend the Financial Secretary laid before Parliament a report on tax simplification as required in the Finance Act, together with a background paper by the Inland Revenue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), who has great expertise in this matter, made some very important points about this important attempt to simplify tax legislation, and I greatly welcomed his comments. There is an exciting possibility of reducing the compliance costs which the tax system imposes on every taxpayer, of taking forward the deregulation unit's work in simplifying the burdens on business and of supporting the Inland Revenue's continuing efforts to improve its service to the public and to reduce costs.
Mr. Austin Mitchell:
I am excited by the idea of involving private organisations such as the big six accountancy houses in the preparation of legislation. Why do the Government not involve criminals in legislation about police or Home Office matters? The point I wish to make is not that facetious one. The Minister could devote the rest of his very brief ministerial career--he can have
Mr. Willetts:
I am afraid that I have only three minutes left. I have been trying in my speech to go through the practical measures that we have taken in the past few years which are intended to implement many of the ideas to be found in the report. Sadly, I will not have time to list everything that we have done. I had hoped to talk about the implementation of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, as that is a very significant example of the sort of procedures that were envisaged in the report. We have new Select Committees to make sure that the proposals put before them have been the subject of adequate consultation, and also to make sure that appropriate account has been taken of that consultation.
When the final version of the deregulation order comes for parliamentary approval, the Committees report to both Houses on how the Minister concerned has taken account of the comments made on earlier drafts. If the Committees are not satisfied with the consultation that has taken place, they will say so in no uncertain terms. I pay tribute to the work of the Committees, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and to Lord Alexander of Weedon for the work that they have done since the new Committees came into being in the spring. That is a good practical example, which reflects some of the concerns expressed in the Hansard Society's report.
There is not enough time for me to get into the subject of law reform. In the previous Session--with the assistance of the Opposition parties--we passed law reform Bills on civil evidence, private international law and requirements of writing in Scotland, a series of measures which constitute a significant improvement in the reform of the law.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade the House of the Government's seriousness of purpose in this important sphere. We are committed to good government and, through the various means that I have described--the publication of draft Bills, close attention to drafting style, simplification wherever possible, and the sensible use of subordinate legislation--we are striving to be the Government of good legislation.
I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and the hon. Member for Dewsbury accept the fact that, in a low-key practical way, many of the ideas floated in the Hansard Society commission report are already being reflected in the practices and procedures of the House.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
I have asked for a debate on this subject for some time because, since I entered the House last year, I have been struck by the extent to which working time in our country has become completely out of control. That lack of control over working time is having the most disastrous consequences on family life.
My concern stems from conversations that I have had with my constituents at my surgery in Rotherham. I think of a man who came in with his wife and two small children. He was a confident chap, not yet 30, and he clearly had a very happy family, who came to the surgery with him. He was working as a van driver for a Sheffield computer company, and his working hours were such that he was leaving home before 7 am and returning home a little after 7 pm, when he had to spend time working out his routes for the next day.
The man said that he was utterly exhausted. For that amount of work, he was earning £8,500 a year, which I remember because he had signed a contract for a yearly salary. There was no overtime or possibility of getting an increase. He wanted to know what he could do either to reduce his working time or to increase his pay. I suggested the normal methods, such as talking to the boss. He said, "He will fire me." I said, "Join a union." He said, "He will fire me." I said, "Go on strike"--because at times old Labour does resurface. He said, "If we go on strike, all the van drivers will be dismissed on the spot." I had to send him away from the surgery with absolutely no advice at all. I have since learnt that he has quit that job because he will be better off even on the meagre benefits that the state provides.
I can cite other examples, such as the engineering workers in my constituency who work six and seven-day weeks, 10 hours a day, who are not yet 30 but who have the physique of a 50-year-old. They are exhausted, trying to earn enough money to maintain a living income for their families, but they do not have any time to be with their families so that they can spend that money.
I think of my many friends from university who, after a quarter of a century of working in the professions, find that they are working longer hours than ever before. One of my oldest friends is the deputy head of a comprehensive school not far from the House of Commons. She gets up at 6 am, arrives at her school before 8 am, stays until 5.30, 6 pm or 7 pm, and then takes work home. She has a small child--her two older children are now teenagers. Her small son does not see enough of his mother.
I have an interest to declare because I have four children under the age of 10. I do not intend to discuss the problems of Members of Parliament, however, because I find many hon. Members' self-regard about their hours nauseating. They have extraordinary privileges, should they choose to exercise them, to control and allocate their working time.
11 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |