| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Sitting Hours and Days
30. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many (a) days and (b) hours the House of Commons has sat in each of the last 10 years. [598]
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The House of Commons has sat for between 83 and 240 days in the past 10 Sessions. I have written to the hon. Gentleman with the full details.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that answer. The mischievous question would be, "How many days will we sit this Session and will the Lord President please be precise?", but the serious point is that, although the Minister has been helpful in organising many aspects of our business, two steps remain: first, to end the nonsense of the spillover when we could easily finish all our business in the summer; and, secondly, to ensure that we have reasonable summer holidays, not a huge expanse of summer holiday--[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I mean holiday from this place. We could come back and start the new parliamentary year in September, like everybody else who has an annual autumn start.
Mr. Newton: On the latter part of the question, the House has already spoken for me in resisting the suggestion that the recess is a matter of being on a beach with a bucket. Members of Parliament have many matters to attend to elsewhere in their constituencies.
On the earlier point, we have just had the shortest spillover for many years. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that having a short spillover and an early start to the new Session, which is what we have achieved this year, is a sensible way to proceed.
Mr. Rooker:
Does the Leader of the House accept that the real issue is the effective use that we make of our time
Mr. Newton:
In view of how helpful I have been to the House in recent years on recess dates and the like, I find the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks a little churlish; however, I understand why he made them.
On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, he will be aware that it is not long since all those matters were examined by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House and set out in the Jopling report. The Committee looked carefully at a number of options and concluded that a modified pattern, along current lines, would be sensible.
31. Mr. Tony Banks:
To ask the Lord President of the Council how many reports by the Procedure Committee are awaiting his response. [599]
Mr. Newton:
Taking account of my observations in the debate on procedure, which took place on 11 July, I have made some response to all the reports but one. I hope to respond shortly to the Committee's second report of the last Session on reference to matters subject to injunction.
Mr. Banks:
Notwithstanding the Lord President's comments in the debate of 11 July, is it not advisable to implement the Procedure Committee's recommendation regarding Prime Minister's Question Time and at least try a change this side of the general election rather than after it? We have time on our hands and it seems right that those who may leave the House, either voluntarily or by force, should have the opportunity to say what they really think about changes in procedure. Given that we have creeping presidential government in this country, is it not about time that we organised proper debates in the House involving the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Opposition parties? If the Prime Minister has not got the bottle to face the Leader of the Opposition outside the House during the election campaign, perhaps he could do so in this place. The people of this country are entitled to see what the two leaders would do on a head-to-head basis.
Mr. Newton:
I shall leave aside the latter part of the question, because my right hon. Friend has shown no disinclination to debate with the Leader of the Opposition either during questions or in other ways in the House--as he did only last week.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Procedure Committee's report, as I said during the July debate--it becomes clearer by the minute--it is easier to see what some people believe is wrong with Prime Minister's questions than to find a solution that is acceptable on both sides of the House. I do not think that this is the time for Parliament to embark on radical change in that respect.
3.30 pm
Mr. David Shaw (Dover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Two weeks ago, you said clearly that you wanted the Committee on Standards and Privileges to examine an issue in a transparent and open manner and the whole House supported you absolutely. Madam Speaker, would it concern you and your office to learn that a Committee member had taken a strong position in the battle between Tiny Rowland and Al-Fayed and had tabled 58 early-day motions on one side of the argument--namely, Mr. Al-Fayed's? In those circumstances, would it be in the interests of the House of Commons for that hon. Member to stand down from the Committee?
Madam Speaker: It is a simple matter. The issue has been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and it is now for him to make a recommendation to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall a debate on private legislation when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to a practice in this place as a "constitutional outrage". Evidence has been provided since then that a lobbying organisation conducted activities, which were probably perfectly proper at the time, to frustrate legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) designed to curb the promotion of that most deadly addictive drug, tobacco. As the rules have changed in the post-Nolan days, is it not appropriate to reconsider the Bill in Government time?
Madam Speaker: Would that it were a matter for me and that I had the authority to determine what the House considers in Government time. That is a matter for the Government, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 2450) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.--[Mr. Brandreth.]
Question agreed to.
Debate on the Address
[Fourth Day]
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 October],
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Question again proposed.
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.--[Sir Norman Fowler.]
Home Affairs
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Madam Speaker, my first priority as Home Secretary has always been to protect the public and to build a safer Britain. The legislation in the Gracious Speech adds up to the most radical attack on crime this century. It will build on the progress that we have made in every area to tackle crime more effectively. There will be five Home Office Bills in this Session of Parliament and each and every one of them has one simple aim: to protect the public.
The tragic events at Dunblane highlighted the need for radical reform of our firearms legislation. I intend to introduce a Firearms (Amendment) Bill this week to achieve that reform. With the co-operation of all parties, I hope that it will be law by Christmas.
Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth):
The Home Secretary will know that the tragic events that occurred at Dunblane have greatly motivated public opinion on handguns. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that there is a real need for the House properly to express its view on the matter? That would best be done if Conservative Members were accorded a free vote.
Mr. Howard:
I do not accept that view. One of the most important considerations that the House should bear in mind as it approaches the proposed legislation to which I have referred is the need to get it on to the statute book as quickly as possible. It may help the people of Dunblane to draw a line under the dreadful experiences to which they have been subjected, and to put those matters behind them, if we bring the matter to a close in the House as soon as possible. I do not think that a free vote would assist in achieving that objective.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |