| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Allen: It is incumbent on all those who complain about programme motions to come up with a positive alternative and to put it to the House, and I hope that pre-legislative scrutiny provides for that. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He complains about the Bill's cross-Departmental elements, but that is the joined-up thinking through which various Departments contribute to a matter that does not fall within the ambit of a particular Department. I know that the hon. Gentleman has to score his point, but I hope that he accepts that it is a considerable breakthrough for Ministers to be working together in this way.
Simon Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am completely signed up to trying to get more joined-up thinking. That is why my colleagues and I welcomed, encouraged and supported cross-Departmental Question Time in Westminster Hall, and why we submitted questions. Indeed, I was the Member who asked the first question in the cross-Departmental Question Time on youth matters. It is important to try to achieve a broad range.
Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) rose—
Simon Hughes: I happen to know that there is a lot of controversy between Departments about this Bill, and that some were not nearly as keen as the Home Office on certain of the measures in it. I also happen to know that there were many rows inside the Government. Some felt that they were being bulldozed—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We are making a meal of something that is not within the terms of the motion before the House. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman return to the motion.
Simon Hughes: The point in relation to timetabling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that those matters may deserve to be explored. However—
Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady please wait a second? Pre-legislative scrutiny is of course a way of
ensuring that we do not have such difficulties later on. I entirely support and have always supported—as have my colleagues—the use of White Papers and Green Papers and various pre-legislative processes. Such processes always improve matters, so that we are less rushed and have to deal less frequently with last-minute amendments.
Simon Hughes: I shall give way, but for the last time.
Ms Taylor: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Will he acknowledge that we spent more than 80 hours considering the Bill in Committee, that he was present for none of that time—it is appropriate that that be said—and that at each sitting the discussions were full and complete? No one was left wanting to make a statement, and we did not run out of time.
Simon Hughes: Of course I acknowledge that, but I should hope that the hon. Lady knows by now that only a few colleagues are nominated to a Standing Committee. I was not nominated for the Committee in question, but my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green) were, and they served on it throughout. Indeed, the hon. Lady will remember that they were assiduous in their contributions. This is the time when the rest of us get our say. Some 20 people served in Committee, but the rest of the 659 Members of Parliament—excluding those who are members of the Government—may want to have their say today.
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) rose—
Simon Hughes: I shall not give way again. [Interruption.] I said that I am not going to give way again.
Today is an opportunity for those who did not serve in Committee to have their say. Since proceedings began in Committee, some 530 Members have not had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. If they want to speak, this is the occasion to do so, and we should allow them the necessary time.
My colleagues—like the Conservatives and, I hope, Labour Back Benchers who are in favour of free speech and proper scrutiny—will oppose the timetable motion because we believe that Bills such as this deserve more time on the Floor of the House.
2.33 p.m.
Ms Blears: I can tell that we are going to have an extremely lively debate. I was about to say that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was perhaps guilty of hyperbole—unlike the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who dealt with the issues with some reserve—but it is clear that the hyperbole is infectious. I am sure that we are going to have a great day.
On the specific point about residential parenting orders that was made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, my predecessor, the hon. Member
for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth)—whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber—pointed out in Committee, in respect of the relevant clause:
- "The clause . . . needs to be modified to allow greater flexibility in the delivery of programmes"—
- "for example by making a residential component possible where it is considered necessary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 8 May 2003; c. 103.]
Andrew Selous: Does the Minister share my regret that new clause 3, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), will not be debated today? There is a lot to be said for putting parenting within the scope of the national curriculum, so that a stigma is not attached to specific parents when, as part of a parenting order—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not talk about a new clause or amendment that has not been selected for debate, and he certainly should not even attempt to talk about such matters during a debate on a programme motion. I call Ms Hazel Blears.
Ms Blears: On the other concerns raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I acknowledge that it is right that Members have proper time to consider amendments. My understanding is that virtually all the issues to which the new clauses and amendments relate were raised in Committee. It is fair to say that in this instance, we have been a very responsive and listening Government, and we have tried to introduce proposals that meet the Committee's concerns. Whether the hon. Gentleman can support them remains to be seen, but we have certainly endeavoured to deal with some of the issues that were raised.
Mr. Bercow: I much appreciate the Minister's earlier remarks—I have never been accused of reserve and I should be very sorry indeed to lose my record thus far. I say to her in all candour and seriousness that pre-legislative scrutiny, although extremely valuable, is never a substitute for, or an alternative to, proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House, particularly in the minds of those who were not such privileged citizens as those who participated in the Standing Committee.
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point—for once—and belies his reputation. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a useful tool—in addition to the scrutiny that we undertake on behalf of those who sent us here. That is an important role.
There was plenty of time in Committee to debate all of these issues. I understand that time did not run out—in fact, unusually, things were a little lax—so I am surprised that Members feel so strongly about this issue.
Mr. Paice: The Minister must not confuse consideration in Committee with proceedings on the Floor of the House. What she says about the Standing Committee is perfectly true, but there were many issues that the Government took away. I repeat: it was not
until Thursday that we knew that the Government were going to respond to those issues at this stage. We were not aware, bearing in mind the proceedings in the other place to follow, that the Government intended to wait until Thursday to deal with these matters. My concern was not what the Government did, but that they did not act in time for us properly to scrutinise their new proposals.
Ms Blears: As I said, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns and I hope that, during today's proceedings, we will have a good opportunity to ventilate issues that were canvassed in Committee but perhaps not discussed in great detail.
I should point out to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that individuals and communities do not conform to the silos of Government Departments. We in this House should be grateful that this Bill constitutes an attempt to put the victim, the witness and the community at the centre, and to wrap services around them in an innovative way, to try to ensure that the law that we pass really does address the needs of those communities, rather than of individual Government Departments. We need to look at this issue from a different perspective, and with a little imagination and creativity. This Bill is an excellent example of Ministers and Departments working together. It will not be perfect, but making a start through this Bill is an excellent way to proceed.
I do not want to delay the House any longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a very good point about integrated government and new ways of working, and I commend the programme motion to the House.
The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 175.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |