Submission from Mr Tom Harris MP
You will be aware, from our exchange at a previous
Question Time, that I am one of those who supported your predecessors'
reforms to the House's sitting times but who now bitterly regrets
that judgment.
My primary concern is regarding this two-week
session in September. I have met no-one who believes this short
sitting is a good idea. The only justification offered for its
retention seems to be that without it, there would be calls for
a recall of Parliament in the event of a major crisis or other
unforeseen international event. My response to this would be:
"So what?" If the Prime Minister feels there is a good
reason to recall Parliament, he can and should do so. I don't
recall previous recalls in this Parliament causing undue difficulty
for either members or the House authorities.
And what of the costs of temporarily halting
the annual renovation works in the Palace for these two weeks
and restarting them at the start of the conference recess?
I don't believe we should worry about the media
reaction to a decision to scrap this two-week sitting; I haven't
noticed any discernible improvement in the tone used by journalists
to describe MPs since we introduced the new regime, and I expect
we can easily live with any criticism that would inevitably result
from a decision to amend it.
As regards the daily sitting hours, my main
concern is not the inconvenience caused to members sitting on
select or standing committees. From my personal point of view—as
someone who likes to spend time in the Chamber, even when I don't
intend to speak or ask a question—I have found myself facing
a serious dilemma as a result of the new hours. Before the beginning
of 2003, I would arrive at the Commons, check my mail, then have
breakfast. Then I would spend a couple of hours catching up on
constituency mail and making phone calls, or perhaps preparing
a speech or a question in advance of the House sitting. Since
January 2003, I have had to give up time in the Commons for time
in my office. It's as simple as that; I don't believe it is any
inconvenience to MPs to have to stay at Westminster until after
10.00 pm if that is what it takes to carry out all one's duties.
However, I am mindful of some of my colleagues'
strong feelings to the contrary, and would be prepared to vote
to allow Wednesday's hours to remain as they are, provided Tuesday
sittings began at 2.30 pm and ended at 10.00 pm.
I look forward to discussing these issues with
you before or during the debate you referred to today.
September 2004
| 
