| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to the debate.
Mr. Heald: I think that the one Liberal Democrat Member we have here is quite a good one. [Interruption.] Well, there are mixed views on that.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before an attempt at rescuing the shadow Leader of the House is made by his predecessor, will you rule that any listing of the titles of the 393 clauses that might be envisaged by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would be ruled out of order as tortuous and unnecessary in relation to the debate on the matter before us? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a point of order. Would hon. Members please allow the hon. Gentleman to continue?
David Taylor: Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, rule in advance that any attempt by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to regale the House with the titles of all the clauses of any Bill concerned would be ruled out of order as tortuous, a waste of time and an abuse of parliamentary process?
Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to respond to the point of order from the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor).
Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. No, first and foremost, I want to respond to this point of order. Never would it be appropriate for any occupant of the Chair to make a ruling in advance of hearing what any Member would say.
Mr. Heald: May I turn to an important matter of detail in the motion? Paragraph (1) says that no questions should be taken on Monday and Tuesday of next week. If we are to be here, waiting for Lords messages, it would be wrong to lie idle, so may I suggest that we have questions on Monday and Tuesday of next week and that we find time for a short debate on Iraq, which the shadow Foreign Secretary asked for?
Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): Questions on what?
Mr. Heald: I am coming to that. I suggest that we have questions on home affairs and health, because this Government do not like answering questions. We know
that the Prime Minister never answers a question. In fact, he has been asked 11 questions by the Leader of the Opposition—11 asked and none answered.
Mr. Cameron: Does my hon. Friend think that it would be worth while to have questions to the Chancellor, because the one question that no one on the Treasury Bench seemed to be able to answer yesterday is whether total capital investment in the health service is capped? If the Chancellor, who is now responsible for almost all domestic policy, came to the House, we might be able—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, we cannot debate questions that we might ask of a Minister.
Mr. Heald: There should be questions next week, despite what the motion says.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is making a convincing case. Has he borne it in mind that we have had only 164 sitting days in the parliamentary year, although a lot of people outside the House have to work 240 days a year in their normal employment? Does that not show that we do not have enough time to consider such Bills properly or to ask the right questions, as he has said? Should not we ask the Government for more sitting days as well as more hours?
Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Although a distinction was drawn between the previous shadow Leader of the House and me, I think that working hard—I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst agrees—is something we should be doing.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): It appears to me that the Government will get into similar problems next year. They have a number of unpopular Bills that they will find difficult to get through this place and, indeed, the other place. The issue of questions is important: should not the Government modernise Question Time so that we can table questions in the expectation that we may sit on the Monday and Tuesday when prorogation takes place? If we came across a similar situation, we could have Question Time.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the motion on sittings is amendable? Had the shadow Leader of the House been doing his job properly, his arguments would not be necessary, as he could have tabled amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The motion is amendable, but I note that it was tabled quite late last night.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What you have just said is extremely helpful. Would you consider taking a manuscript amendment?
Madam Deputy Speaker: We seem to be getting quite a few references to hypothetical questions. I am not ruling on a hypothetical question.
Mr. Heald: Looking at paragraph (1) of the motion, the only reason that this proposal is needed is to prevent us from having Question Time. If the motion had not been tabled, I believe that we could have normal days on Monday and Tuesday.
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I want to ask him a question about paragraph (1). Is my interpretation correct in that, fortunately, it allows for an interruption on Monday and Tuesday for an urgent question? Given the comments of the Leader of the House on an unelected Chamber, could not that opportunity be used for the Prime Minister to come to the House to explain why he believes in an unelected Chamber whereas his Ministers seem not to?
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Of course, if we had the Chamber at the other end of the Corridor that the Prime Minister wants, we would still have had exactly the same result in those votes.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: Give me a moment, because I want to make the point that there is a good reason to have Home Office and Department of Health questions next week. [Hon. Members: "And Treasury questions."] And possibly Treasury questions. Let me give an example.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) has explained that on 6 March he asked a question on administrative grants for the Home Office. On 19 November—eight months later—he received a holding reply. He could have an answer to that question on Monday or Tuesday.
Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
To give another example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), the Opposition Chief Whip, asked a question of the Home Office on 27 January. He received a reply on 19 November—this Wednesday:
- "I will write to the right hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library."
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): I put it to my hon. Friend that even when we receive answers they are not much use. After all, the Prime Minister yesterday told us that trade between the United States and the United Kingdom totals £2,000 billion a year. That is more than the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. To return to my point about the hopeless answer—
Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: In a moment. The Secretary of State for Health was asked
- "what recent discussions he has had on the testing of school children for sexually-transmitted diseases".
- "The power of decision to provide a school based health service, and the content of that service, is for the individual governing body of the school in consultation with pupils, parents and the school community."
Kevin Brennan: Could we also have questions to the Department for Constitutional Affairs so that we could discuss creating sufficient Labour peers to reflect the democratic wishes of the country and so get the Bills passed? Would not that be a better use of time?
Mr. Heald: Sadly, we do not need a debate on that. The Prime Minister is already doing that.
It is right that we should have the opportunity to use this time well. The Leader of House has made his accusations, but the truth of the matter is that he and his colleagues should be using the time that the House of Lords has given us to pause and reflect.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |