| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.39 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Unusually, I am not so grateful for being called earlier because I would have liked to respond to several later contributions. As is often said in this place, one has to take one's chance when one can.
First, I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on a subject that he has revisited in several recess Adjournment debates. I particularly endorse his point about people power in Cyprus. In a debate earlier this week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made specific reference to the position in Cyprus. The hon. Member for Tooting is right that we in this country must endorse the demands, requests and pressure from the people of Cyprus to resolve their difficulties once and for all. I happened to be an MP in 1974—a long time ago—when the division of Cyprus took place. I recall the tragic circumstances, which were terrible for the people of Cyprus, and for all the people who love that benighted island when the tragedy continued. I entirely endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman said, and I hope that the Minister will take his points seriously and communicate them to the Foreign Office.
The Minister has heard reference made on several recent occasions to the little booklet produced by the Parliament First group—a distinguished group, apart from myself, of course. "Parliament's Last Chance" has a distinguished authorship, including Members of all political parties. I hope that the Minister has, having been encouraged to do so, now read it. If not, next week would allow him an admirable opportunity to do so. Other hon. Members, who may believe that we live in a parliamentary democracy and—to put it in simple terms—that Parliament's power to hold the Executive to account has decreased, is decreasing and ought to be enhanced, should also find useful material in the booklet.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister—and, through him, that of the Leader of the House—to several issues in the document, but before I do so I refer him back to the debate of 29 October 2002, to preceding debates and, indeed, to previous weekly encounters with the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on those very issues. They should be of concern to every Member of Parliament, whether they sit on the Front or the Back Benches, and to all who believe that our democracy relies on effective scrutiny of Government legislation and of the Government's Executive actions.
The problems have certainly not developed suddenly—as hon. Members know, I have been in and out of this place for quite a long period—but as a product of a war of attrition between No. 10, Whitehall and the House. The resignation statement of the former Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), underlined the fact that the problems did not suddenly occur in the year 2003, but progressively—or, I should say, regressively—over several years.
"Parliament's Last Chance" would also be of interest to people outside Parliament who take our proceedings seriously. If I had to concentrate on one core issue, it would be the management of Parliament's time. All too often, the management of our time is not only in the hands of the Executive of the day, but is organised to the convenience of that Executive. I am not just complaining about the speedy passage of the business immediately preceding this debate, which meant that my soup is still sitting in the Members' Tea Room getting cold. It is much more serious than that. If Parliament is to reassert its authority over the Executive, we must be able to reassert our power over our own timetable.
Almost all the elected legislative assemblies in the west and other parts of the world—whether they have mirrored our system or adopted a different one—enable the individual members and the parties collectively to decide the priorities for the business. The management of business is not left to the Government, but is recognised as an important power for the elected assembly. That is why "Parliament's Last Chance" emphasises the need for some sort of business committee in Parliament. It is also the reason why the Scottish Parliament has set up, under the chairmanship of a presiding officer, a group of people from all parts of its elected assembly, which can then decide on the priorities for its business.
Furthermore, the motion proposed by the right hon. Member for Livingston on 29 October last year entailed a move towards some form of collective consensus
building on how the business of the House should be conducted. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) knows, it was relatively limited in recommending proper consultation, but as he and I both know, that exercise now seems to have ground to a halt. Why? Because it undermines the hegemony of the Government Whips.Government Members should take a greater interest in why the House decision in favour of cross-party consultation has lapsed. As I mentioned to the Leader of the House at business questions this afternoon, we should focus on what needs to be done at this stage of the Session. If the Government ask the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and me to carry over some business—I have calculated that we have only a further 10 weeks left for this Session's legislative programme—without proper consultation on the priorities of all the legislation, they might receive a dusty answer. I stress that the House had decided that such consultation should take place. It was not merely an Opposition motion or an afterthought. The motion came before the House and was approved by it, but the process has now stalled. In fairness to the Leader of the House, he responded positively to my point in business questions earlier today, but I hope that we can make further progress.
The booklet includes several other extremely important proposals. None of its authors believes that it is the last word on the subject—far from it—but we believe that all hon. Members, particularly Labour Back Benchers, not only have a right and responsibility to take the proposals seriously, but may have their final opportunity in the coming months to reassert their rights on behalf of their constituents to ensure that Parliament works more effectively.
The right hon. Member for Livingston used to say on many occasions—I hope that I am paraphrasing him accurately—that good government depends on good scrutiny by Parliament. Many of us feel that the position is deteriorating—though, as I said, not suddenly. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would be the first to admit that he and his colleagues were far from perfect and introduced legislation that was inadequately thought through on many occasions. When we were given an opportunity to improve it, we often found ourselves up against the guillotine.
Saying that two wrongs do not make a right does not improve the position, however. It has not been right for some time and it continues to be a blot on the reputation of Parliament. One of the reasons why members of the public do not hold Parliament in higher esteem is that we do not look as if we are in control of our business. We do not look as if we are giving proper scrutiny to issues that require it, and we do not look from outside as if we are doing our job properly.
It is important to recognise that individual MPs of all parties are highly respected in their own constituencies. I have no doubt that many of the usual suspects are in their places on both sides of the House today and they will raise issues that they feel are important to them. The polls show that individual Members of all parties—I shall not embarrass anyone by mentioning names—are highly respected in the local community. However, when the public are asked how they perceive Parliament
as an institution, and whether Members of Parliament are doing their job properly collectively, we tumble down the respect league. We even sometimes come below journalists, and that is a deplorable situation.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford): Has the hon. Gentleman considered that the public may be more accurate in their assessment of their constituency MP because they have more personal knowledge of his or her qualities and work, whereas their view of what happens in this place is filtered through, for example, the media's reporting of us?
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is a colleague on the Modernisation Committee and he has given me an opportunity to polish what I laughingly call my peroration. In the Committee, we are trying to find ways to communicate better, not only through the media but directly, using the modern forms of communication that technology has now afforded to us. In that way, we could better communicate to the outside world what Parliament is doing. However, we should remember that the message is dependent on the quality of the work that we do, not on the messenger that we use. We can continue to improve the ways in which we engage with the public until the cows come home, but unless we do a better job, the public's perception—whether through the media or through direct contact at constituency level and the internet—will not improve. The perception has to be that the substance of what we are doing has improved.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I wish all colleagues an enjoyable Whitsun recess. Everyone will be welcome in Cornwall, which will—of course—be very sunny next week.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |