| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
House of Commons Commission
36. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): What representation she has received on the method of appointing Members to the House of Commons Commission. [109653]
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I have received no formal representations on that matter.
Fiona Mactaggart: But has the President of the Council read the debate on the matter, held in the House on 2 February? Is she aware of the unease among Back Benchers about the unaccountability of the House of Commons Commission and the way in which it deals with some of the issues before it? Will she consider finding ways to give the views expressed in that debate some resonance in the Commission?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I have read the debate, and I recognise the concerns that were expressed--not least by my hon. Friend. Like the whole House, I also recognise that one unsatisfactory aspect of the development of the Commission's work is that it is not easy for Members to find out how they can raise issues and have them dealt with. My hon. Friend will be aware that, recently, there was a report on how the Commission could improve its working, so that there are better links and a better flow of information from Members. We hope to make progress on that in the near future.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Does the right hon. Lady accept that, whatever the methods of reviewing the means by which Members of the House of Commons Commission are appointed, it is a source of joy to Members on both sides of the House and, no doubt, to a large number of people the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, that last night my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was wisely appointed to the Commission, without a Division? Does she agree that it augurs well for the future that a man of such wisdom, judgment and legendary discernment should make his talents and experience available to that august Commission?
Mrs. Beckett: Without any disrespect to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I do not think "joy" is quite the word I would have chosen. However, I am sure that he will make a distinguished contribution.
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
The President of the Council was asked--
Privy Council
37. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): If she will institute a review of the purpose and effectiveness of the Privy Council; and if she will make a statement. [109654]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): No, the Privy Council is a long-established and effective example of joined-up government, which continues to play a useful role in a variety of policy matters.
Mr. Prentice: I am again disappointed. Does the House share my astonishment that some Orders in Council are never seen in the Houses of Parliament--for example, orders on new coinage? The pound in our pocket--its shape, what it looks or feels like--is not debated either by peers or Members of this place. The matter is decided by the Privy Council using prerogative powers. Given that we have such a tremendously modernising Government--they want to modernise everything out of sight--surely some parts of our ancient, creaking constitution should be visited. Is not the Privy Council one of those?
Mr. Tipping: Much has already been done to modernise our procedures and more will be done. Later this year, the Privy Council will have its own website--a real example of new technology and forward thinking.
As for Orders in Council, my hon. Friend will be aware that they are all published and available for public scrutiny.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The President of the Council was asked--
Timetabling (Legislation)
38. Mrs. Eileen Gordon (Romford): If she will make a statement on the work of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in relation to the use of timetabling for dealing with legislation.[109657]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee considered the use of timetabling and programme motions in its first report of the 1997-98 Session--on the legislative process--and recommended that, for a trial period, some Bills should be programmed.
Mrs. Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a great shame that the conclusions of a cross-party Select
Committee report have been flouted by the Conservatives, whose antics in this place have been nothing short of scandalous? Will he ask the Committee to review progress on that important matter? Does he agree that the Conservatives are a bunch of sad people? Even if they have no life outside this place, we do. That is why we are in touch with reality and they have completely lost it.
Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government are keen on further programme motions. There is a record of working with the Opposition on such matters but, unfortunately, the number of Bills introduced under programme motions has declined. I think that that is the fault not of the official Opposition, but of the unofficial Opposition that sometimes lies behind the official Opposition. I do not want to comment on hon. Members' sad lives, but wish to congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on his Channel 4 award. I note that he was not here for his Defence question yesterday. One fears that his reputation does not give us joy, but is slipping.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): Will the Minister examine carefully the effect of timetable motions? I am serving on the Standing Committee considering the Utilities Bill and am having great difficulty finding out what Labour Back Benchers have to say about it. I am also concerned that we are hearing rumours that the Bill is supposedly being blocked in Committee. That is not the case; we are making rapid progress. However, Labour Whips keep ending our sittings early, and I hope that the Minister and the President of the Council will take note of that. I suspect that the Government will suddenly decide that it wants the Committee to make more rapid progress, will pretend that it has not been doing that and will table a programme or guillotine motion for the Bill's Committee stage.
Mr. Tipping: My right hon. Friend and I always take note of what hon. Members tell us. Labour Members on the Committee considering the Utilities Bill clearly think that it is an important piece of legislation that has consumers at its heart. I suspect that they are content with proceedings.
I was not aware that the Committee's sittings were finishing early. Sometimes that is done for the convenience of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman asked me to take note of that point, and I shall do so.
Lobby Facilities
39. Ms Helen Southworth (Warrington, South): If the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has considered the facilities available to members of the Lobby. [109658]
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Modernisation Committee has received numerous representations on the matter, some of which it still has under consideration. However, we have already obtained agreement from the Administration Committee and from Madam Speaker to some relaxation in the use of recording equipment, which had long been sought by the Press Gallery.
Ms Southworth: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that it is about time that the filming procedures in Members' offices were updated, especially considering that Portcullis house now means that all Members will have an office? Will the Modernisation Committee please address that issue?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, tape recorders have been permitted in the Press Gallery since January. We have had further discussions with the Administration Committee and, with the agreement of Madam Speaker, a further extension to taping to cover the proceedings of Westminster Hall has been permitted since about a week ago. As from yesterday, filming in Members' offices will be allowed. I know that the lack of facilities for the sensible making available of Members' views to the news media has been a source of irritation to them in the past. I hope that the easement will be welcomed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked--
Reform
41. Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): What representations he has received on proposals to reform the Commission to make it more accountable to the House. [109660]
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): We have received one formal
representation directly on the matter from the Finance and Services Committee, together with a cogently argued letter from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). These views, as well as those expressed by the hon. Members who took part in the debates on 22 January and 2 February, are all being taken into account by the Commission in deciding how to move forward with improvements to the House's domestic administration and the provision of services to Members.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. In the light of the earlier exchanges, can he undertake that he and his colleagues in the Commission will examine one important issue in the context of the Braithwaite report--namely, the way in which the Commission itself is appointed and its accountability to the House?
Mr. Kirkwood: The way that the Commission is appointed is determined by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. Section 1(2)(d) says that the Commission shall include
- "three other members of the House of Commons appointed by the House".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |