| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Peter Emery: I shall give way first to my colleague on the Committee and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman is an active Chairman of our Committee. Does he agree that closed questions would not necessarily change the character of Prime Minister's Question Time? The yah-booing would go on because the most controversial topics are raised twice a week. That should be taken into account. However, hon. Members in all parts of the House should stop the ridiculous practice, which has become almost automatic, of cheering our respective leaders a minute before they enter the Chamber. It is always a minute before, never two or five minutes, to make sure that they come in at virtually the same time. That sort of nonsense could come to an end quickly if common sense were applied on both sides.
Sir Peter Emery: I am always pleased to have the hon. Gentleman on my Committee because he makes sensible observations that assist the Committee. The cheering, rather third-form like, that the House has got into is nonsense. On his other point, the proposal might alter the whole proceedings or it might not. We could tell only with an experiment and that is why I would like an experiment for a few weeks or two or three months. We would then find out. I do not know which of us is right, but no one will know unless we conduct the experiment.
Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when he and I first arrived here, Hugh Gaitskell was Leader of the Opposition and it was comparatively
unusual for him to intervene in Prime Minister's questions. It was an event when he did so, but the device that he used was the private notice question at 3.30, which meant that it was serious issue and there could be some follow-up. Some of us think that there is no hope of avoiding yah-boo when the Leader of the Opposition, with whatever good intentions, intervenes on the Prime Minister in the 3.15 to 3.30 slot. It is a recipe for the sort of yah-boo that, incidentally, has brought the House into such disrepute. It is part of reason why many people are so angry about what happened last night, because all they see of us are these hooligans on television on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 3.15 and 3.30. That is the impression that they get, so they say that Members of Parliament are not worth the money.
Sir Peter Emery: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. I recall when he and I came into the House. Prime Minister's Question Time was not a big event. I was a parliamentary private secretary to David Ormsby-Gore, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office. We used to have to hang around after Prime Minister's questions because the 15 minutes of Prime Minister's questions often was not taken up and we had to come back. That is unbelievable compared with what happens today.
The Leader of the Opposition came in occasionally. Then he always came in once. Then he came in twice, but now it seems to be common practice that he comes in three times. The idea of Prime Minister's questions used to be that they were for Back-Bench Members. The hon. Gentleman is right. Hugh Gaitskell used the private notice question to raise something of great importance. The press and the media noted it because it was a private notice question, he put it and the whole thing took on an importance that is not given to Prime Minister's Question Time by the media, other than the television stations, which show it as an entertainment. In America, people say, "Prime Minister's Question Time is amazing. How do you get away with it?" It is entertainment, not a serious political event, I am sorry to say.
I frequently hear or read what I consider to be especially ill-informed statements suggesting the vital need to modernise Parliament's procedures, but when one tries to question the media, in particular, on that bland statement, it is usually barren of practical suggestions or ideas. This debate has been especially useful because we have had some sensible and concrete ideas.
We hear that we must reform our working hours and make them the same as those of a business. People do not understand that most Members of Parliament are here between 9 and 9.30. Many are here at 8 o'clock. Some green cards have been put around the Chamber by 8.15. About 30 or 40 Members are in the cafeteria having breakfast. The mail is dealt with from 9 until 10 or 10.30. From 10.30 to 1 o'clock, hon. Members are in different Committees upstairs. They are back in the Chamber at 2.30 for questions and then there is the debate, as today, until 10 o'clock. Most business people would not even consider that time scale.
One of the House's problems is that we have too many Members of Parliament. We have 650 Members. This is my view, not the Committee's view, but the concept that we could not cope with the number of constituents if there were only 450 constituencies is wrong. If there were 450 Members of Parliament, the average constituency would
have 82,000 constituents, the number I have in Honiton, and any Member of Parliament can deal with that number reasonably.
Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle):
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some hon. Members represent deprived communities and that they would therefore have a much bigger work load in dealing with constituency business than him?
Sir Peter Emery:
No, I do not think so, and shall I tell the hon. Gentleman why? My constituency covers Sidmouth, Budleigh Salterton and Exmouth and many retired people write me letters, come to see me and lecture me about what the Government's policy should be. I have worked in a deprived constituency. I stood for Poplar in 1951. At that time, the Member of Parliament, God rest his soul, Charlie Key was not much interested in dealing with problems as he had a safe majority, so I had to deal with many of them. A Members' work load, however, will vary with the constituency. I understand that.
On the reduction in the number of Members, as I have said before, turkeys do not vote for Christmas. The only way it could be done would be to decide to do it in 10 years' time, and to order that the next boundary change review should take place after five years. With the wastage over that period of Members who would be willing to stand down, it could be accomplished. We have increased the number of Members from, I think, 630 when I came in and it is going up again by a few after the next election. We are getting ourselves into serious trouble, which is foolish.
This Parliament has the largest membership of any Parliament in the free world. The Chinese communists' house of the people contains more members, but we have the largest number of Members in a democratic country.
On sensible ways of proceeding, only yesterday, the Committee reported, and it will present a document to the House next week, on reforming the name of the Standing Committee. People who visit the House, whether they be students or overseas visitors, always ask what a Standing Committee is. Does it stand? No of course it does not. Is it permanently there? No it is not. We suggest that the Standing Committee name should be changed to a Public Bill Committee or a Private Bill Committee, which describes what the Standing Committee does. It is only a minor and small reform, but we are trying to make this place better understood by the people outside.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood):
It is a great pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I apologise for being the only new boy to speak in the debate. The other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken and will speak do so from
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |