| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Oral Questions
32. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): If she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to place time limits on ministerial responses to oral questions. [121910]
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I have no plans to do so, but I am aware of the need to balance the desire of Ministers to give full replies with the desire of the House to deal with a reasonable number of questions.
Mr. Bercow: Given that, in 1991, each oral question and answer took an average of two minutes and 57 seconds and nearly 19 questions were reached in an hour, but that, in 1999, each oral question and answer took, on average, three minutes and 42 seconds and only just over 15 questions were reached during the time, will the President of the Council consider a time limit, so that more MPs can ask questions of Ministers, extensive wafflers--from the Prime Minister downwards--can be
cut short, and the right hon. Lady herself can emerge victorious as the most dextrous and succinct Minister at the Dispatch Box?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but flattery will not get him anywhere. I simply say to him that there is a balance in these matters, as ever. If he considers the way that questions are asked--not necessarily by someone such as himself, but more widely from those on the Conservative Benches--he will find that questions are often discursive and cover many topics. It is then difficult for Ministers to reply succinctly.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): Are Ministers told to keep their answers short?
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Would it discourage Ministers from giving very long answers, and their civil servants from preparing essays rather than short answers, if the period between the tabling of questions and their answer was reduced? That would have the additional advantage of making our questions topical occasionally, rather than relating to what was in the news two weeks previously.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman suggests would make much difference from the point of view of topicality, but I know that he has raised this matter before. I believe that it has been suggested to him that he might like to take the matter up with the House authorities in other ways.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Would it not be better if Ministers and hon. Members did not read questions and replies? That would speed matters up and make things much crisper. The problem is that planted questions get planted replies. Unlike my right hon. Friend, many Ministers are incapable of paraphrasing and feel obliged to read out what has been supplied to them. That is a great pity, and detracts from the House.
Mrs. Beckett: With respect, my hon. Friend will know that there has long been a tendency in all parties to be more disciplined about what is asked and what is answered. However, I repeat that the pressure in this exchange has been about replies from Ministers, and that it is difficult to answer discursive questions with less than discursive replies.
Parliamentary Data and Video Network
33. Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): If she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons for the adaptation of Committee Rooms to enable hon. Members to use the parliamentary data and video network system during Standing Committee sittings. [121911]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I have no plans to do so. However, the right hon. Gentleman may wish to take the matter up with the Information Committee and with the Chairmen's Panel.
Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for that guidance, but I hope that he might think again. The House has made tremendous strides in giving hon. Members access, by means of the PDVN, to a great deal of information that is very relevant to our work, both in the House and in Committee. However, information cannot be accessed in Committee Rooms, even by downloading onto a computer. If we are to hold the Executive to account, we need access to a large amount of data, so would it not be possible for the Modernisation Committee to examine the role of information technology as an adjunct and aid to the work of Committees in this House?
Mr. Tipping: I understand that the purpose of Standing Committees is to hold Ministers to account, and it is clear that members of Standing Committees must listen carefully to debates. There is a case for looking at new technology and how it impinges on our lives, but that is a matter for the Chairmen's Panel.
Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire, Moorlands): What progress has been made in improving access to the internet for hon. Members and their staff? Has a decision been made about whether users of the service will be charged?
Mr. Tipping: A lively discussion is taking place on that subject. Hon. Members with constituencies and offices away from London feel disadvantaged, and the Information Committee is looking into the matter.
Westminster Hall
34. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): If she will make a statement on the experimental sittings in Westminster Hall. [121912]
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Sittings in Westminster Hall provide valuable opportunities for debates initiated by Back-Bench Members, for debates on Select Committee Reports and for debates on subjects for which we would not otherwise have found time on the Floor of the House. The Modernisation Committee will review the experiment later this Session.
Mr. Brady: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the sittings in Westminster Hall are putting increased pressure on members of the Chairmen's Panel and on Hansard? Does not the level of attendance at most debates in Westminster Hall suggest that there is very little interest among hon. Members? Is it not time that we thought again and started returning important business to this Chamber, where it belongs?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course the sittings in Westminster Hall do put extra pressure on members of the Chairmen's Panel and on Hansard, as any extra opportunity for debates is bound to do. The Modernisation Committee will look at attendance levels, but I do not agree with the
hon. Gentleman's suggestion that debates in Westminster Hall are not required. When Westminster Hall was opened as a forum, thereby doubling the opportunities for Adjournment debates, demand for such debates more than doubled.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): Is it not strange that the Opposition seem to want to avoid the opportunity to challenge the Executive? One minute they say that they want to question the Executive, but the next they want to eliminate their opportunities to do so.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Opposition are always complaining that there are too few opportunities for scrutiny, but they do not seem to want to take them up when we offer them.
Voting Methods
35. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): If she will make a statement on proposals for reform of the voting methods of the House. [121913]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee is currently reviewing this matter.
Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only stick in the muds and conservatives with a small "c" who are never interested in considering how to reform the behaviour of the organisations in which they work? Clearly, we should consider voting systems and examine whether there are other ways of making voting quicker and more efficient. The last time that the issue came before the House, a complex multiplicity of options was suggested. Instead, we need to examine one or two simple alternatives that might speed up the voting process and make this place work more efficiently.
Mr. Tipping: There is a mood for change in the House, but what is in dispute is the pace of that change. Some Members would like no change whatever, while others are more radical. My hon. Friend is a member of the Modernisation Committee and she will remember that the last time the issue was considered, Members were offered several choices. The best course might be to make two options available--the present system and an alternative--and to ask Members to judge them.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): The fact is that Members have considered alternative systems, and the system that we currently use is the one that they prefer. The issue is not just making voting easier. When Members come together during votes, they are able to talk to Ministers. If it were not for the fact that we have physically to walk through the Lobbies, certain Ministers would not be seen in the Chamber at all.
Mr. Tipping: It has been known for people to change their minds. I suspect that there is a mood among some Members for a change on this matter. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the Lobby provides an important opportunity for Back-Bench Members to talk to Ministers. Ministers may run but, in the Lobby, there is nowhere to hide.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |