| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): The right hon. Gentleman has used a very unfortunate phrase, namely "to modernise the procedures of the House". I believe that that responsibility lies with the Procedure Committee, which I have the honour to chair. May I ask whether, if the House appoints the right hon. Gentleman to the Modernisation Committee and if he ends up as Chairman because of the Labour majority on it, he will seek to work closely with the Procedure Committee, and will not try to take to the Modernisation Committee responsibilities and duties which—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is going on rather long, and is perhaps a little wide of the motion.
Dr. Reid: Having cunningly caught the hon. Gentleman's eye by using the word "procedures", I can assure him that I would indeed seek to do that. I have no doubt that he would seek to reinforce his own view that procedures should be a matter for the Procedure Committee, and that other matters should be dealt with by the Modernisation Committee. I am sure that that will provide substance for many discussions in future. I would not dream for a moment of going beyond usurping control of the Modernisation Committee—of which I already stand accused—to usurp the hon. Gentleman's role and try to dominate the Procedure Committee. That unfortunate implication arose from the way in which I described the Modernisation Committee.
I was dealing with the second question—whether it was contrary to any reasonable way of approaching the chairmanship, or indeed membership, of the Committee
to give either to a Minister. On the contrary, I do not think such action would constitute a sign of any diminution of the Committee's importance in the eyes of the Government, or of their commitment to its work. If anything, the decision to allow the Leader of the House to become a member and subsequently Chairman—which was, in fact, incorporated in the Labour party manifesto when we came to power—was a public and practical indication of the importance that we attributed to that work. The membership of someone in the Cabinet would show how seriously the Government took its deliberations.The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rightly pointed out that the Leader of the House—myself, for the time being—is a member of the Executive, and of course there is tension between the Executive and Parliament. He must also recognise, however, that the role of the Leader of the House is rather unusual. An obligation is placed on him not just to represent the Government in the House but, in a way, to carry the House's sense of responsibility into Government. The tension that that produces is epitomised in some respects by the tension between Executive and legislature. That does not mean to say that, despite those tensions, there is an incompatibility between the two arenas that does not benefit, on occasion, from a dovetailing or cross-representation. I hope that, as Leader of the House, I can do that in general, and specifically as a member of the Modernisation Committee. If asked honestly whether I will have regard to the burden of work on Ministers, I can answer yes, just as I will have regard to Ministers' obligation to be accountable to this House. I do not deny that there is a tension in that, too, but in principle or in absolute terms, it is not necessarily incompatible to combine both; nor does doing so constitute a precedent in itself.
Sir Patrick Cormack : I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is addressing these matters in a very sensible manner. However, will he give serious thought to the desirability of replacing this Committee with one of the sort that I mentioned, to which he, as Leader of the House, would be answerable, in the same way as his Cabinet colleagues are answerable to the other Select Committees?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind hon. Members that despite their desire to widen this debate, it is about the membership of the Committee.
Dr. Reid: I respect your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. In any case, if ideas exist about modernising the relationship between the Executive and Parliament in such a fashion, the very body that would consider them would be the Modernisation Committee. Were I to be a member of it, I would of course be obliged to give consideration to them, and I would do so with as open and objective a mind as possible, recognising the prejudices that are forced on me because of my position. There is no one in this House who does not pre-judge—we all bring preconceptions to any consideration that we give—but the most dangerous people are those who do not know that they bring prejudices and preconceptions. I hope that that is in some way reassuring to all Members present.
The point was also made, with which I completely disagree, that all of this would be more properly dealt with if we were debating the establishment of a Committee. The real objection here is to the type of Committee that I will be on, if the House so wills, not to my being on it. That may well be a legitimate view, but that issue has already been agreed on and, as I understand it, it is not for discussion this evening.
The question of other Select Committees approaching decisions with unanimity, consensus and collectivity was also mentioned. Despite what is sometimes said, that would be my style and wish. That was certainly my approach on the other Committees on which I served—not least the Committee dealing with armed forces legislation, on which I served for several years. I think that I am correct in saying that, under the previous Leader of the House, the decisions taken and the proposals made were unanimous—so I do not think that there is such a great distinction between the deliberations of the Modernisation Committee and of other ones.
I pointed out that a balance of duty is incumbent on the Leader of the House. The views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst are sincerely and passionately held and within the framework of his ideological preconceptions, commitments and passions. Everything he has said this evening is utterly consistent with the view that we expect from him, but he will not be surprised to learn that I do not entirely share it. Nor do I think that his views on the Modernisation Committee will be widely shared in the House. There will be a constituency for them, consisting of the arch-traditionalist viewpoint, and there is nothing wrong with that. I recognise that a sense of security, comfort and stability derives from that viewpoint, but perhaps it is tinged by the extremist element of traditionalist view. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman, who sees himself as a fairly radical reformer of conservatism, obviously does not agree, but he will not expect me to accept that his is the widely held view in the House.
Angela Watkinson (Upminster): Will the Leader of the House concede that, in the context of the modernisation of the House, change is not necessarily synonymous with progress or improvement?
Dr. Reid: Change is not synonymous with improvement and it is never easy. It was once said that nothing is more painful than the birth of a new idea, and that applies in the House and outside it. It is often difficult, particularly for people of more mature years, to accept change. I remember Bob Hughes, when he was the Member for Aberdeen, North, telling me a story about changing from the simple method of finance that we used to have. There were thrupenny bits, sixpences, 12 pennies in a pound—sorry, I mean 12 pennies in a shilling; I have got it right even though I am not a Minister in the Treasury—and 240 pence in the pound. We moved on to the dreadfully complex system of metrification with 100 pence to the pound. Bob Hughes was on an Aberdeen bus at that time—this is a true story—listening to two old ladies bemoaning the change that had been forced on them under the European system of metrification, as they put it. At the end of a
long critique of all the ills that had been imposed on them, one of the old ladies summed up the situation with a sigh by saying, "You would think that they'd wait at least until all the old folk had died out before bringing the new system in."I fully realise that change is never easy and that it does not necessarily mean that things will improve, but that does not mean that nothing can be improved upon, or that everything should be conserved as it has been for centuries. That, if I may say so, is the essence of conservatism, and it explains why Conservatives, by definition, find it difficult to live in today's world because it is different from yesterday's world. It also explains the astounding support over the past few years for the progressive party that sits on this side of the House.
Precedent does exist for my proposal. There is precedent under the previous Conservative Administration for Ministers chairing important Committees of this House—although not the Modernisation Committee, of course. Although the questioning of the wisdom and rectitude of having a Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary on to the Modernisation Committee has been sincere, I hope that I have reassured some colleagues and that they will find it possible to support my proposal. I am pleased to have such unanimous support on the Government Benches, which has not been so evident recently, so I am particularly gratified about that this evening. I hope that hon. Members will find it acceptable for my membership to proceed, as incorporated in the resolution.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |