| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Taylor: I was present for part of that debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that one measure of the effectiveness of Westminster Hall debates is that that debate had some success in inching the Government towards a more rational method of local government financing? We have yet to see the results, but we have great faith that the debate played a part in providing a more equitable distribution of grant to LEAs, such as those in Leicestershire, which is at the bottom of the county league table in that respect.
Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to make a valuable point. The debate enabled us not only to hold the Government to account, but to express a view, which we had been discussing within the fair funding group of MPs--a cross-party group, not a Labour party group alone--and put it to the Minister and hear her response. I am sure that we shall go on pressing that point--I hope in Westminster Hall.
It is important that our constituents are able to see that we are linking their experiences with what we say in this place. The decline in the percentage of people voting in local as well as general elections is distressing. We need to be able to demonstrate forcefully and clearly that we are their representatives, are bringing their concerns to this place and are effective in changing the way the Government do things to make their lives better and to increase their opportunities.
I therefore support Westminster Hall debates. They have proved popular for various reasons. One is that they are held when the press and public are awake, aware and can take note of what is said. The last end-of-day Adjournment debate that I secured was held between 2 and 3 am; I do not remember exactly what time it was. I was so blurred by that stage that I could not concentrate on what I was saying. However, few people were aware of it, except the Minister who was put up to reply and, of course, the Hansard writers, whom I gratefully acknowledge and who helped to demonstrate later what had passed between me and the Minister; but Adjournment debates held at that time of the day are no good for the general public. Even the constituent about whom I was speaking did not hear the debate at that time in the morning: he had sensibly gone to bed some hours earlier.
Another reason why I support Westminster Hall debates is that they feel a good deal more accessible to people than the ones in this Chamber. When people are sitting in the public gallery, it is difficult for them to feel part of the debate in quite the same way as they do in Westminster Hall. It brings the immediacy of the debate more closely to the people who have made representations.
The more informal seating arrangements make it much easier to arrive at consensus. I am not one of those people who feels that we should always arrive at consensus--far from it. I have some strong political beliefs and much of the time I disagree completely with the Conservative view, but there are occasions when I do agree. We have points in common. We should be able to arrive at consensus when it is appropriate to do so.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Before I resigned from the deputy speakership, I sat for many hours in Westminster Hall. May I assure my hon. Friend, because I heard many debates, that the placing of the furniture has absolutely no effect on whether people decide on consensus? The House of Commons, with its normally very tolerant, very flexible response, automatically divides itself into Government one side, Opposition the other and third parties in the middle.
Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend, if she were to listen to some of the people who advise management on how best to arrive at consensus--
Mrs. Dunwoody: I listened to Westminster Hall.
Mrs. Campbell: If my hon. Friend were to listen to management consultants and to people who have done much work with businesses and commerce--I think that we should be prepared to learn from those organisations; I do not think necessarily that we are unique in the way we behave--she would realise that it is much easier to reach consensus when the seating is arranged in the way that it is in Westminster Hall. What people dislike about
this place is the adversarial nature of the political party debate. If there is consensus to be achieved, we should try to do that.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): Which people dislike the adversarial nature?
Mrs. Campbell: A great many of my constituents dislike the adversarial nature of the political debate in this place. Yah-boo politics, it has been called. Making party political points for the sake of it turns off most of our constituents; women in particular dislike that sort of debate. I would not want the seating arrangements to be changed in Westminster Hall. The hemispherical shape is good. When people sit facing each other, two sword lengths apart, it feels adversarial and encourages the hon. Lady to make party political points. I do not object to aggressive debate when it is necessary, but in many cases, it is not.
Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: No. I shall make some progress now.
I want to say a few words about Thursday sittings. Two weeks ago, we voted for reforms that will effectively limit debates, so that we normally finish before midnight. To be grateful for finishing at midnight may seem a little peculiar to those outside this place, certainly outside the world of business and commerce, but I am grateful.
Thursday sittings have not reduced the hours in any way, a point that was ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron). They are an experiment that has been a huge success, with the House starting and finishing three hours earlier. Thursday sittings have probably--the statistics show it--extended the hours that we sit.
Before we finished at 7 pm, the Whips were under quite a lot of pressure to get Government business finished at 7, so on many days we started at 2.30 and finished at 7. Now we start at 11.30 am and finish at 7, leading to longer debate. It has helped right hon. and hon. Members in far-flung constituencies to achieve a better balance between their work at Westminster and their work in the constituency. It has helped them to arrive home on a Thursday evening, instead of in the early hours of Friday morning.
I know that the arrangement took some time to bed down. I am a parliamentary private secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry. We have parliamentary questions on a Thursday. When the change was first made, there was great tension over whether hon. Members with questions on the Order Paper would remember to turn up in the Chamber at 11.30 am to ask them, rather than rushing in at 2.30 pm and expecting Question Time to be in progress.
I think, however, that the arrangements have bedded down and been a great success. I hope that, when we vote later today, they will receive support from both sides of the House.
7.40 pm
Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster): I should like to make just a few points, the first of which--in reply to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)--is that I was in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate. However, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham,
Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for missing a part of their speeches when I slipped out of the Chamber.I support both motions. With hours being increased after Jopling, a fixed finishing time of 7 o'clock on Thursdays has made it easier for hon. Members to plan. As a Greater London Member, on Thursdays I have been able to do constituency work in the morning. However, I appreciate that the situation is much more difficult for hon. Members who live further afield. Nevertheless, this debate--and all our other debates on modernisation--is all about balance. We have to balance the need for change with the need for hon. Members properly to perform their various responsibilities.
Although I have some reservations about attendance in the Chamber, I do not blame the Government for low attendance. Hon. Members should attend the Chamber more often. As a member of the Procedure Committee and an assiduous attender of debates in the Chamber-- I was here for Friday's important debate, for example-- I take my responsibilities to the House very seriously and agree that it is disappointing sometimes to see so few hon. Members in the Chamber.
Before being elected to the House, I thought that the House required balanced change to be made consensually. I believe that we are getting there, albeit rather slowly. I therefore support early Thursday sittings and believe that we should continue experimenting with ways to improve participation in the House.
Mr. Swayne: May I press the hon. Gentleman on that point?
Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman has raised two issues--
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Welcome to the debate.
Mr. Swayne: Unfortunately, I had an opposed Bill Committee that I had to attend in the middle of the debate. I have returned, however, having been here at the start.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) raises two issues: the first is that the Chamber is often poorly attended, and the second concerns early Thursday sittings. Has it not occurred to him that hon. Members have many things to do in the mornings? Does he anticipate that, if we sit earlier in the day, those matters will be moved to the end of the day, or that they will still be done in the morning and the Chamber will be even emptier than it is now?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |