| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.31 pm
Mr. Leigh: It is a great pleasure to spend three or four minutes thanking all those who have taken part in what has been a good debate. It is always pleasant to take a three-hour break from the normal partisanship of the House, and try to get to grips in a completely non-partisan way—not mentioning the political debate at all—with how the public sector works.
I am grateful to all those who have taken part in the Back-Bench debate, which was opened by my friend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He is such an honest man that when he came forth with a figure and it was proved wrong, he just admitted that it was his own concoction. I wish we were all so honest when we made mistakes in this place. He made a serious point that the trouble with Whitehall is that there is no settled culture—not just continuous policy changes, but a continuous driving through of Gershon, which makes it difficult to get to grips with efficiency savings. His wise words should be remembered.
The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who is a valued member of the Committee, made one of the great understatements of the year—that public servants lack the incentive of private citizens in husbanding resources. You can say that again. We do our best to try to help public servants to be just as good as private citizens in husbanding resources. His wise words about the GP contract will be engraved in the heart of any future Government in dealing with a powerful public sector trade union, which is all that the British Medical Association is.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) for her contribution. She made an important point about the problem of change continually recurring, and project management. We have made a difference, as the Exchequer Secretary mentioned, in trying to ensure that all finance directors are professionally qualified. I have tried to make the focus on project management a theme of my chairmanship. I believe that so many of our mistakes are made because we drive through change too quickly. I say to the Exchequer Secretary that we try to have a balance and give praise—we are not just Jeremiahs. My press release on the roll-out of prison procurement this week was very laudatory of the Department. Where such procurements work well, they are delivered slowly, with piloting, and are not continuous changes. My hon. Friend’s point about the need for more training is important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) made a dynamic, young man’s speech. He reminded me of my early days as an ardent Thatcherite. All I can do now is go to bed with the collected speeches of Sarah Palin—not a very thick volume. My hon. Friend keeps us all on our toes, and it is good to have him on the Committee. He made the point that when the oversight of Parliament has become so weak in respect of the whole budget process, the audit process is even more important. That is why the Committee’s work is so important.
Of course we all love the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) and his critiques of the royal family, public schools and the rest, and we are very grateful for what he says. We are also very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon). Lastly, we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands).
The PAC model has spread throughout the Commonwealth, and I think we should be extremely proud of it. We are proud of our work. We do try to make a difference, and we hope that at the end of the day we save taxpayers money.
That this House takes note of the 30th, the 36th, the 39th to the 41st, the 43rd to the 49th, the 51st and the 57th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2007-08, and of the Treasury Minutes on those Reports (Cm 7493, 7522 and 7545).
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to a written question in column 1124W of volume 463 of Hansard? It was asked on 25 July 2007 by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who I see is present, and concerned the possibility of the Youth Parliament using this Chamber. The reply given by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who was then Deputy Leader of the House, stated that the matter would be referred to the Modernisation Committee.
Although the motion that I assume a representative of the Government is about to move is not irregular in the procedural sense, it is clear that the Government have failed to honour the commitment that they gave the House, because the matter has not been put before the Modernisation Committee. I therefore wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you feel that it would be more appropriate for the motion not to be moved until the Committee has had an opportunity to consider the matter.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been a member of the Modernisation Committee since its very first meeting, in the last half of 1997, and I can vouch for the truth of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). The question of using this Chamber—uniquely—for a meeting of the UK Youth Parliament has never been discussed. I fervently believe that if the policy was that it should be referred to the Committee, and if that was stated by a Government Minister—the Deputy Leader of the House—that commitment should be honoured before the matter is put before the House as a whole.
Martin Salter (Reading, West) (Lab) rose—
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Bryant) rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I will take one more point of order.
Martin Salter: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise the House how to deal with circumstances in which hon. Members may have inadvertently misled the House? The Modernisation Committee’s 2004 report “Connecting Parliament with the Public”, to which I was party along with several other Members, contained a recommendation that the UK Youth Parliament use the Chamber of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: May I respond to the points of order that have been made? I really do think— [Interruption.] Order. Two points of order have been raised with me. I intend to reply to them, and I want the Members concerned to hear what I have to say.
Let me advise Members that the points raised with the Chair as points of order are actually points that they could well introduce into the debate that is about to take place.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Bearing in mind what you have said—that certain matters are obviously matters for debate—may I raise with you something that was said by the Prime Minister in his statement following the publication of the Green Paper “The Governance of Britain” on 3 July 2007? He said:
“Consultation will take place with you, Mr. Speaker, and through the Leader of the House, with this House as to whether the Youth Parliament should be invited here in this Chamber once a year, on a non-sitting day.”—[ Official Report, 3 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 819.]
Is it possible to find out, Madam Deputy Speaker, the nature of the consultation that has taken place with Mr. Speaker, and through the Leader of the House, with this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Let me repeat the ruling that I have already made. The points made by the hon. Gentleman could well be made as part of the debate that I hope we shall now be able to hear.
Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it another further point of order?
Mr. Bacon: It is directly related to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your answer to it.
Madam Deputy Speaker: We have heard quite a few variations on the original point of order, but I shall allow one more.
Mr. Bacon: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked whether it would be possible to find out what consultation has taken place with the Speaker’s Office. It seems to me that that is not a question for debate, as I have been a Member of this House since 2001 and I have never seen either the Speaker or any of the Deputy Speakers making a speech from the Chair in the sense of taking part in a debate, and I do not expect to see that. Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, how should we ascertain what consultation has taken place with the Speaker’s Office, as, with the greatest respect, that is plainly not a matter for debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker: With the greatest of respect to the Member, who says he has been in the House since, I think, 2002—[Hon. Members: “2001.”] He has been a Member of the House since 2001, and I think that he will therefore be aware that during the course of a debate it is quite possible—this frequently happens—for Members to intervene on Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box to clarify certain queries they may have. Let us now proceed, and commence with this debate.
Use of the Chamber (Youth Parliament)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).
4.41 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Bryant): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the work of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in providing young people with an opportunity to engage with the political process and bring about social change; notes that many hon. Members from all parts of the House are actively involved in the work of the UK Youth Parliament; and accordingly resolves that the UK Youth Parliament should be allowed for this year alone to hold its 2009 annual meeting in the Chamber of this House.
I suppose I should start by saying, “Seconds out, round two,” as this feels like the second part of a debate that did not really begin yesterday. I will also just say this to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who is the longest-standing member of the Modernisation Committee, and who raised a point of order just now: he called for a matter to be referred to the Modernisation Committee, but last week he called for the Modernisation Committee to be abolished, so consistency is clearly not one of his major features for today.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con) rose—
Chris Bryant: I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene on me yet, but I am sure he will do so in a few moments.
As I am sure every Member knows, there is a serious issue in terms of the involvement of young people in politics of every kind.
Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) rose—
Chris Bryant: May I develop my argument just a little before the hon. Gentleman intervenes on me?
We all know that there are problems with young people who are disaffected from society in general—they exist in every constituency in the land—and that antisocial behaviour affects many of our communities, and we also know that the percentage of young people, especially under the age of 24, who turn out for elections has fallen very dramatically, from 60 in the 1990s to the low 30s in the last couple of general elections. In addition, every single political party has found that the number of young people getting involved has fallen. One of the significant innovations in the past decade to try to redress some of these issues is the creation of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament. Those who originally thought of creating it had a brilliant idea, and it has made a significant difference on two levels. First, in terms of youth organisation in every constituency, it has led to the positive development that many young people are now actively involved in discussing the major political issues facing the country, instead of just going along to a youth club and playing ping-pong. It has given a structure for the National Youth Agency.
There have been very significant debates in this building, albeit not in this Chamber. Indeed, there have been meetings in Committee Room 14, which is what the
amendment recommends, for the last 10 years. Therefore, it hardly seems like an innovation for hon. Members to be moving that as a halfway-house amendment.
Mr. Bone: Can the Deputy Leader of the House explain the Government’s thinking over the last week in putting this motion at the end of business, when it could not possibly have been debated? This is an important issue. Why was time not provided? Why were the Government forced, by Members objecting every evening, to have to find time?
Chris Bryant: Clearly, there are priorities, and although making sure that as many young people feel engaged in the political process as possible is a very significant priority for the Government, whether the Chamber should be allocated to the UK Youth Parliament is probably not as important as some of the issues that people were calling on my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to allow time for debate on. However, there would have been debate yesterday if the hon. Gentleman and some other colleagues had not forced debates on issues that they then chose not to vote on.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I will deal with the matter that the Deputy Leader of the House raised as soon as he got to his feet—in respect of my involvement with the Modernisation Committee—when, I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, I catch your eye later. Unless I have been misled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), the shadow Leader of the House, the matter has not been discussed with him and he has not been consulted about it, because he told me this only yesterday. If it is so important to the Government and is really a cross-party issue, why have they not had the courtesy to discuss it with my hon. Friend?
Chris Bryant: I do not think I am breaking any confidences in saying that the shadow Leader of the House and I have had some discussions today, and I am happy to come to those issues; I hope that I can provide some reassurance on the basis of those discussions. At the moment, I have discussions with the shadow Leader of the House nearly every day—I do not want to suggest any cosiness in that arrangement—but this is not a matter on which we think it right that there should be a party Whip; we have not wanted to advance in that way. I say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who raised the issue of consultation, that, in the end, the only way the Government have of consulting the whole House is by putting something on the Order Paper and having a vote, and that is what I would dearly like us to be able to do.
Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I know that there are several hon. Members who would like—
Mr. Bone:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House does not want to mislead Parliament. It has been suggested on a number of occasions that hon. Members yesterday
called for a vote and then did not vote. That is not the case. I called for a vote against the European Union motion and voted against it. That ought to be made clear.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments made by Mr. Speaker yesterday. He dealt with points of order on this very issue.
Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman feels I have slighted him in any way, I do apologise; I would not ever want to do so. I merely note the fact that we had votes yesterday afternoon that seemed to indicate that a lot of people opposed the measures in question, but only four did so on the first, and only six on the second.
The important issue before us is that the UK Youth Parliament has developed a growing sense of self-confidence as an organisation, and many of the young people involved are from a wide variety of backgrounds, which has been significant in itself. It is interesting to note the breadth of backgrounds of the young people who take part. In the last Youth Parliament, 53 per cent. of its members were women, 47 per cent. were male—obviously—2 per cent. had disabilities and 21 per cent. were from black and ethnic minority groups. That is considerably higher than for the nation at large, and considerably higher than in this Chamber. In some senses, it was great to see when those young people were sitting in the House of Lords the breadth and diversity that was shown in that Parliament. Sometimes, I wish that we could mirror that diversity in this Chamber.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Can my hon. Friend explain to me why there was apparently no opposition when people from the Youth Parliament were able to sit in the House of Lords? Is that giving some primacy to that Chamber, in the sense that it seems to be more representative than this one? That fills me with alarm.
Chris Bryant: I was about to move on to the fact that last year, the UK Youth Parliament was allowed to use the second Chamber, the House of Lords. It was interesting that there was remarkably little opposition of any kind, in a Chamber that is often considered rather more hidebound by tradition than this one. The young people were really struck by the privilege of being able to do that, and took part with enthusiasm. The Lords Speaker, who chaired the debate herself, said:
“The quality of the debate today has been fantastic. We don’t hear the sounds of clapping in this Chamber often. What really impressed me was the courage of people who stood up and took a position which was not the view of the majority—and the respect that you all showed to everyone’s viewpoints.”
I spoke to a couple of peers last night who described themselves as the crustiest of crusty Members of the House of Lords and who were entirely enthusiastic about the event last May, and they said it was quite extraordinary that there seemed be another level—another dimension—of crustiness that could be found only in this House.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |