| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Solicitor-General:
Absolutely; I agree. The College of Law at Chester has a long and proud history, and it is good that-to use a cruel metaphor-two birds are being killed with one stone: people get much-needed help, and at the same time the younger generation of lawyers start to understand the need for such work and
the ethics of the profession into which they are moving. Teesside university near my constituency has a similar scheme.
Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con): I wonder whether the Solicitor-General is aware that many pro bono lawyers act on behalf of the victims of human trafficking to get money from the traffickers. What my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) has mentioned is the real problem. The Solicitor-General may be aware from meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions-otherwise she will just have to accept it from me-that most traffickers have immense amounts of money outside the jurisdiction. That is why most of the police raids never find money. What can she do to extend the jurisdiction, so that traffickers pay the victims whom they traffic?
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman deserves 11 out of 10 for his ingenuity in linking that question about trafficking to pro bono work. I heartily congratulate him.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): Scot-free.
The Solicitor-General: Very good-the traffickers are getting away scot-free; a Conservative Front Bencher has come to the rescue of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). The hon. Gentleman made a strong point about the position of overseas resources. As I have said, work is going on to try to tackle the issue. Any assistance or examples that can be provided from the front-line contacts that the hon. Members for Totnes and for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) definitely have through their work on the all-party group on the trafficking of women and children would be gratefully received.
House of Commons Commission
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough , representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked-
Tours of Parliament (Disabled People)
15. Jacqui Smith (Redditch) (Lab): What arrangements are in place to assist disabled people to undertake tours of Parliament. [293082]
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the House's attention to your Speaker's Conference, which will see how the opportunities to increase the number of disabled people in the House may be advanced. I also draw attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) is vice-chairman of your Speaker's Conference.
I turn to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith). Improving accessibility and facilities for members, staff and the public is one of the House's priorities. The visitor route is now largely wheelchair-accessible. Facilities are also available for visually impaired and deaf or hard-of-hearing visitors. A leaflet giving access information to disabled visitors, Members of both Houses and passholders has recently been produced.
Jacqui Smith:
Although I welcome the progress that has been made, I want my hon. Friend to be aware of what happened earlier this year, when I tried to organise a tour of Parliament for the Redditch Deaf Club. My office was told that no one could be assigned to the
group because of cost reasons. Furthermore, I understand that there is not full hearing-loop availability throughout the whole tour. I do not think that that is good enough, and I hope that the level of progress will be upped to ensure that all our constituents can access tours of this place, regardless of their disabilities.
Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Induction loops are fitted in the Public Galleries, Committee Rooms and main Dining Rooms. On sign language, visitor services can provide a sign language tour, if it is booked in advance. Otherwise, the diversity managers can put a Member or visitor in touch with a British sign language interpreter, which would, of course, be at the visitor's expense. The House is in the process of providing British sign language training for 12 House staff, who will be able to assist visitors at short notice and at no cost to the visitor. I hope that that is a positive response for my right hon. Friend. However, if she has other such matters to raise, I shall be happy to take them up and refer them to the House of Commons Commission.
Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): The right hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) has made a good point. The House sounds as if it is moving a little slowly on these matters. The Parliament of our country, having passed Disability Discrimination Acts in 1995 and 2005, should be a beacon of accessibility. It should be trying to take a lead and be ahead of other organisations to make sure that every member of our society, whether disabled or non-disabled, has access to our Parliament. Can the hon. Gentleman give me some idea about whether the House of Commons Commission has all that as an objective?
Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We have, of course, focused very seriously on disabled visitors to the visitor centre. We have provided for their assistance; we have provided facilities; and we have even provided disabled parking. We have provided training for staff to assist disabled visitors, and we have looked at the visitor route as a whole to assess its accessibility. I think that the Commission, on behalf of the House, can say that it has gone a great way towards meeting the demands of the disabled. We are always ready to improve and to listen to suggestions, and we are all trying at every moment of the day to increase these facilities.
Leader of the House
The Leader of the House was asked-
Parliamentary Scrutiny
16. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): What recent representations she has received on increasing the time available on the Floor of the House and in Committee for hon. Members to scrutinise legislation. [293083]
20. Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): What recent representations she has received on increasing the time available on the Floor of the House and in Committee for hon. Members to scrutinise legislation. [293087]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Barbara Keeley): My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House receives representations on this issue from time to time-
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I interrupt the hon. Lady momentarily? I think that the question is to be grouped-am I right?
Barbara Keeley: I will start again. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House receives representations on this issue from time to time. The Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons and the Procedure Committee are currently considering the timetabling of business.
Philip Davies: Does the Minister realise that many people are sick to the back teeth of many important decisions being taken in this House without any proper debate or consideration? Given that the decisions of this place affect people's lives and livelihoods, does she not agree that the timetable for debates should be there to facilitate comprehensive scrutiny of legislation, not for the convenience of her and her Back Benchers?
Barbara Keeley: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer both these questions together. [ Interruption. ] I am answering the first question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If there is confusion, let it be dispelled once and for all. This question is grouped with Question 20.
Barbara Keeley: There have been a number of measures to increase the quality of scrutiny, but we are clearly interested in following up any new recommendations that come forward from the two Committees that are looking into the matter. In terms of measures that have made a big difference, pre-legislative scrutiny has taken place on, for instance, the Constitutional Renewal Bill and the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. Evidence taking in Public Bill Committees has greatly improved Bills such as the Equality Bill. However, there is always a balance between the scrutiny of Government Bills and debates on other Bills. We are awaiting recommendations from the Committees, and we will consider any ideas that come forward with great interest.
Mr. Turner: I am very grateful for the Minister's reply. However, can we not have at least a minimum time for Report stage and Third Reading-perhaps by using these effectively empty Thursdays after lunch, for example?
Barbara Keeley: I have to say that in the current environment a defence debate is not an empty debate to be holding on a Thursday afternoon. There are vital issues involved, and when the usual channels-the business managers-consider those issues there is never any suggestion of moving defence debates or swapping them round with anything else, which is quite right in the current environment. That is not a fair comment from the hon. Gentleman at all. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the issue is under considerable review-hon. Members are contributing to the discussion and debate-and we are only a few weeks away from having recommendations in a report.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op):
May I suggest that it is not necessarily a case of making more time available but of making better use of the time earmarked for debate? In my 12 and a half years on these Benches and nine years on the Chairmen's Panel, it has seemed to me that during proceedings in
Committee or on the Floor of the House there has been an increasing tendency for Front-Bench speakers on both sides to filibuster to fill the time available instead of letting Back Benchers in. Can we give more powers to those on the Chairmen's Panel, and indeed encourage the Speaker himself, who has made a brilliant start in this respect, to clamp down on filibustering to allow more time for debate?
Barbara Keeley: I will answer that question very briefly, as is only fair regarding somebody who was Back Bencher of the year. I would not want to stray into issues of chairing sittings, but Front-Bench speakers will have heard what has been said. It is perhaps up to you, Mr. Speaker, to remind Front Benchers of that duty.
Mr. Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): Over the past 18 months, numerous Bills have passed through Committee and Report stage without any debate on selected amendments or, as is often the case, with new clauses put forward by the Government at the last minute. As we have just heard, there is deep concern on both sides of the House that important legislation such as the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the Planning Act 2008 and the Coroners and Justice Bill has gone through without proper scrutiny. Such practice simply leads to bad laws, so will the hon. Lady undertake to review the automatic use of programme motions, which is so crucial to this whole debate and therefore allow proper scrutiny of important legislation?
Barbara Keeley: I have to say that the programming is agreed on all sides. [Interruption.] Yes, it is. I can only refer back to my previous answer and say that I understand that Members are impatient on this issue, but it is being considered at the moment. We will have recommendations from the Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons in a few weeks' time, and we will consider them when they come forward.
Ministerial Statements
17. Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): What steps she is taking to ensure that details of ministerial statements are not given to the media before they are made to the House. [293084]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Barbara Keeley): My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and I believe strongly in the principle laid down and followed by successive Governments that key announcements should be made first to Parliament. The ministerial code states:
"When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament."
Mr. Bone: Yesterday when we had Prime Minister's questions, the Press Gallery was overflowing and every word was being listened to, because the press did not know what would happen. When the Prime Minister made a very important statement on Afghanistan the Press Gallery cleared, because the press knew in advance what was in that statement. That is wholly unacceptable. I remind the Leader of the House that in a few months' time she may be Leader of the Opposition, when she might take a different view on the leaking of statements.
Barbara Keeley: Every time we get into this debate, we are really talking about things that the media are doing. They research stories, come into the House to pick up a few details from a statement and then rush out. It is not reasonable to assume in every case that there have been leaks. If the hon. Gentleman knows of specific instances or has specific evidence or proof, I am sure that the Leader of the House would be interested to hear about it.
Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): Can the House be told whether there has ever been an instance, either in this Parliament or previously, of any Minister or Secretary of State being sanctioned in any way for having breached the House's rules in relation to ministerial statements or leaks? Has any sanction ever been applied?
Barbara Keeley: We are straying into issues that are predominantly for you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly if you felt very strongly about that you could allow an urgent question. I am not personally aware of any cases.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Is not the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) absolutely right? The problem starts at the top. I do not want to give the Deputy Leader of the House a mission impossible, but the Prime Minister must desist from making premature statements as he did at the beginning of the week, if she wants an example, on the sale of assets. He made a statement outside the House without consulting local government or anybody else beforehand. We then had to ask a question, which you, Mr. Speaker, very kindly accepted as an urgent question. We then got not the Prime Minister, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury-not the organ grinder, not the monkey but the monkey's assistant-to tell the House what the Prime Minister had said. Is that acceptable?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Ms Harriet Harman) indicated dissent.
Barbara Keeley: No, that is not acceptable!
I made the point in my earlier response that it is the most important announcements of Government policy that are covered. It is not the case that every single thing announced by the Government has to be announced to Parliament first. There is an interplay between the oral statements that we schedule and the urgent questions that you allow, Mr. Speaker, and that will be satisfactory for the future.
Select Committee Chairmen
18. Mr. Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): What recent discussions she has had on proposals to reform the procedures for the selection of Select Committee Chairmen. [293085]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Barbara Keeley):
We will consider those matters further with the report from the Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons-to which I keep referring-which is due in a few weeks. Clearly, the alternative to Committees selecting their Chairs would be election by the House, probably by secret ballot. There are difficulties with that which need to be considered-I hope that the Committee is considering
them. We would not want to be in a position where the majority party filled all the vacancies. We want a geographic balance and a gender balance, which is important on Committees. We will of course, consider any recommendations that are made.
House of Commons Commission
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked-
Emissions
19. Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): If the House of Commons Commission will make it its policy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the House of Commons part of the parliamentary estate by 10 per cent. by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [293086]
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab): The House of Commons Commission will consider the matter at its meeting on 19 October. A study quantifying potential short, medium and long-term carbon savings is scheduled to be completed by the end of November. We will then be able to set meaningful, robust and deliverable targets for 2010-11.
Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that answer and to you, Mr. Speaker, for referring my request to you to the House of Commons Commission.
Very practical things could be done immediately and make a significant difference-for example, turning off the annunciators, which were on throughout the recess, thus consuming energy, and ensuring that television screens go off at the end of the evening and are not on stand-by. We could save an enormous amount by immediate action. Will the hon. Gentleman please view that as urgent and something that can be delivered this year?
Sir Stuart Bell: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the 10:10 carbon campaign-that is public knowledge. The campaign includes 24,000 individuals, 1,000 businesses, 200 educational facilities and 450 organisations. We welcome individual contributions to that scheme. Only with concerted effort on the part of Members and staff from both Houses and PICT to tackle individual behaviour, business practices, equipment and infrastructure will it be feasible to achieve the 10 per cent. reduction in Parliament. On my original point, the matter comes before the Commission on Monday.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |