| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: One should always respect precedent, but not necessarily be bound by it. In our exchanges yesterday, I was correcting misinformation given to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who I am sure did not intend to mislead the House when he referred to other precedents. It is 30 years since that debate was instigated by the then Prime Minister.
There are a variety of precedents concerning who has spoken in debates on this and other constitution reforms. If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has looked at the record, he will know that in those days matters were handled differently between Prime Ministers and departmental Ministers. Most of the subsequent changes were introduced during the premiership of Baroness Thatcher, who now sits in the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman is a great admirer of hers, so I am sure that he would not wish us to discard those precedents.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter):
Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the timing and details of the implementation of the recommendations of the Jenkins commission? This has been official Labour party policy since the time of the late John Smith, and it would give the Government a chance to show that they are in the business of honouring their manifesto promises.
Mrs. Beckett:
As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are indeed in the business of honouring our manifesto promises. It is entirely possible that there will be a referendum on this matter before the end of this Parliament. I fear, however, that it will not be in this Session, so I cannot find time for a debate next week.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
Will the Leader of the House at least try to prevail on the Prime Minister to come to the House next week and make a statement on the recent announcement that the leader of the Liberal Democrats is to retire--and, in particular, tell us whether that retirement signifies the welcome demise of plots to replace our successful first-past-the-post electoral system with the outrageously undemocratic system of proportional representation, which has given the Green party in Germany control of the Foreign Ministry on the basis of less than 7 per cent. of electoral support?
Mrs. Beckett:
I fear that I could not possibly encourage my right hon. Friend to come to the House to comment on the political affairs of another party. Indeed, I am sure that he would refuse to do so. As for the hon. Gentleman's other comments, no doubt we shall return to those matters during the months ahead.
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry):
In your statement earlier today, Madam Speaker, you said that
Madam Speaker:
No. My point is that Members should refer to business that is before us--business for next week, or for the week after. At present, Members are asking the Leader of the House questions that do not relate to business at all. That has been the habit in recent times. I am anxious for Members to discuss the business for the next week and for the week after, if the Leader of the House has announced it.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, during the debate on the House of Lords reform Bill, a Minister will open and close the debate on each day? Is that the intention? Will the right hon. Lady also try to ensure that the point about the White Paper is clarified in next week's business statement, so that we know whether we are debating just the Bill or both topics?
May I raise an important matter that relates directly to constitutional business? Will the right hon. Lady make a statement next week about the Government's intentions on the taking of questions on constitutional matters, which are at the forefront of their legislative programme? At present, in her capacity as Lord President, the right hon. Lady answers questions only once a month, sharing a quarter of an hour with the House of Commons Commission and sometimes being given less than 10 minutes. I am sure she agrees that is wholly inadequate for such a crucial issue. Can the Order Paper be rearranged; and will the right hon. Lady announce her intentions to the House so that constitutional questions are properly dealt with?
Mrs. Beckett:
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the handling of a debate. All the matters that he raised can be examined through the usual channels. It is entirely possible that the debate will be opened and closed each day by a Minister, but if it is thought convenient to the
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his follow-up question. I was slightly puzzled as to what his righthon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire(Sir G. Young) was getting at, but I understand now. Speaking off the cuff, I do not think it necessary for us to seek so much more time for questions on constitutional matters--I feel that the present structure provides enough opportunities for such matters to be raised if that is considered necessary--but I shall undertake to look at the matter again; it, too, can be considered through the usual channels.
Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham):
My right hon. Friend will know that the report on events following the murder of Stephen Lawrence may well be handed to the Home Secretary next week, or during the following week. The issue has implications for policing in London and in the country as a whole, and also for race relations. If the report is handed to the Home Secretary next week, will my right hon. Friend allow the fullest possible time for a debate, given the amount of concern expressed by several Members on both sides of the House?
Mrs. Beckett:
My hon. Friend is right that there is great concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about that matter. I was not aware that the report might be with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as early as my hon. Friend suggests, but I will draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
I know that my hon. Friend will appreciate, as I am sure the whole House will, that it is a matter for consideration as to whether my right hon. Friend will wish to encourage a debate very early when the report has just been received and there has not been much time to consider it, or think it better to have the debate a little later when there has been more time to come to a mature view. Those are matters on which there is merit on both sides. As I say, I undertake to ensure that they are given consideration.
Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could help Back-Bench Members. Last Thursday, we only got to Question 13. Today, we only got to Question 10, because we had long rambling questions and long rambling answers from those on the Treasury Bench.
Do you agree, Madam Speaker, that a good example could be set to the House? If Ministers do not know the answer to a question, instead of giving a long answer, which offers us every form of assistance short of help, they should do as Mr. Attlee would have done and simply say, "That is an interesting point. I will make a note of it." We could then get on to the next question. Progress is incredibly slow in the House, which is extremely frustrating to those of us on the humble Back Benches.
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I am very concerned about the lack of progress at Question Time. He and others will recall that I have made more than one statement about that in the hope of guiding Members.
I watch the progress of questions and answers; I not only listen to them daily, but regularly look at the number of questions asked and answers given. I speak to those responsible because I am extremely concerned that many Back Benchers do not get an opportunity to ask their questions because they are not reached.
There are two reasons why we are not making progress. One is the length of answers given by Ministers at the Dispatch Box; the other is the length of questions from Opposition Front-Bench Members, as well as from all Back-Bench Members. I do not wish to embarrass Members by intervening too often, but I am going to have to when Members stand and give a long preamble before
they actually come to the question. I reiterate that I am also concerned about long ministerial answers. I have also taken that up with those responsible.
Since the House came back in November, the position has deteriorated even more. Only this week, I have been working on the matter with those concerned in the hope that we shall make better progress. I am keen to support Back Benchers when they take the trouble to table questions to ensure that as many as possible are able to be called to ask them.
Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) raised a point of order in which he asked me to come to the House to apologise because I had suggested to the House that the 1983 Conservative manifesto did not contain a commitment to abolish the Greater London council. However, I had made no such statement. The previous day, I had asked the hon. Member for Croydon, South whether he would apologise if he found that the Conservative manifesto did not contain such an undertaking. I should like to put that correction on the record. I also suggest that the hon. Gentleman's point of order was an abuse of that procedure.
1.10 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |