| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is not one of the problems facing the House the fact that this is a House of Commons matter, yet we are considering Government proposals? With no disrespect to the Leader of the House, for whom I have great admiration, I am not sure that I believe that the Committee should be chaired by a member of the
Government and Cabinet. That is the problem. We are debating Government proposals which the Government want to get through when it should be entirely a House of Commons matter; proposals should be put forward bythe House of Commons through the Modernisation Committee.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend tempts me way beyond my negotiating brief, but I shall touch upon his point in a moment.
Helen Jackson: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee in its early stages when it published its first report on the legislative process, but does he agree that the recent report is totally in line with the basic principles agreed unanimously after much argument and debate--not on party lines--and that the Modernisation Committee was about improving the way in which Parliament carries out the legislative process and the way in which it is presented? Because of the sensitivities, the Committee said:
- "Our approach is to recommend various options to be tried out always on an experimental basis."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak. We do not have all that much time and if interventions continue at this rate and at this length, many people will be disappointed.
Sir George Young: I revert to the point that I was making. The Select Committee learned a lesson, which was that we should present any proposals for change on the basis of enabling us to represent our constituents more effectively, not to spend more time with our families. The Opposition's press notice last week was a wiser one, with no references to anything friendly or familiar; none the less the media simply looked up the previous coverage and panned the proposals.
My third point relates to that just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
Caroline Flint:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young:
No, in the light of Mr. Deputy Speaker's injunction, I want to make progress.
These recommendations come from a proposition that emerged not from the Select Committee but from the Government. Of course, they are not to be condemned because of their source, and they should be judged on their merit. But any Select Committee, and particularly the Modernisation Committee, will want to develop its own agenda and not just accept the Government's. The Jopling proposals came from within, not without, and went ahead with all-party support. The House of Commons should control the Executive, not the other way around, particularly on this sort of issue.
Against that background, I come to the proposals for Thursday and my amendment.
Mrs. Beckett:
Yes, the Jopling proposals came forward on an all-party basis, but it was the Leader of the House of
Sir George Young:
I am not prepared to override my hon. Friends' objections, because I share them.
The Government proposition that we are now debating is in appendix 1, paragraph 11. I should have preferred a much more rigorous analysis in the paper of the then Leader of the House--first outlining the problem, and then relating the solution to the problem--but none was forthcoming. To substantiate the proposal that there should be no whipped business after 7 pm on a Thursday so that hon. Members can get back to their constituencies for a full Friday, the Government should have outlined how often votes after 7 pm currently occur. In the previous Parliament, there were two such votes between the Queen's Speech and dissolution. Between 13 March 1998 and the summer recess, it happened three times. Since we returned from recess, there have been no votes after 7 pm on a Thursday.
The disadvantage of the proposed turbulence in the morning, in which moving forward the sittings of the House will disrupt activities currently occurring in the morning--a matter to which I know other hon. Members wish to speak--is not counterbalanced by a corresponding benefit in the evening. The problem of hon. Members having to stay in the House to vote after 7 pm is a minor one that could have been dealt with through the usual channels. The entire foundation on which the argument for change is constructed is, therefore, essentially a weak one.
Under the Government's proposals, hon. Members also will not know whether they can get away at 7 pm, as the Government's offer relates only to whipped businesses. There could be business after 7 pm, announced the previous Thursday, in which hon. Members will have to take part, whereas they had thought they would be able to get away. The House will therefore face the paradox of rising early on a Thursday so that hon. Members can get to their constituencies, even on those Thursdays when the House will sit the next day.
The case against change is a more powerful one and is made primarily in paragraph 62. The proposed change would allow less time to apply for private notice questions and statements. Statements will also be made in the middle of the day, at lunch time. There would also be the problems that Madam Speaker mentioned in her letter. Moreover, it is not true that hon. Members are currently inactive between 11.30 am and 2.30 pm on a Tuesday. That work will still have to be done--it would be displaced, not abandoned.
I should like to dwell for a moment on the final reason listed in paragraph 62. The Procedure Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is in the process of establishing the reduced pressure on the House, as certain matters will no longer be debated in this place but in assemblies and a
Parliament elsewhere--the so-called devolution dividend. If the House wants to consider greater certainty and less business on a Thursday evening, that would be the appropriate forum to do so, when we could consider the objectives that I understand Labour Members want to achieve without causing dislocation in the morning.
We have to consider the proposal also against the background of what has already happened in this Parliament to Thursdays--which is a factor that the Government have ignored. Moving Prime Minister's questions to Wednesday removed Thursday's main anchor. The 3.15 to 3.30 Thursday slot was always well attended--I think that it was as well attended at the Tuesday slot--after which many hon. Members stayed on for business questions. Subsequently, the Conservative party held its main Back-Bench meeting, at 6 pm, when business and whipping were announced. Votes were then held, at 7 pm and/or 10 pm. Thursday was therefore a card-carrying member of the parliamentary week.
Moving Prime Minister's questions to Wednesday has changed all that. The best way in which I can make the point is by referring to last week's all-party notices. There were four meetings on Monday 7 December; 20 on Tuesday 8 December; 16 on Wednesday 9 December; and only four on the Thursday, of which only one was in the afternoon. As for the Conservative party's own Back-Bench committees, there were six on Monday, five on Tuesday, three on Wednesday and none on Thursday. It is therefore as if one of the two walls holding up the parliamentary week has collapsed. The building is now listing and is held up by one wall instead of two, compressing ever more business into Tuesday and Wednesday.
The proposition before the House will make a difficult situation worse, by further eroding Thursday. The proposition makes it explicit that Thursday will end earlier than the other weekdays.
Mr. Hawkins:
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir George Young:
Yes, but for the last time.
Mr. Hawkins:
While my right hon. Friend is reflecting on the changes to Thursday, will he once again recognise that the change to Prime Minister's Questions was announced unilaterally by the Prime Minister? That change has added to the lack of scrutiny of the Executive by the House and by the nation. Those of us who are traditionalists believe that many of the Government's changes have been introduced entirely to bypass such scrutiny.
Sir George Young:
I very much regret that the change was made without consultation. I remember, when replying to the first debate on the Loyal Address under this Government, deploring the change.
If there is to be change--the House may have gathered that I do not favour change--I prefer the option that will do the least damage to Thursday: which leaves Standing Committees to meet at 10.30 am and not 9; leaves questions, private notice questions, statements and business questions where they are, at 2.30 pm; and does less damage to the rhythm of the parliamentary week. The reasons for choosing the option are stated in the report, in the section containing the views of Madam Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means.
My preferred option involves splitting a Thursday by having questions in the middle and not at the beginning. We could have two half-day Opposition days or a couple of debates on different subjects on either side of questions. Last Thursday, for example, there was one debate on alternatives to prison and then another one on the new deal. Those debates could have been held on either side of Question Time without doing any injury to our procedure.
Other hon. Members may want to develop the case for the Opposition amendment, particularly those who have the responsibility of chairing Standing Committees and are worried about the implications of starting at 9 am for them and for the staff of the House.
I should like to say a very quick word on the Main Committee--a subject that deserves a debate on its own on another occasion. I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm in her reply that there will be such a debate. There are some key questions about the Main Committee. What will be the impact on the Chamber of the establishment of a Main Committee? Are the lessons of Main Committees established by other Parliaments applicable to this one? Is it the right response to the challenge that I outlined at the beginning of my speech--of restoring the status of Parliament in the life of the nation? Is it the right response when other constitutional reforms are under way, specifically reform of the second Chamber? Those are the key issues that have to be addressed in relation to the Main Committee.
I should like finally briefly to mention future work. Two duties are performed by Parliament. The first is the legislative process--implementation of the manifesto, and changes to the legal framework of life. The second is the holding of Government to account--interrogation of Ministers, scrutiny of their Departments and audit of expenditure. Much of the Select Committee's work has been focused on the first duty, as demonstrated by its proposals on carry-over of Bills and on Standing Committees meeting in September for pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that, in the interests of balance, the future agenda will focus on the second function--scrutiny.
When the right hon. Member for Dewsbury held my job, she said:
"Parliament does not anymore hold Ministers properly to account".
There are many ways of dealing with that deficiency, some of which are mentioned in appendix 4 to the memorandum from the Liaison Committee. I am interested in taking that agenda forward. The details need not be sorted out today. However, I believe that our agenda should be refocused on the responsibilities that I have outlined.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |