| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Pike: Does not the way that we are voting mean that we unfortunately have to eliminate the compromise, because the main proposal would otherwise be eliminated? Is it not unfortunate that we are doing things that way round, because it is exactly the opposite of what the Committee wanted us to do?
Mrs. Beckett: It is of course a matter for hon. Members to decide how they vote, but my hon. Friend is correct that
the Committee envisaged at that time that the proposal to break was preferable as a fallback for the House to consider--to agree to or to reject as it chose--than having only the option of the Government proposal and the status quo. The tabling and selection of the amendment for debate reverses that.
Since the production of the Committee's report, and since seeing today's Order Paper and hearing of Madam Speaker's decision, I have given careful further thought to my own view and to what view I would recommend to the House. I am very sorry indeed to have to say that the moving forward of our decision in such a manner--by those who, as we are all well aware, do not support and indeed resist a proposal for change--places us all in a dilemma.
Mrs. Beckett:
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, my remarks are almost at a close.
I am sorry to find myself in such a position, but I am so concerned that the option to which the amendment would give force might bring the experiment into disrepute--and might lead to its termination rather than to its success--that I fear that I must vote against the amendment. I recommend that every hon. Member who wants our procedures to be modernised and wants change that might be effective in respect of better completion of our work take the same view. I am sorry to have to say that--there appeared to be other possibilities--but that seems to be the position.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire):
I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members from both--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot move the amendment at this stage. We must deal with motion on the Order Paper first. When we come to the next motion, he may move his amendment.
Sir George Young:
I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can see advantage in the way that the votes will take place.
Sir Peter Emery:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment is to the first motion, not to the second. Presumably, as the first motion has been moved, the amendment has to be moved to that motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
We are currently dealing with motion No. 3 on the Order Paper, concerning the approval of the Committee's report, which is not the motion to which the amendment refers.
Sir George Young:
There is some merit in the way that the votes will take place. It will enable the House to
I begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, both the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who chaired our initial deliberations on the subject, and the present Leader of the House for the way in which they presided over the Select Committee. They both had to cope with a wide range of sincerely held views on the Committee, reflecting the differing interpretations of the role of a Member of Parliament and of the appropriate allocation of available time for our duties.
Some of those differences could be traced back to the different dates of entry of Members into the House, some to the fact that Opposition Members understandably have a perspective different from that of Back-Bench Government supporters'. Other differences were due to some members of the Committee having additional responsibilities in the House. Some have constituencies in or near London and others do not, and some Members have their main office here and others have it in their constituency.
Those varying perspectives of members of the Committee drove us to different conclusions. The Select Committee is not directly recommending this change, as is clear from paragraph 72 of the report. We had a lively but manageable debate. None the less, if I were running a dating agency, there are some combinations that I would seek to avoid.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West):
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, although Labour and Liberal Members from the 1997 intake were members of the Committee, no Conservative Members from the 1997 intake were on the Committee? Therefore, he cannot deduce from the evidence of the debate in Committee that people's views were related to their year of entry; they were rather more closely related to the party that they represent.
Sir George Young:
I stand by the proposition that I asserted. If the hon. Lady analysed her Back-Bench Labour colleagues she would find a similar difference in interpretation of the role of an MP according to date of entry. That different perspective is not confined to those on the Conservative Benches.
I also commend the Clerks on their work, particularly the section on the Main Committee. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) for providing coffee on a Wednesday morning.
I start by making three general points which provide a framework for the debate. I am concerned at the loss of influence of the House of Commons in recent years. I want to see that decline reversed, so I ask: are these proposals likely to assist in that objective?
Let me read a quotation:
At best, the proposals before us do nothing to address that central issue which ought to be at the heart of the Select Committee's agenda; at worst, they may even add to the problem, which brings me to my second point.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross):
As someone who has served in the House for rather a long time also, I should say that the picture that the right hon. Gentleman paints of a golden age in 1996, described by the then Prime Minister, bears no resemblance to the experience that most of us had either then or for many years before it under the leadership of that Prime Minister and his immediate predecessor.
Sir George Young:
Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously assert that during the past 18 months there has been no change in the role of Parliament in our national life? If so, he is in a minority.
The proposals received a terrible press in July, for which the Government have no one to blame but themselves. The proposals before us originate from the Government and have been through the Select Committee, and it was the Government who launched them on the public before the Select Committee even discussed them.
On 1 July, The Independent quoted the right hon. Member for Dewsbury as saying of the package of changes:
"Our Parliament may have its quirks and faults, but it is hard to find another country today whose Parliament is so central to its national life. In Britain, Parliament is where things happen. It is the voice of the people of Britain, fighting out all the complexities of our national issues which in some other countries are settled in smoke-filled rooms."
16 Dec 1998 : Column 1000
That was said only two and a half years ago in June 1996 in a speech to the Centre of Policy Studies by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), then Prime Minister. I honestly do not think that the Prime Minister could say it today.
Parliament is not central to our national life. The papers have stopped reporting it, the radio has reduced its coverage, Ministers increasingly bypass it, and until recently, Labour Members were sent away from it. We even debar ourselves from discussing some of the live issues of the day.
"It reduces the pressure points during the session and adjusts the arrangements to make them more family friendly."
That led to the headline:
"Extra family time for overworked MPs".
The Daily Mirror used the same quote from the right hon. Lady to prop up its headline:
"Four days a week for MPs".
The Evening Standard had the same quote:
"MPs set to spend more time with the family".
Even The Guardian said:
"Reform plan offers MPs longer break at week-ends".
BBC On Line said:
"MPs to get more time with families".
As I said, all that happened before the Select Committee even considered the proposals. So far from the reforms helping to elevate the status of the House, the way in which the Government presented them made that task harder.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |