| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Draft Bills
46. Mr. John Healey (Wentworth): If she will make a statement on the number of bills produced in draft in (a) the 1997-98 session and (b) each subsequent session to date. [118172]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Three draft Bills or parts of Bills were produced in Session 1997-98, six in Session 1998-99, but none so far this Session. Some Departments have, however, consulted informally on Bills in preparation and some draft Bills are expected shortly.
Mr. Healey: I welcome my hon. Friend's declaration that more draft Bills are on the way. Does he recognise that the modernisation of our procedure is strongly backed by many inside and outside the House? Does he also agree that greater use of pre-legislative scrutiny gives greater scope for further modernisation of House procedures, including, perhaps, carrying over legislation, timetabling Bills and even introducing the concept of a voting hour?
Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend makes several important points. First, draft Bills have been welcomed widely across a number of communities. Secondly, Bills have been improved substantially by pre-legislative scrutiny. Finally, he is right that pre-legislative scrutiny is part of a wider package of measures on which we need to make more progress.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): The Opposition very much welcome the publication of Bills in draft. However, is it not unwise to assume that, just because a Bill has been first published in draft, it will then take less time to pass through the House of Commons and the upper House; and does not the fate of the Financial Services and Markets Bill and the Freedom of Information Bill disprove that assumption? To avoid over-programming the House's time with Government Bills, will the Government be more realistic about the time required by Bills that were first considered in draft when they come before the House?
Mr. Tipping: Clearly, Bills can be improved by pre-legislative scrutiny. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Freedom of Information Bill. Again, that was improved in draft, but there were major policy differences that could not be resolved. He also mentioned the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Of course, during its long preparation, the market itself changed; the stock market was demutualised and that had implications for the Bill. However, he is right to say that it would not be wise to assume that, just because a Bill is published in draft, it will have an easier passage. The converse may be true, because people have more time to think about it. Whatever body is asked to scrutinise a draft Bill must have time to do that. It involves a difficult balancing act, because programmed Bills will always need to take priority.
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
Appointments Commission
47. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): What progress she has made in identifying candidates suitable for appointment as chairman of the Appointments Commission. [118173]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Although my right hon. Friend is not responsible for appointing the Appointments Commission, I understand that the appointments process is making good progress. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.
Mr. Prentice: So am I right in thinking that the Prime Minister appoints the chair of the Appointments Commission which, in turn, appoints Members to the upper Chamber? Is that not a bizarre state of affairs, and is not appointment very much second best to election? As we move towards the next general election, we need the Labour party and the Labour Government to nail their colours to the mast and to argue vigorously for a small, directly elected second Chamber rather than the ridiculous melange that we have been invited to accept at the moment.
Mr. Tipping: I do not think that my hon. Friend is right. He will have an opportunity to discuss those matters when we debate the Wakeham commission on, I believe, 4 May. The Appointments Commission will have seven members, three of whom will be appointed by the main political parties. The present Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister to lose--or reduce--his powers of patronage as a result of a decision by the Appointments Commission. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Opposition Members may scoff, but the Conservative party remains the major, dominant party in the House of Lords.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): I associate myself entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to more modest appointments. When the commission or the Privy Council makes an appointment, will the person responsible for doing that be entirely dependent on the clerk of the Privy Council trawling the relevant Departments, or will he put in a mechanism encouraging other institutions and voluntary bodies to submit the names of those whom they believe suitable for appointment?
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes important points and I look forward to his contribution in the debate on the Wakeham report on 4 May. The Government intend that appointments should be made from a wider range and different groups of people. One of the Appointments Commission's tasks will be to ensure that a wider choice of names is available. The Government have made substantial progress on the number of people from the black and ethnic communities, as well as the number of women, who have been appointed.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): How on earth can the Parliamentary Secretary say that the Prime Minister is self-effacing and abdicating when the right hon. Gentleman is the very fount and geyser of honours? When will the chairman of the Appointments Commission be appointed? The Prime Minister promised that the appointment would be made before Easter. Are we to take that to mean this week, before Orthodox Easter or next Easter? When will it happen?
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman should not bluster so much. I accept that he is recovering from ill health, but he should listen to my answer, which is that the appointment will be made very soon.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): There is a difference between a commission that appoints cross-party or independent peers, and the new development that the Parliamentary Secretary appears to be introducing by saying that the commission should make political appointments. Does he intend that the Prime Minister should give the commission that power?
Mr. Tipping: I am sorry about that confusion. The Appointments Commission will look for, trawl and appoint Cross-Bench peers from many different groups. Party leaders will still submit their chosen names to the Appointments Commission, which will then make decisions about them.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The President of the Council was asked--
Modernisation
48. Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): If she will propose that the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons review the recommendations in its sixth report (1997-98, HC 779) on current voting methods. [118174]
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Modernisation Committee is currently reviewing that matter.
Mrs. Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that it would be helpful if the Modernisation Committee came up with a single recommendation for electronic voting that would allow right hon. and hon. Members to mingle in the voting Lobby and reduce the time spent on multiple votes?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. However, I am not in a position to respond because the Committee has not yet reconsidered whether there is any possibility of a single recommendation emerging. I certainly share my hon. Friend's view that a multiplicity of recommendations is less likely to lead to a clear decision.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): When looking at new forms of voting, will the Leader of the House make
absolutely certain that, whatever system is recommended, it ensures that Ministers come to vote regularly? From the voting lists, it appears that people such as the Prime Minister hardly ever come to the Chamber and cannot be lobbied by their own Members, let alone those belonging to other parties.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I cannot prejudge the Committee's views. However, I certainly believe it important to have a focus in the parliamentary day, during a vote, so that Ministers can attend and Members can mingle. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House recognise the value of that.
I have lost count of the times when I have reminded Opposition Members that, contrary to what they say, the Prime Minister attends more Prime Minister's questions, takes more questions, and is in this House more often than any of his predecessors. It is a pity that it is so hard to get the facts into their heads.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |