| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): I strongly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Leader of the House of Commons, and it gives us great pleasure to see her in her place after all these years. Much of the Hamilton affair remains outstanding. Will she give precedence to setting up the Committee on Standards and Privileges before the other Select Committees so that there will be no delay and to ensure that early justice can be done?
Mrs. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that to say that it would be for the benefit of the House as a whole to have the Committee on Standards and Privileges established at an early date so that all the outstanding work that that Committee will inherit can be done quickly. I hope that there will be no delay and that we receive co-operation from all parties in establishing that Committee.
Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): Does the Leader of the House agree that, at the very least, there should be a debate on Prime Minister's questions before any new system is introduced? Is not the point that this decision has been made entirely without consultation and entirely for the benefit of the Prime Minister so as to protect him from questions? Is not her job to decide what is in the best interests of the House of Commons?
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that the previous Government missed an opportunity to debate Prime Minister's questions, which they could have done on the basis of the report from the Procedure Committee which was published last year. The reason he gives for the change is not valid, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not much in need of protection from Opposition Members.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange business during the next two or three weeks--before the first leadership ballot for the Tory pretender--so that each of the contestants can get equal time at the Dispatch Box and so, in the interests of fairness and consultation, we allow them all to have an equal say?
Mrs. Taylor: I am certainly willing to receive representations from any Opposition Member who feels that there is any injustice in respect of the balance of time given to the various contenders. Perhaps my hon. Friend could be appointed the referee.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): In warmly endorsing the welcome given to the right hon. Lady in her unique role--a role to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred--may I ask her to think again about next Thursday's debate? If we are to have procedural reform, should it not be at a measured pace? Should we not have a full day's debate,
and should not that debate take place after the Government have set out their own general views? In that context, can she clarify some of the rumours in the press about the timing and the length of the forthcoming long recess?
Mrs. Taylor: I would ideally have liked to have given extra time for that debate, but it is important that we get moving as quickly as possible. There will always be claims for extra time. As I have said, this will not be the only opportunity for Members to contribute ideas on how the workings of Parliament might be modernised. I am afraid that, at this stage, I can say nothing about the long recess.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming Leader of the House? It must be pleasing for her, and it follows on from Bolton Wanderers--the football team that she strongly supports--winning promotion to the premiership. As a previous member of the Procedure Committee, I should like to ask her a serious question concerning the Committee's report on the way in which the House deals with European legislation. The Committee produced a unanimous report which recommended improvements to the method we use to deal with European legislation. Will the Government now respond to that report, or will it be looked at--along with other matters--by the new fast-track procedure Committee that she proposes and that I fully support?
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments--especially for being the first to mention Bolton Wanderers in the new Parliament. I congratulate him on his work on the previous Procedure Committee. What he says about European legislation is quite right, and concerns about the way in which we deal with it are shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that we shall be able to look at that quickly and make progress.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I join others in welcoming the Leader of the House to her new role, which involves protecting the rights of all hon. Members. When she dealt with Question Time, however, she forgot about Northern Ireland, and made no mention of that Secretary of State. Perhaps that was a slip of the tongue. Could the Leader of the House have a chat with you, Madam Speaker? You would then be able to share with her the difficulty of fitting in all the questioners in 45 minutes--and that 45 minutes has now been reduced. I think that the consequential changes to Prime Minister's Question Time cause us the most concern.
Will the Leader of the House also bear it in mind, when thinking of the long recess, that school holidays in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Taylor:
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's last point, which my colleagues representing Scottish constituencies are not slow to make to me. I can only say that, as we have a new Parliament, this year may not be as easy as other years, but we should always bear such factors in mind when planning future business.
I have made clear my view that the needs of minority parties must be taken into account. The issue of Northern Ireland questions was difficult, because Northern Ireland
questions preceded Prime Minister's questions on a Thursday: we had to decide whether to switch them to a different day and give them 45 minutes, or to give them the 30-minute slot before Prime Minister's questions. There was a feeling that the high-profile slot before Prime Minister's questions would be preferable, but we are always willing to consider other ideas intended to improve the overall position.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
We have all just been through the interesting experience of a general election, which I am sure my right hon. Friend enjoyed. Some may have learnt some lessons from that experience, and some may not; but one of the lessons that many of us learned was that the electoral register was not in a healthy condition. Should we not be able to discuss our experiences in the election in a debate, so that we can consider ways of introducing a decent system?
Mrs. Taylor:
My hon. Friend made his views clear before the election, and I think that some of his concerns were vindicated. I believe that there are problems with the electoral register, and I think that everyone would want to ensure that every person who is entitled to vote is, as far as possible, allowed to exercise that right.
On a personal note, I think that the election produced some other interesting experiences in connection with the design of the ballot paper. I am sure that all of us who were candidates will want to learn from those experiences, and, perhaps, propose changes for the future.
Mr. John MacGregor (South Norfolk):
I, too, warmly congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment to an important and challenging post.
May I return to the issue of Prime Minister's questions? It is not an issue of prime ministerial diktat; it is an issue of the Prime Minister's accountability to the House. It would have been wise to involve the House in the changes, which are not just about timing. Other issues are involved in the handling of Prime Minister's questions.
Does the right hon. Lady recall that, when we were in government with large majorities, we always made sure that we consulted widely on reforms to the House? For example, when I set up the Jopling Committee, I was anxious to ensure that all quarters in the House were represented, and it was the unanimity on the report's recommendation that enabled it to go through with relative speed. Would the right hon. Lady not be wise to recall that?
Given the right hon. Lady's earlier comment that she wanted to listen to what had been said, has she listened carefully to what has been said about Prime Minister's questions today, and will she incorporate it in Select Committee procedures?
Mrs. Taylor:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. He is, however, the sixth person to raise the issue of Prime Minister's questions, and I do not think that anyone has defended the old procedure. I think that we must all admit that the old system of two 15-minute sessions did not hold the Prime Minister or the Government to account. It may have had entertainment value, but I think that Prime Minister's questions are too important for that.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that other issues surrounding Prime Minister's questions should perhaps be examined in time, such as the notice of questions that is given and the transfer of closed questions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |