| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.43 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): In the five minutes available to me, I shall endeavour to refer to the remarkable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). It is clear from the speech of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the electorate do not think that the institution is good value, however much they may believe that their own Member of Parliament is good value.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood referred to a previous Select Committee report. I had the privilege to serve on the Procedure Committee for three years between 1976 and 1979. I believe that he was referring to paragraph 1.6 of the first report of the Select Committee for the 1977-78 Session--HC588-1 97/9--which states:
As I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood, he gave an accurate description of some of the perceptions of the institution. He finished his speech by saying that the task was simple and that a relatively few adjustments to procedure were required, including the creation of pre-legislative committees, about which I agree. By that token, he suggested that the institution would somehow be almost magically transformed. I disagree because our parliamentary institution is rather like a complicated machine that has been built up over the years, adjusted here, added to there and had certain parts taken away. It is an instrument that can be played and used well, but it can also be abused.
Our current confrontational style, which has been publicised through the media, and the temptation to our colleagues on the Front Bench to use it thus, have meant that that potentially delicate and useable machine has been abused. There is a danger that it will continue to be so.
I shall conclude by referring to an example--in a sense, a parable--that I cited in an earlier intervention, which illustrates the problem in extremis. The essence of democracy is surely the choice of the electorate to choose not only the Member but a Parliament that pursues a particular line of policy. That is why some of us on both sides of the Chamber disagree with certain treaties: they constrain that choice.
It is also important that Members have an opportunity at least to present alternatives. That is why, whatever the Friday time, the private Member Bill is so important. It allows for the introduction of legislative proposals other than those of the Executive, which would otherwise have the monopoly on legislation. That opportunity is important and fundamental.
Tonight, we have before us the Question to adjourn. We are not deciding on pay or making a decision. When a decision has to be made, for one reason or another, attendance automatically goes up. We are merely deciding whether to adjourn.
For centuries, the House has had an opportunity for private Members to introduce a motion for a debate on any topic such as drugs or something that our constituents want debated. The topic is relevant to them, which is why the link between the constituent and Parliament, the ambience, is fundamental. The opportunity for such debate is now being destroyed.
I am sorry that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee is not here because either the Committee did not protest at the time, or it connived at the elimination of the opportunity for Members to debate, and vote on, a motion of their choice. The elimination of private Members' motions was a partially invisible result of the adoption of the Jopling proposals. That deprived hon. Members of the opportunity to table motions such as the one about the decline of industry in London which I tabled when I had been in the House for two years. The opportunity for any hon. Member other than a member of the Government to table a motion based on opinion, which can be voted on, is a precious thing.
Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle):
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who was not able to speak in the debate. Because procedure is a complicated subject, those who speak on it do so at length. I had prepared a lengthy speech myself, but I shall put it aside and, as one who is not an expert on procedure, make a couple of points that I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish me to make.
This morning, when President Mandela addressed us, we saw Parliament at its best. Many of us never believed that such an occasion would happen, and we will treasure the memory. Last night's debate was entirely different: it may have been necessary, but it did not improve Parliament's reputation. I know that the Leader of the House hopes that the same thing will never happen again, and perhaps it never will, but we should not forget that there is always the possibility of another vote of that kind.
I wish to make two points. The first concerns Select Committees. I served on the Agriculture Select Committee for five years. It was a very good Committee and we got on very well, but there are flaws in Select Committee procedure. For instance, I sometimes worry about the amount of expert help that Committees receive and about the quality of the experts employed by them, in comparison with that of civil servants. It would be wrong to expect a Government of any persuasion to give up their majority on Select Committees, but that in itself leads to problems.
The Agriculture Select Committee produced two of the most famous Select Committee reports in recent years. One is known in shorthand as "Edwina and the eggs"; the other recommended the investigation of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. What worries me is the fact that, according to considerable evidence, when Labour Members pressed for a return to the BSE issue, the Conservative majority blocked that, apparently for political reasons. I accept that that is perfectly possible, but I feel that in such instances the minutes should be made public, so that people know that one party has prevented discussion of items that need to be investigated in reports.
As hon. Members have probably noticed, there has been a change in our voting procedures. Instead of our names being ticked off in the Lobbies, they are now crossed off. When I asked the Clerk why, I was told, "It is for the computer." However, he still had his pencil and paper. I think that we must re-examine the way in which we vote.
We have debated better use of parliamentary time. Going through the Lobby takes 15 minutes out of our debating time and often means that votes which should be held are not held because we do not want to waste time on procedure. I hope that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee will look at that. I am delighted that he has returned to the Chamber.
The Opposition want a modern democratic Parliament. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) spoke about over-representation. My view is that that is a great
myth that will be used at some time to rob our constituents of the proper representation that they deserve. Even the most distinguished hon. Member can be wrong. We all read the first part of the review on parliamentary allowances and pay, but I am not sure how many hon. Members read the second part. It shows that there is a higher population--not electors--per representative in Britain than in other countries.
Of the 18 countries in the study, Britain was the fourth highest. We were behind the United States, but the USA has 51 state legislatures and when, that is taken into account, that country has a population of 32,000 per legislator. Perhaps in his calculations the right hon. Gentleman took the other place into account and, if he did, that worries me. I should not like the House to think that hon. Members do not represent enough people. However, we should represent them well.
Mr. Newton:
I agree that this has been a most interesting debate. [Interruption.] I am reminded that I need the leave of the House to speak for a second time, but the mood of the House does not seem to be confrontational or likely to stop me speaking.
"We have approached our task not in the hope of making the job of Government more comfortable, the weapons of the Opposition more formidable, or the life of the backbencher more bearable, but with the aim of enabling the House as a whole to exercise effective control and stewardship over Ministers and the expanding bureaucracy of the modern state for which they are answerable, and to make the decisions of Parliament and Government more responsive to the wishes of the electorate."
One of the problems of Parliament today is that for some years the wishes of the electorate have not been met by the Government. I would say that, of course, as a member of the Opposition, but for all sorts of reasons the problem is getting a little worse.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |