| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you will have noticed that I have Question 3 to the Prime Minister on Thursday. We can all see your concern at the fact that the questions and exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time appear to be getting longer and longer, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition. I have counted the number of words: on Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) used 342 words to put his three questions and, on Thursday, he used 380 words, and that was after Hansard had cut it down a bit. I wonder whether you would use the sensible device whereby, once the right hon. Gentleman has used over 150 or 200 words, you do not call him for a third time.
Madam Speaker: I also keep records, not just once in a while, but daily. I know all those hon. Members--Government Front-Bench, Opposition Front-Bench or Back-Bench--who take far too long to put their questions or give their answers, and it would take me a long time this afternoon to name them all.
Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a matter that has been raised with you on numerous occasions, and your views are well known, but I seek clarification.
During the past couple of weeks, the Secretary of State for the Environment paid a visit to my constituency on official business, and just last week, the Secretary of State for Transport did the same. On neither occasion was I extended the courtesy of a telephone call or a note to inform me that they were undertaking those official duties. Although I feel that ordinary Back-Bench Members need not be bound by this, Ministers have staff precisely to deal with such matters. Can you tell the House whether you have received notice from the Government that they intend to discontinue the previous practice, or is this further proof not only that they have run out of ideas and energy, but that they have no manners?
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman and the House are fully aware of my views on this matter, but I do not agree totally with what he has said. I think that it is a
5 Nov 1996 : Column 1036
Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you believe that the Leader of the Opposition or the deputy Leader of the Opposition should notify hon. Members whose constituencies they visit--
Madam Speaker:
Order. This matter can become very tiresome, not only for hon. Members but for the public. I have made my views on this matter known on numerous occasions. I do not discriminate: as far as I am concerned, every hon. Member is equal. Let us leave it at that. Hon. Members should notify an hon. Member before they visit a constituency. I cannot continue emphasising that point, and I refuse take it any further now.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has a decision yet been made whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to be a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, after he has admitted receiving assistance from a solicitor for Mr. Al-Fayed for the drafting of 58 early-day motions?
Madam Speaker:
It is my understanding that the Committee discussed that matter, in addition to matters relating to one or two other hon. Members who are on the Committee, and decided that there was no reason why the hon. Members concerned should not remain on the Committee.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the Railtrack Group PLC (Target Investment Limit) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996, No. 2551) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation--[Mr. Brandreth.]
Question agreed to.
5 Nov 1996 : Column 1037
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Speaker:
I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before describing the Bill's provisions, I thought that I should deal briefly with the two reasoned amendments that have been tabled by the Opposition parties. I hasten to say that I use the word "reasoned" to refer to the procedure of the House rather than to the nature of Labour's amendment.
I am struck by the fact that the Opposition have declined to give this Bill a Second Reading. Their refusal seems to be in stark contrast to their behaviour yesterday in relation to the Crime (Sentences) Bill introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, because the provisions of that Bill are almost identical, except in some specific, key areas--[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) seems to confirm that that is the reason why he and his colleagues oppose this Bill.
The key provisions with which the Opposition disagree are restriction of liberty orders for adults, reform of criminal legal aid, and police powers to confiscate alcohol from people under 16 years. I find it extraordinary that the Opposition are seriously saying that they oppose the Bill on the grounds of those measures. What conceivable opposition can there be to giving police the power to confiscate drink from youngsters under the age of 18 congregating in public places? What conceivable reasons can there be for opposing restriction of liberty orders?
I have read the Opposition's amendment, and I found that they are opposed to the Bill because it
The other explanation that we are offered for this volte-face by the Labour party--[Interruption.] It is a volte-face. Only three Labour Members voted against the Crime (Sentences) Bill, not one of whom was Scots. The only people who opposed that Bill were the Liberals, who divided the House on their amendment and on the Bill's principle on Second Reading.
It was not opposed by the Labour party, and I find it extraordinary that the Opposition should be seeking to oppose these measures which are to apply to Scotland.
5 Nov 1996 : Column 1038
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton):
The 1993 Act provided for automatic remission. The Minister's own notes for the Bill say that prisoners are to be denied automatic remission. That is one aspect of the reversal; I shall later give details of others. Instead of blustering about a reasoned amendment, why does the Secretary of State not try to defend the legislation?
Mr. Forsyth:
I shall come on to that. The hon. Gentleman says that the 1993 Act provided for automatic remission, but surely he must know that it restricted people's ability to get parole, especially if they were the more serious offenders. It also introduced new provisions whereby, if people were released from prison but reoffended within the period of the sentence, they should be returned to prison. That made it harder for people to be released from prison early, and at the same time ensured that, if people were released from prison, they were subject to proper supervision.
How the hon. Gentleman can put his name, under that of the Leader of the Opposition, to an amendment which argues that the Bill is reversing the key reforms of the 1993 Act, I do not understand. In what way is it reversing them? It is in fact going in the same direction and making the meaning of a sentence clear. It makes prisoners more subject to the sentence of the courts. It is travelling in the same direction as the 1993 Act, not trying to reverse it. I invite the hon. Gentleman to explain his position.
Mr. Robertson:
I thought that the decline of the Conservative party since the Secretary of State took office might be worth referring to. The background note to the Bill, issued by his Department, states that the Bill would abolish the current system of parole and early release and replace it with a system whereby prisoners would be able to earn a maximum of one sixth of their sentences through good behaviour. They are the words of the Government's own document, and if it does not mean abolishing the system, what does it mean? What is this semantic rubbish? Will the Secretary of State kindly tell the House and the country why this electioneering Bill has been introduced in the first place?
3.35 pm
"proposes to introduce, without any Scottish piloting or examination, electronic tagging for offenders and lays the way open for electronic tagging of offenders under the age of 16, thereby threatening the operation of Scotland's unique Children's Hearings system".
I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton to read the Bill. He will find that it makes specific provision for people over the age of 16. The Bill contains no provision for electronic tagging of individuals under 16. It is true that the Government have said that they will consult on those matters and consider their introduction at a later stage, but--as the Bill does not contain such provisions--that is not a reason to vote against Second Reading.
"seeks to reverse the key reforms introduced in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 passed in this Parliament".
The hon. Gentleman is seeking to justify his opposition to a Government measure on the grounds that, he says, it "reverses the key reforms" of a previous Act. It does no such thing--it builds on them. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; I will happily give way to him if he will explain what the 1993 Act did in respect of sentencing, and why he believes that this Bill is a reversal of it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |