§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor)I beg to move,
That a Select Committee of fifteen Members be appointed to consider whether the public and private business of the House might be conducted more effectively by making changes to the order and timing of business, the hours of sitting, and the arrangement of the Parliamentary year; and to make recommendations thereon:That five be the quorum of the Committee:That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference:That the Committee have leave to confer and meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on procedure of that House for the purposes of deliberating and of examining witnesses on any aspects of the Committee's order of reference which affect that House as well:That Hilary Armstrong, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Alistair Burt, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. David Harris, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Roger Sims and Mr. Michael Stern be members of the Committee:That the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in Session 1986–87, in the last Parliament, relating to the use of time on the Floor of the House, be referred to the Committee: andThat these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of the Parliament.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)Before we proceed, I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected an amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), which seeks to leave out
to adjourn from place to place".
§ Mr. MacGregorSome may regard it as somewhat ironic that a motion to set up a Select Committee on the sittings of the House and its hours should begin at this hour of the early morning. Therefore, I shall be brief. If the House approves the motion we will set up a Select Committee which will make recommendations to the House and to which all hon. Members may give evidence. Much of what we will be discussing can be dealt with on many occasions from now on.
When I announced my proposal for the review we had detailed exchanges in the House. I believe that it would be right to say that that proposal commanded widespread welcome on both sides of the House. In my statement of 27 June I made it clear that I believe that, following the consultations I have had with many hon. Members since I became Leader of the House, we need a wide-ranging and in-depth study of the way in which we organise our business.
The House will note that this is a House matter, not a party one. It is important and symbolic that the motion for approval tonight stands in the names of the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) as well as mine.
§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is some regret that the names 896 set down for membership of the Select Committee do not include any hon. Members from Northern Ireland? We all recognise that Northern Ireland has not been given proper attention in the House.
§ Mr. MacGregorI understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the difficulty is that there are many in the House with varying points of view who would have wished to be on the Select Committee. I am sure that the hon. Members for Copeland and for Berwick-upon-Tweed have, in common with me, been informed by a number of hon. Members that they would have wished to serve on that Committee. A number have also made that clear tonight. It is difficult to achieve the right balance. It is relevant, however, that all hon. Members will be able to give evidence to the Select Committee and express their views on its recommendations.
It is clear that a number of hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not give way again, but will rather respond at the end of the debate to the points made.
This is not just about the hours that we sit. I hope that the Select Committee will consider the whole way in which we organise the handling of public and private business. In my earlier statement I suggested some of the issues that the Committee could examine. They include the increased quantity and complexity of Government and European business; the increased role of the Select Committees and the new system of scrutiny of European Community legislation. I believe that those European Standing Committees have demonstrated a better scrutiny of European proposed legislation and have helped with the hours of the House. I accept, however, that those Committees will be subject to review.
The Select Committee will also consider the widely differing views of hon. Members. It is also important to stress the input of the Select Committee on Procedure—four members of that Committee are on the new Select Committee. Its report on the use of time on the Floor of the House is referred to specifically in the order of reference for the new Select Committee contained in the motion.
As a result of a number of discussions that I have had with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that the Select Committee should be able to include within its terms of reference the experience of overseas legislatures that follow the Westminster model. It is for the Committee to decide what to do, but several colleagues have impressed upon me the importance of including that overseas experience. That is why I made provision for it in the terms of reference. It is for the House to decide on the amendment tabled by the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I believe that it would be a pity if we excluded the experience of other legislatures from the Committee's considerations.
I emphasise that the new Select Committee and the Procedure Select Committee have complementary tasks. The Procedure Select Committee will continue its valuable work on detailed aspects of our procedures under the valuable chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). The new Select Committee must examine private and public business and bring the wealth of its membership's experience and views to bear. I hope that the House will agree that its proposed Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), is one of our most experienced Members, who has long experience of all aspects of the 897 House. It is important that the Chairman has detailed knowledge of the workings of the House. I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for agreeing to be its chairman and I hope that the House will endorse that.
I believe that the membership of the Committee achieves a balance between hon. Members who have been here a long time and those who have been here for a short time, between male and female Members and between Members from a wide geographical spread of constituencies. That balance is important.
Potentially, the far-reaching nature of the matters that the new Committee can examine is empahsised by the motion's reference to the arrangement of the parliamentary year. The House may welcome a brief explanation of the reference to joint discussion with a Committee of the other place. The simple point is that changes to the parliamentary year, as distinct from all the other matters that the Select Committee will consider, affect both Houses. The new Committee may wish to deliberate with the Procedure Committee of the other place. If the new Select Committee were to make recommendations on the parliamentary year, the Government would have to discuss them fully with the other place. That is why it is important to have that in the terms of reference.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)Will the Leader of the House note that many past recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure are relevant to this and should be considered, including the one for a parliamentary calendar based on Canadian experience? Is it not extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman is still unable to tell us whether the House will rise next week, the week after or the week after that?
§ Mr. MacGregorOne of my difficulties in making that announcement is that we have much business to complete. I am anxious to ensure that we should not be going through the night every night. I hope that I shall be able to deal with that in business questions on Thursday.
The hon. Gentleman's points are relevant to the motion and relate to the experience of overseas legislatures and to considering changes to the parliamentary year. I agree with him on both points, and I hope that he will agree that the terms of reference cover them. As the motion appears in his name as well, I am sure that he will do so.
Some of the discussions that have been held on the review show that it is important to address the imbalance between men and women in the House. I have made it clear many times that I wish to see many more women Members of Parliament, but I do not think that that is the prime purpose of the Committee. The hours that we work and the way in which we do so are not the main reasons that deter women from standing. They are of equal concern to mere male Members of the House, so I do not regard that as one of the Committee's primary purposes.
I had a meeting this morning with many female prospective parliamentary candidates, who told me that, if constant emphasis is placed on encouraging women Members, it might have the counter-productive effect of encouraging selection committees to think that women experience difficulty in serving in Parliament. That is an important point, but I want to play it down and to make it clear that, although it may help, depending on the 898 recommendations of the Select Committee, more women to serve in the House, it is by no means the primary purpose of the Committee.
§ Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)My right hon. Friend knows that I was at the discussion this morning. I support him in the point he is making. Does he agree that the hours and conditions in this place put off many good people, men and women, particularly from outside London and the home counties?
§ Mr. MacGregorSo it is said, and that is for the Select Committee to consider. I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue does not relate to one sex; it is equal for men and women.
§ Mr. Donald Thompson (Calder Valley)Does my right hon. Friend agree that many candidates, men and women, would sign up to work any hours if they thought that would get them elected?
§ Mr. MacGregorI do not want to be diverted from the main issue, although my hon. Friend has a point. Another crucial point is that a number of factors other than the hours we work must be taken into account by anyone wishing to serve here and in the issues involved in the selection of particular people.
The real pressure for this review—the last six months have convinced me that many Members wish the review to take place—is concern, and to an extent, irritation at the frustrations and inefficiencies of the way in which we conduct business. That is the primary issue that the Select Committee must consider. I repeat—it is an important point—that the Select Committee will be able to take evidence widely, including from all Members who wish to give evidence.
The Ibbs reforms of the management of Parliament are an important step in getting the House modernised for the 21st century. A thorough, wide-ranging study of our procedures and the way in which we work is another important aspect of the story. We owe it to ourselves to undertake a wide-ranging review, and that is why I commend the motion to the House.
§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)Nothing could illustrate more clearly the need to establish a Select Committee to consider the hours of sitting of the House that our presence here now and the fact that we shall be debating until 2 o'clock the setting up of such a Committee.
Earlier, we debated for two hours an important piece of legislation, the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill. The debate began at 10.35 pm and finished at 12.35 am, on a procedure that would have been totally unintelligible to anyone outside the House. We debated the measure in Committee, and on Report and Third Reading, with the Minister expressing surprise that there had not been more discussion of the Bill. There might have been more discussion had the debate commenced at a more sensible hour. I have no doubt that a good case exists for examining the hours we sit and the way in which we conduct our affairs.
There is a predictable routine for those who arrive here as new Members. Indeed, at the beginning they express incredulity, as do many of our constituents, when they realise that we debate issues in the middle of the night—it 899 is now 12.37—while the nation sleeps. We could easily have had this discussion yesterday morning. New Members go through a period of incredulity. They then get used to the routine, after which they either adjust their lives to the peculiar lifestyle that we must adopt to fall in line with the sittings of the House or they find themselves impotent and frustrated at their inability to achieve change.
The time is ripe for the Select Committee to be appointed and for some changes to be achieved, if only because a large number of Members have recently been elected. There were 156 new Members in 1983 and 128 in 1987 so that, with the addition of by-elections since 1987, over 300 Members—nearly half the House—have been here for fewer than eight years. As the Select Committee may well extend into the next Parliament, and as there will be substantial changes in the membership of the House due to involuntary retirements from the Government Benches after the next general election, there will be a large number of new Members.
The time is ripe for change. Some people say that this place cannot be changed, but I draw the House's attention to the achievements of the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House. I do so with some pleasure, as I served on that Committee. Four years ago there was massive hostility in the House to the idea of cameras being introduced. That hostility was shared by a great majority of members of the Cabinet and by the then Prime Minister. Now there are eight cameras pointing at us—one assumes that the camera operators are still awake—
§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)They are switched off.
§ Mr. GrocottI expect that they are switched off. There are cameras and lights, but the heavens have not fallen in. The operation is perfectly satisfactory and is now an unremarkable part of our democratic life. To those who say that this place cannot be changed, I say that the Select Committee proved that it is possible to change it and to do so effectively.
I hope that the Committee that we propose to set up will be bold and will have the nerve to make radical proposals. There are four elements—
§ Mr. Donald ThompsonWill the hon. Gentleman ask the Committee to consider the fact that, at the Council of Ministers in Europe—where the real decisions are taken—work begins at 10 am? I have stood next to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House at about this time the following morning when he collapsed from overwork, but we were still at it at 4 am the following morning. Real decisions take a long time and discussions cannot be truncated for the benefit of hon. Members with London constituencies who want to nip off home.
§ Mr. GrocottI shall gladly deal with the problem of hon. Members from London—an issue about which my feelings are not that dissimilar from those of the hon. Gentleman. However, if he thinks that the Council of Ministers in Brussels is a good model for decision making, his priorities are very different from mine.
§ Mr. John GreenwayThe hon. Gentleman has no experience of it.
§ Mr. GrocottWe shall not discuss the Council of Ministers. Some of us have seen how ludicrously it 900 operates, including John Silkin when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the previous Labour Government.
There are four questions on which I hope that the Committee will concentrate. The first concerns late sittings which do us no credit and are not conducive to good decision making.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)My hon. Friend mentions late sittings and cites this debate. Is he aware that the only reason that we are holding this important and interesting Second Reading debate now is because Conservative Members voted for it and we did not? The usual rules of the House provide that the business draws to a close at 10 pm, following which is a half-hour Adjournment debate. Under instructions from the Whips, Conservative Members voted for an extension of the hours and they can do so whatever the Select Committee recommends.
§ Mr. GrocottNo one doubts the Government's capacity to control the way in which the House operates. It has ever been thus, but that capacity has been abused by this Government, especially in the past few weeks.
In addition to the question of late sittings, the new Committee should consider the proportion of time spent on the Floor of the House. Many of our constituents have commented on the fact—we have had to make excuses about it since the arrival of the cameras—that there are many occasions when only three or four hon. Members are in the House, yet the whole paraphernalia of the Chamber is required to be kept going. Throughout my political life, I have always adopted the principle that, if I am to address a small meeting, which is frequently the case, I use a small room because it looks much better. It can be argued that many of our proceedings could be dealt with in Committee or in a smaller room than this, and I hope that the Select Committee will consider that.
I hope that the Select Committee will do something about the unpredictability of parliamentary life. We all accept that emergencies may arise and that there are times when a parliamentarian's life must be unpredictable, but it is ridiculous that; as a matter of course, it is not until Thursday that we can make firm commitments in our diaries for the following week. I can think of no good reason for that;, nor can my constituents or those of other hon. Members. It is impossible for us to say whether we are available to attend meetings, because until Thursday we do not know what we will be doing. In most cases, the business could be planned much more in advance.
I wish to come to what most hon. Members regard as the most divisive matter for the Select Committee. I have strong views on it, and it relates to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson). It would be fatuous to deny that there are fundamental differences of view and of interest between those who, like me, live and work away from London and those who live and work in it. Often, it is said that this building has all the characteristics of a club. I would add another description—it has all the characteristics of a London club, in the interests of those who live and work in London. I mean not just Members, but journalists, reasearchers and all the essential support that any Parliament requires. Everything is oriented towards London. That is one of the bad aspects of administration in this country. There would be greater benefits if there were less emphasis on London.
901 The only way to enable hon. Members who do not live in London to conduct their affairs more effectively would be to consider the way in which sittings are spread through the week and, particularly, the problem of Friday sittings. I can see no good reason why the hours spent on Friday sittings could not be spent on other weekday mornings.
Journalists from some newspapers will accuse us of wanting a four-day week, but we all know that, for the vast majority of us, Fridays are constituency days. They offer the only opportunity, outside the recesses, for us to do constituency work and to organise school, factory, office and similar visits. It is a grave embarrassment to all of us when we receive letters on crucial matters involving private legislation which say, "At all costs attend the House of Commons," which means cancelling a raft of constituency engagements. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we cannot either move Friday's work to some time during the rest of the week or arrange that the material considered on a Friday is not subject to a vote.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)The hon. Gentleman touched on a point that is dear to the hearts of those of us who do not represent London constituencies. Does not that matter extend beyond the weekly management of business in the House into the parliamentary year? Other legislatures organise their business in such a way that Members can be in their constituencies for a substantial part of each month. It is clear when Members of the European Parliament can go back to their area, organise their routine to meet their constituents and carry out their business. Surely we must organise our business so that it is divided into appropriate sections of each month.
§ Mr. GrocottI do not entirely agree with the type of division that the hon. Lady suggests, but I agree that anything that brings more predictability to our parliamentary year and life is to be recommended.
I welcome the setting up of the Select Committee. In many respects we could be accused of putting the cart before the horse, because I can think of no other operation where there would be an investigation into the hours worked before there was a prior investigation into what the organisation was intended to achieve. As well as examining how many hours we should spend performing our functions, we should ask ourselves what our functions are, whether we are performing them effectively, and how effective Parliament is at key functions such as scrutinising the Executive.
Conservative Members will consider this as a deeply partisan point. Perhaps it is, but it is valid. A legislature that was supposed to scrutinise the Executive none the less passed the poll tax Bill, which was manifestly bad, unworkable legislation on any reckoning. It is now recognised as such even by Conservative Members. Could not Parliament have a different system? Obviously, we can never defeat a parliamentary majority and I should never want that, but I wonder whether our procedures guarantee that legislation is properly scrutinised. Is there enough investigation and calling of witnesses to prevent such a fiasco from ever recurring?
The same questions could be asked about our skills to deal with our constituents' grievances—another fundamental characteristic and function of Parliament. It is not so much a question of examining the hours that we 902 work as of examining our functions and how effectively we perform them. One of the lessons I learned on the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House—many Committee Members did not like learning it—was that the more we asked what the public should see of what we do, the more we were forced to ask how effective we were at doing what we say we do, how good we were at the job and what was the job that we were supposed to do. I am afraid that the answers were often embarrassing, because all too often we are not very good at what we are supposed to do.
If the House of Commons is to retain a central role in democracy, as I am sure most hon. Members want it to, and if our democracy is to be admired throughout the world, we must be prepared to change and admit when we are not doing our job properly. Although I am sure that I shall not agree with all the Select Committee's recommendations, especially if it fails to address the fundamental problem of hon. Members who live and work away from London, I welcome the fact that it is being set up, and I hope that it is a success.
§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)At this hour, I shall be brief. I wish to make just three points. First, it is important for people to realise that this Select Committee differs from the ordinary Select Committee on Procedure because it will consider public and private business. We are discussing this matter at this hour today because private business intervened for three hours at 7 o'clock. I wonder whether that was the right way to proceed, with one hon. Member speaking for over an hour. I make no condemnation, but the matter needs to be considered. It is no use our considering the sittings of the House unless we can consider public and private business together.
Secondly, hon. Members' views fall into two definite categories: those who have homes in or around London and are happy to keep business hours, and those who travel long distances to come to the House and would rather sit for long hours three days a week and then not have to be here on Mondays or Fridays. I do not know how we should deal with those conflicting views, but the Committee will have to consider them fully.
The media and hon. Members should not believe that such matters have not been churned over time and time again for many years recently. The concept that we shall arrive at an easy, slick solution that will revolutionise everything is the stuff of "Alice in Wonderland". I am worried that we shall sit for a long time and that the only thing to emerge will be a mouse. Let us heed that warning now, rather than have people going away and expecting the Committee to produce a marvellous answer to everything.
I do not see much point in going around the world. As Select Committee Members can tell us, there are very few legislatures with similarities to ours. Most of the evidence should be taken in writing and presented to the Committee, which should make some sensible recommendations, concerned with the proper working of Parliament, not trying to make the Parliament into something like that in Europe, something like that in Germany and something like that in Switzerland. Those Parliaments are not similar to ours, and we should never believe that they are.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)I tabled a number of amendments to the motion in the hope that we would have more than an hour and a half to deal with an important Select Committee. The Leader of the House had the cheek to say that he would be brief because many hon. Members wanted to speak—it was he who tabled the motion to limit the debate to one and a half hours. He arranged it so that when we have an hour or so in which to debate the subject yesterday, the motion on the Order Paper was withdrawn.
I tabled a number of amendments because I was not satisfied with the cut-and-dried way in which the matter had been agreed by the coalition of all the parties. When the Leader of the House announced the Select Committee, he announced its chairman. He had no right to do that, but did so because he had reached agreement with everybody and thought he could bypass the procedures and appoint the chairman. But that is a matter for the Committee.
That is why I tabled an amendment suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) should be a member. That amendment was not selected, for which I am grateful because my hon. Friend has said that he is not willing to serve on the Committee, and I respect his reservations.
§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale)I was interested to see that amendment and when I thought about it during the day I was tempted to vote for it.
§ Mr. CryerI was concerned that the decision about such a matter should be left to the Select Committee members and should not be pre-empted in any way. That is why I suggested my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford, who I believe would have made an excellent Committee member. I am sorry that he decided not to offer his good services, but that is entirely within his jurisdiction.
My amendment suggested that we delete the words:
to adjourn from place to placewill, I hope, concentrate our minds. There are enough Select Committees travelling the world from this place at a cost of about £500,000 a year for this Committee to be excluded from that privilege. If the Committee is excluded, I hope that it will concentrate the minds of its members and produce an earlier report. If its members feel that they want a taste of travel, they can ask hon. Members who have visited other countries to come to the Committee to give evidence. They will have a wide choice of candidates.On Tuesday 26 February, the Liaison Committee provided £35,000 for the Select Committee on Defence to go to Washington; £18,000 for the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts to go to Sweden and Germany; £9,363 for the Select Committee on the Environment to go to Germany; £8,900 for the Select Committee on European Legislation to go to The Hague and £11,900 for it to go to Strasbourg; £36,740 for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to go to the middle east; £5,655 for the Select Committee on Health to go to Brussels; £9,932 for the Select Committee on Home Affairs to go to France; £29,719 for the Select Committee on Transport to go to the United States and Canada; £29,920 for the Treasury and Civil Service Committee to go to the Soviet Union; and £24,885 for the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs to go to the United States—no doubt to see 904 whether Welsh culture is alive and flourishing there. Such travel is not necessary, and the Committee can well dispense with it.
The hours of other legislatures are known. A massive amount of information is available in the Library. A huge number of hon. Members have been to legislatures all over the world in countries whose climates are better than ours during the winter. They can give evidence to the Select Committee. I hope that we will hear no more nonsense about this travel benefiting the House. I do not often attend meetings of the Liaison Committee, of which I am a member, because they tend to involve long arguments about travel, but I feel that travel with Select Committees is a privilege given because the work of such Committees is an additional chore for Members.
If people claim that my opposition to the rush to curtail or change the hours of this place shows that I am hidebound, I must point out that I voted consistently for televising the House. But I believe that the hours that we have in which to deal with matters that come before the legislature of the United Kingdom are barely adequate. I should have chosen the amendment charging the Committee with considering the arrangements for scrutinising affirmative orders and orders subject to annulment—had I been given the choice.
We deal with them disgracefully. They need more hours of scrutiny, not fewer. Most of the legislation in this place is subordinate, not primary, legislation. I chair a Committee that examines only the technicalities, not the merits, of such measures. If anyone wants to know how difficult it is to table a prayer, he should try opposing a measure subject to the negative procedure. A prayer is allocated time for debate only if Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen table it and the Government agree to it. If the former table too many prayers, the Government will not give them all time.
These orders are not subject to amendment. They are taken complete, in one and a half hours, and it is a fallacy to assume that they can be dealt with in less time than they already are. That is why I have reservations about the rush to set up this Committee.
Against a large parliamentary majority, the Opposition have few weapons to hand. One of them is the power to delay legislation and possibly to build up opposition to it outside—not always successfully, as the poll tax showed—to stop the Government legislating at all. Without the time in which to do that, however, this place becomes a rubber stamp.
I should like to see more socialist women, and men, in this Parliament, but the notion that lots of wonderful people are queueing up to come here if only we altered the hours is wrong. There is already a queue. We all know that, if a Member starts looking ill, and has a good majority, others start discussing the precise size of that majority. A queue of people already wants to get in here, with or without lengthy hours.
The quality of hon. Members varies enormously; the quality of people outside does, too. We represent the strands of humanity among those who send us here, and long may we continue to do so.
I am mindful that the Select Committee has already been sealed and delivered by the Front-Bench representatives of the Opposition and the Government, with the specific purpose of changing the hours of the House. Many 905 more important matters deserve consideration, but I will listen to the debate before deciding whether or not to vote against the motion.
§ 1.4 am
§ Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)I commend the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in bringing forward the proposals contained in the substantive motion to establish the proposed Select Committee. He is turning into an absolutely blooming marvel, and he is likely to be thanked by future generations of Members of Parliament as one of the great reforming Leaders of the House. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may not share my view, but it is worth expressing
I agree with my right hon. Friend that our sitting hours are not a factor in discouraging women from becoming Members of Parliament. However, the general working conditions here, and the general approach that is taken to the business of the House, appears to many outsiders as very old-fashioned, and discourage many good people—male and female—who could serve the House and the country well.
The existing set-up is quite bizarre, and inappropriate in the modern world. We are in danger of allowing ourselves to slide into eccentricity and incompetence. For example, we are only here six months a year—something on which the newspapers have commented a great deal recently—yet we remain debating in this Chamber past midnight. We expect Ministers to work 100 hours a week—week in, week out—and all of us are required to make important decisions, and to vote on them, in the small hours.
The House sits more days per annum than the legislatures of other large democracies. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that it is unnecessary to arrange visits to other Parliaments to establish that—it is a matter of record. Nevertheless, we still have trouble cramming in all the business that comes before us.
This House sits more hours, and later into the night, than the other place. No one needs to visit Australia—one only has to walk 200 yards up the Corridor to find out how the Upper House functions.
§ Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)How did my hon. Friend reach the conclusion that this House sits only six months a year? That simply is not true.
§ Mrs. CurrieIf my hon. Friend adds up the number of days that the House sits—that information appears in the Select Committee report that was recommended reading for this debate—she will find that they total 172 days a year. The fact remains that we are absent from the House for large chunks of the year—but when we are here, we often sit until well after 1 o'clock in the morning. That may make sense to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), but it does not make sense to me, and I am entitled to say so.
Apart from not having to consider the Finance Bill, the other place does exactly the same work that we do. All Bills are considered on the Floor of the Upper House. It has highly effective Select Committees. It still manages to finish in time for a respectable dinner. Most of their 906 Lordships are pensioners, yet they manage to organise their timetable a lot better than we do. In many respects, they also work more effectively.
I volunteered to serve on the Select Committee, and I will certainly submit evidence to it. I have a long list of suggestions—which grew longer during the two and a half hours taken by the previous debate. For example, the dates of sittings should be known in advance. Details of the business of this House are largely available in advance. Ministers, for example, know when their presence will be required over the next month or so.
The list of right hon. and hon. Members who are to speak in a debate should also be published in advance, as is done in another place. As that information is available in advance to the Chair and to the Whips, why is it kept secret and not published? If it were, we could avoid the immense waste of right hon. and hon. Members' time that occurs when they spend many hours hanging around, not knowing whether they will be called to speak. That may not be a problem for Privy Councillors, but it is for ordinary Members, who are in the majority.
Regular use should be made of timetable motions. I cannot imagine why they should be thought of as a problem. We should work more reasonable hours, and it would not be too difficult to work out how to do that. We can get rid of a great deal of business we do, which is not appropriate for a sovereign House, such as the private Bills on railways and docks, which I have mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We should abolish the money resolution and second Adjournment debates.
§ Mrs. CurrieThe great advantage of abolishing the money resolution debates is that it would cut the hon. Gentleman off in full flood, because he is the only hon. Member who speaks in them. The rest of the House would regard that as beneficial.
We have bitter arguments, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said, about the sovereignty of the House, but a minority say that we cannot change the hours because we all have other work to do outside. We cannot have it both ways. Either this House is important or it is not. Either we play macho games at hours when everybody else is in bed, or we engage in the serious business of scrutiny, of criticism, of protest, of praise and of looking after our constituents. There is no longer any reason for our long sittings and our late hours, which make us less rather than more effective. I support the setting up of this Committee. I bid it not to be timid, and I hope that it will reach sensible and intelligent conclusions that will take the House into the next century.
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) say that we work for only six months of the year and proceed to justify that by talking about 172 days. That would mean that during the six months, the House would be having Saturday and Sunday sittings, no doubt at reasonable hours. That would be unacceptable to me and, I have no doubt, the overwhelming majority of other hon. Members.
Because of fog and other difficulties, I eventually got a plane from my constituency this afternoon, and I sat 907 beside a constituent who asked me what business I was coming back to. I told him that at about 11 o'clock, I expected to be called in the debate. Given that I have been called some two hours later, that was a triumph of hope over experience. The reaction that I got was no doubt one that other hon. Members have got from their constituents time and time again—disbelief that we might be talking about something important at this time of the morning.
In many walks of life, people have to work late hours and into the night, but people find it amazing that the House has institutionalised ridiculous times and that we start the formal business of the House when most people are well through their formal working day. Apart from anything else, we cannot make sensible or reasonable decisions late in the night.
I remember in the last Parliament the debates on a pilotage Bill. I tried to argue a serious point about the employment rights of pilots when the debate had been going on for some time. The debates on amendments to earlier clauses of the Bill were debated thoroughly, but by the time that we got to the later clauses, hon. Members were getting restless. They wanted to get home and the amendments, which were as important as those to the first part of the Bill, did not get the treatment and consideration that they could and should have been given if we had started at a reasonable hour.
§ Mr. SpearingThat was the fault of hon. Members.
§ Mr. WallaceOf course it was, because hon. Members were rebelling over the ridiculous hours that we were sitting and could not give the Bill serious consideration at that time of night.
§ Mr. SpearingDoes not the hon. Gentleman realise that if we come to Parliament to debate matters of difference, we have to sacrifice something—
§ Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham)We sacrifice women.
§ Mr. SpearingNo. We have to operate the least inconvenient system that we can devise, but we are all frail. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not blame the system when it is we who are imperfect.
§ Mr. WallaceThe hon. Gentleman is not disagreeing with me. Of course it was Members of Parliament who were saying, "Get on with it," at 10.45 or 11.15 pm. If we started earlier, such debates could take place at a much more reasonable hour when hon. Members would be better equipped to deal with important matters.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South has said that some hon. Members have outside interests. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but the sittings of the House should not be geared to suit people who spend time in the City or in the courts and then come here when it suits them. The hours of the House should not be set to suit such people. The House should work decent hours and people with outside interests should be prepared to agree to them.
We are told that Ministers would have difficulty in dealing with work in Departments, but there would be no need for Ministers to attend on mornings when the business of the House did not involve them. The issue of votes causes some concern. I was not here for the experiment in the late 1960s when the late Richard Crossman was Leader of the House. I have read that, at that time, morning votes were postponed and taken at 908 about 7 o'clock in the evening. That could be done again. Seven o'clock may seem like a long time after a morning debate, but the House could often vote before a debate, and it would not make much difference to the outcome. If the will is there, ways can be found to deal with the voting problem.
We are told that Committee work would intervene. I suspect that that majority of Standing Committees now sit in the afternoon. The Standing Committee on the Finance Bill sits only in the afternoon, and many Select Committees sit when debates are taking place in the House. The Committee argument has no validity.
To change the hours will require some discipline, because I suspect that, so long as there are hours to be filled, some hon. Members, and especially the Government, will find business. I do not accept that we should pack up at 5 o'clock for tea, as I think the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested in the previous debate. We could structure our day so that, with occasional exceptions, we could finish at 10.30 pm.
§ Mr. CryerIn the previous debate, I suggested that that idea was in the mind of the hon. Members who proposed a Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman suggests that I endorsed that. I am against it because, like other hon. Members, I think that the Select Committee will meet the needs of London Members and not those of provincial Members.
§ Mr. WallaceI apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misinterpreting him. I think that he suggested that that was the motivation for the proposal for a Select Committee. What he suggests would not necessarily happen. We could change the hours of the House and operate more realistically.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) spoke about the difficulties faced by hon. Members who live outside London. I have a strong claim to speak about that, because I live further from London than any hon. Member. It is difficult to see people at their place of work, speak to local government officials or visit schools because such things can be done only on weekdays. As the hon. Member for The Wrekin said, we get many worthy representations and it is difficult to be in the House on Fridays for a vote on what is usually an important private Member's Bill. I hope that the Committee will address that problem, perhaps by looking at ways in which Friday work can be concluded in the morning.
Perhaps, in one week out of three or four, there could be no sitting on a Monday. The United States Senate has three weeks on and one week off. I hope that the Committee will examine those proposals with an open mind, and will reach a conclusion that will enable hon. Members to attend to constituency business at times when constituents can meet them.
§ Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it does not follow that those of us who travel long distances to come to the House want to truncate the business into three days a week? Such truncation would lead us into the trap of rushing business and overloading each sitting day. It would be reasonable, however, to start business earlier in the day. On Monday, we could start at a time that would allow every hon. Member, from whatever part of the United Kingdom, to get to the House on time. On Thursday, it would be appropriate to adjourn at a time that would allow every 909 Member to be back at home by the end of the day. To truncate the business into a four-day week in that way would be a great improvement.
§ Mr. WallaceI think that that is reasonable. I said that there could be occasions when it might be worth considering not sitting on a Friday or a Monday. We can never legislate for the weather, which might confine us to our constituencies.
§ Mr. Donald ThompsonThere is a difference in ethos between the party that the hon. Gentleman represents and the rest of us. We represent our constituents in Westminster, while Liberal Democratic Members try to be Westminster representatives who are perpetually in their constituencies.
§ Mr. WallaceThat was a facile comment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could have done better than that if he had tried. My colleagues and I try to represent our constituents effectively by talking to them to ascertain the issues that they wish us to raise in this place. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to confine his activities to the House and not to be available in his constituency when it is convenient for his constituents to talk to him, that is his lookout.
The parliamentary timetable was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The somewhat modest proposals that were set out in the first report of the Procedure Committee of 1986–87 are a good starting point. School holidays in Scotland inevitably arouse discussion at this time of year. Scottish Members find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that, by the time the House goes into the summer recess, the school holidays in Scotland have nearly come to an end. I hope that there will be greater sensitivity to that unfortunate fact.
We shall tackle these issues only if we consider what the House should not be doing, should be doing less of, or should be doing better. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) cited private business as a good, clear example. A strengthened European Parliament could remove some of the problems that sometimes confront the business of the House. Proper devolution to Parliaments in Scotland and Wales would certainly relieve the House of much of its business. I take the point about Northern Ireland and the composition of the Select Committee. Given the way in which Northern Ireland business is conducted, even a Select Committee of Northern Ireland Members could not undertake proper examination of it.
I hope that the labours of the Procedure Committee will not, as the hon. Member for Honiton feared, produce a mouse. Perhaps it is asking too much to bring the procedures of this place into the 21st century, but with a bit of luck we might bring the House kicking and struggling into the 20th century.
§ Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)I agree with much of what has been said tonight. I welcome the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to set up the proposed Select Committee. If it is established, it will have important repercussions.
I am worried, however, on two or three scores. We shall never improve our procedures unless the Government of 910 the day introduce less legislation than at present. It seems that it has been impossible to reduce the business, whatever Government have been in power, over the past 20 or 30 years.
Secondly, I am concerned about whether, at the end of the day, we shall have the will to accept what the Committee says. I was lucky enough to serve on the Procedure Committee under my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) which put forward many valuable recommendations to the House, the majority of which have just run into the sand, often defeated by the usual channels on both sides of the House just in case they lose out when they are next in Opposition. We must view the matter seriously. We must have the will to implement any constructive recommendations.
Thirdly, I am worried about the possibility of a world tour. If we are to get anywhere at all, for goodness sake let us get on with it and get something prepared for legislation, if that is what is required, in the autumn of 1992. If the Committee is to spend most of the year touring round looking at other Parliaments, its report will not be ready for a couple of years. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to deprecate unnecessary world tours.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) that the end of the second Adjournment debate, which we discussed in the Procedure Committee, would allow the House occasionally to rise at 9 or 10 o'clock. At present, the Whips Offices on both sides of the House keep debates going just to ensure that we do not have a second Adjournment. That would be a simple step, and I do not know why it is turned down whenever it is put before the House.
I am concerned about morning sittings. They did not work at all well when we had the experiment in the 1960s. We must also bear in mind the fact that they would prevent any visits to the House by school parties and others who come regularly every working day.
The Procedure Committee's recommendation on timetabling Standing Committees was valuable. Hon. Members would have an idea when they were to speak, and they could have 10, 20 or 30 meetings, avoiding all the difficulties of dragging the business out to obtain a guillotine, which is another way of wasting everybody's time unnecessarily.
But the most important thing is to get on with this quickly. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might recommend that the Committee should try to report in time for a debate next July so that we can introduce legislation the following winter to be part of the new procedure in the following year.
Not only is that what the Committee should do, but if we can do anything in the immediate future that is obvious to both Front Benches and acceptable to the House, let us do it because we are having an immense amount of late night sittings. I also agree about the negative procedure, which is quite unsatisfactory, as are many of the affirmative resolutions which we cannot amend.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give consideration to making immediate changes that are acceptable to both sides which would improve practical work week by week, and then set the Committee a timetable to try to report within 12 months from now, so that we might make progress the following winter.
§ Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)I have been through a number of debates such as this before in my 17 years in the House and the one thing that I have learnt during those years is that, the longer one is in the House, the more one comes to realise that our procedures are not quite as mad as some people would have us believe.
Not every hon. Member is here this evening. In fact, only a small minority of them are. Therefore, most people who wanted to be in bed two or three hours ago are probably already in it. I most certainly could have been in it had I so desired.
I do not wish to take up too much of the House's time; time is running short, and I know that a number of other hon. Members want to speak.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). I hoped that he would tell us whether he was expressing his personal view or that of his party. I still do not know the answer, but perhaps we shall be told before the end of the debate. In any event, Northern Ireland Members know very well what it is like to sit late, as much of the Northern Ireland business is dealt with long after 10 pm. We are more than fed up with that. We should like to have prime time, but better this time than no time at all. I think that we should be given more time, however.
§ Mr. WilsonAs one who has listened sympathetically, late at night, to comments about the derisory time that is allowed for Northern Ireland business, I find the hon. Gentleman's attitude remarkable. What does he mean, "better at dead of night than not at all"? No one is suggesting "not at all". Surely, if the hours were brought forward to a reasonable extent, Northern Ireland business and all other business could be discussed, and nothing would be lost.
§ Mr. RossThe hon. Gentleman, like many other hon. Members, appears to be very fortunate, given that his mornings are so free from the pressures of constituency correspondence and so forth that he is able to come and sit in the Chamber. Anyone who walks in during any debate will generally find far fewer hon. Members here than are present tonight. This is supposed to be a debating Chamber, to which people come to be convinced of an argument, but far too few come to listen to the views of the opposing side. If more did so, wiser decisions might be reached.
Hon. Members have said that we should try to conduct our affairs as effectively as possible. The motion uses the word "effectively", but not the word "fairly". That brings me back to the subject of Northern Ireland. I believe that the affairs of every part of the United Kingdom should be dealt with fairly. Paragraph 37 of the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure, on page xii, refers to
a statement to the House on 12th June 1986 announcing the Government's intention to dissolve the Northern Ireland Assembly".On 19 June, in the dissolution order,Ministers reiterated the Prime Minister's offer of talks about arrangements for handling Northern Ireland business at Westminster. In the light of that we do not intend to refer further at this stage to these arrangements. Nevertheless we make it clear that the present method of dealing with Northern Ireland business unavoidably encroaches en the time of the House.
§ Rev. Martin SmythAnd that was four years ago.
§ Mr. RossFive, actually.
I understand that another series of Select Committee proposals are floating around, but as yet they are neither printed nor available. It is suggested that the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee has been recommended. Please could we have one? There is no good reason for further delay, in the 20th year of direct rule. It is time that Northern Ireland business was dealt with properly, and that the House, as a democratic institution, did its duty for the people who live there.
§ Mr Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)It is not democratic.
§ Mr. RossThe hon. Gentleman may say that, but I think that it is, in the sense that the majority in the House get what they want. I for one am prepared to live by majority rule, although I am expected to live by minority rule at home—and I do not like that very much.
The Select Committees do useful work, and the absence of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland is a glaring, scandalous deficit. Now is a good time for the Government to set one up. Every day, motion No. 48 appears on the Order Paper, pointing out how simple it would be to end that scandal. Is there any good reason why it should not be done immediately? The reality is that common justice demands the creation of such a Committee for Northern Ireland. I hope that that common justice is done for those whom I represent in the near future.
I should like to go on but, since so many other hon. Members want to contribute, I shall sit down and leave the Floor to them.
§ Dr. John G. Blackburn (Dudley, West)In common with other right hon. and hon. Members, I have listened to the debate carefully. There is considerable merit in many of the arguments advanced and I am sure that the Leader of the House will take note of them.
I want to raise an issue that has not been mentioned. I premise my remarks by saying that I am not speaking of my personal position. I believe that the Leader of the House and the Select Committee have a responsibility to every hon. Member and the staff who serve us so well to consider their health.
Each hon. Member sitting in the Chamber now is completing a 17-hour day. We are expected to be back here tomorrow morning to attend the Select Committee of which I am a member. In my short service to the House, I have seen many men and women of great stature and gift whose lives have been ruined by poor health brought about by their service to the House.
The only personal case to which I shall draw the attention of the House occurred in 1979 when a colleague and I sat in the House for 49 continuous hours. We were both Members from the provinces, and at the conclusion of that sitting we joined the same train to go back to our constituencies. That night my colleague committed suicide—I refer to Jocelyn Cadbury, who served the constituency of Birmingham, Northfield so well. I was close to him, and I believe that nothing but the strain of that long sitting of two days and two nights caused his suicide.
I believe that we have a responsibility to one another and a great responsibility to our constituents to ensure that our work in the House does not damage the health of hon. Members and the support service staff. When the Select 913 Committee meets, I hope that it will consider and safeguard the health of all hon. Members and staff of the House. In my judgment, it has a responsibility so to do.
§ Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham)I welcome the establishment of the Select Committee, but is absolutely ridiculous that we are discussing that Committee and its terms of reference at 1.30 in the morning when everyone else in their right mind is in bed.
We are not airline pilots going through time zones or people in the national health service—
§ Ms. HarmanI just said that we are not members of the health service who need to work on a continuous basis, 24 hours a day. We are not working in a steel mill or somewhere with a continuous flow of work. There is nothing inevitable about our having to work at this time. This practice is self-imposed or imposed by tradition. If we have the will and the sense, we can change it.
Many arguments in favour of change have already been made. There can be no doubt that the hours of the House are one of the reasons—not the only one—why there are so few women in the House. It is hard to combine motherhood with work in what is laughingly described as the mother of Parliaments. It is becoming more normal for people outside the House to combine having a young family with work. If employment patterns outside are changing to enable women to combine work with motherhood, is it not time that the House changed so that women can be not only Members of Parliament but mothers? How can we be taken seriously in employment debates on changing the pattern of employment, flexible hours, women returners and child care when the House cannot change itself to hear the voices of women?
On a range of issues—child care, the difficult balance between work and home and the difficulties of caring for the elderly—women have different experience from men. Although women's lives are changing, the lives of men and women are still very different. We need the experience of more women to shape our policy making.
§ Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North-East)I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. I am sure that she does not wish to portray women as the weaker sex. If she subscribes to business hours, does she agree that some women Members could not return home in the evening because their children and family would be miles away in their constituency? Is she not talking from a London point of view? Does she agree that a compromise would be if we finished at 10 pm and at 7 pm on a Thursday, because then we would not return to our children or constituents as zombies and would give them the quality of life that they and us need?
§ Ms. HarmanI do not believe in the least that women are the weaker sex, but there is not an equal division of labour in the home. When women take most of the responsibility at home, the working patterns of men and women are different.
The hon. Lady mentioned the difference between hon. Members who serve London constituencies and those who 914 serve constituencies outside London. That was well dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). If we started at the same time on Monday but moved forward the sitting times for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, those who live in London would be able to go home, and those who do not would be able to leave on Thursday at a more reasonable hour.
The Leader of the House said that this issue is not only about women Members of Parliament, but that the Committee will examine issues that affect the representation of women in the House. I hope that it will take that seriously, and that 13 men and two women will not decide that it is nothing to do with the representation of women in Parliament and that everything can carry on the same without the voice of women being heard in the House.
The second argument about changing the hours is that it will make the House more effective. If we were starting from scratch, no one would suggest sitting until the small hours. In the Tea Room and the corridors, one hears talk about "keeping it going" and about "going through the night". That is a lot of macho nonsense. Hon. Members do not show their commitment to their constituents by speaking for a hour and a half or by proving that they can stay awake until 3 am. They prove only that they have lost their sense of perspective, their contact with the real world, and that they cannot see the wood for the trees. I do not think that constituents are well represented by boss-eyed workaholics who have long since lost touch with ordinary life.
Many hon. Members admit privately that our hours are crazy, but it is a bit like the emperor's new clothes. They have not dared argue for a change in the hours for fear of being accused by some hon. Members of being lazy or of not being committed. I am grateful that at least that argument is out in the open.
The argument is not about changing or reducing the hours to give Members an easier life. It is about moving the hours forward, so opening up Parliament to women and making it more effective. The big question is whether the House, dominated now by tradition and men, is capable of making that change, so opening up Parliament to the next century and to more women.
I hope that the Select Committee will not say that it cannot be done because it is too difficult to balance the needs and interests of Members who represent northern and southern constituencies, to balance the interests of older and newer Members and to balance the interests of men and women Members. An opportunity now exists for change to be made. If the Committee has the political will, it will find a formula which as nearly as possible meets all those needs and interests.
I recall seven years ago standing at the Bar of the House next to a Conservative Member when this issue was being debated. "Harriet, you will be an old woman before any change takes place," he said. I am now seven years older. I hope that the Committee will prove him wrong.
§ Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)I shall make three points. First, I stress the importance of never losing the right of the public to look round the House in the mornings. Any Member who doubts the interest that exists among people wishing to visit this place should visit 915 the Norman Porch any morning. Thousands of youngsters from schools and groups from Rotary clubs and churches gather there for a tour of the building.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was right to say that those who advocate morning sittings would prevent all those people from having an opportunity to view the House while it is in Session. The atmosphere and feeling of the place is different when we are not sitting. As the representative of a constituency outside London, I would not come here in a recess to show parties round an empty, echoing Palace of Westminster, when the carpets are up and repairs are in progress.
§ Mr. Wilsonrose—
§ Dame Jill KnightI will not give way, as I am anxious to be brief.
Secondly, hon. Members who have asked in this debate that everything should be cut and dried and that we should know weeks ahead exactly what we are doing should accept that this is not a bank or a shop. This is not a normal place of work. We must cope with every kind of emergency, at home—for example, a train crash—and abroad. There might be a happening in Northern Ireland, when an immediate statement is demanded. Should there be two or three disasters, with the same number of statements having to be made in the House, it would be impossible to keep business compartmentalised, as some hon. Members have suggested.
Thirdly, let us never forget that we are sent here to speak for our constituents about matters of concern to them. Those who wish constantly to reduce our hours would make it impossible for us to carry out our duty to our constituents. That must never be allowed to happen. From what some hon. Members have said, one would imagine that we have to swallow lock, stock and barrel what the Committee recommends—if one can swallow locks, stocks and barrels. Surely to goodness we shall debate the Committee's proposals and we shall not have to accept them if we do not like them.
I welcome the establishment of the Committee. Perhaps we shall be able to go home a little earlier at night, but let us not ignore the difficulties of morning sittings, compartmentalised days planned far ahead and cutting ourselves off from our right and duty to speak up for our constituents.
§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)I must of necessity be brief.
During the eight years that I have served in the House, I cannot recall having heard a more absurd or introspective debate than that tonight. We are hearing an establishment merely tinkering with the issues. It is not prepared to meet the challenge of becoming a Parliament ready for the 20th century, let alone the 21st century. We can debate moving our working hours backwards and forwards, but until we recognise that Westminster is sunk in tradition and history and is not prepared to mobilise itself to be like other modern Parliaments, there is no point in having a Select Committee such as that which is proposed. It will not deal with fundamental issues, such as proportional representation which is a constitutional right of our people. Nor will it consider the possibility of devolving power from this place to Parliaments in Scotland and Wales and, indeed, in the English regions.
916 If hon. Members are worried about the amount of work undertaken by this Parliament, one of the easiest solutions to the problem is to allow those of us who wish to have Parliaments in our own countries to have them and to deal with our affairs in our countries. That would release the poor souls who so often have to stay behind wearily to ensure that the Government have a majority against the rebellious Scots who, from the Opposition Benches, represent most of the Scottish people.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) placed great emphasis on the issues covered by other Select Committees. There is one Select Committee which is not costing the British taxpayer one penny and that is the Scottish Affairs Select Committee which the Government have not established. The Government are talking about establishing a Committee to consider the hours of the House, but they cannot establish one to deal with Scottish Affairs. The lack of one is costing the people of Scotland dear. We need to discuss issues that are vital to our country, such as the steel and fishing industries, the national health service and education, but we do not have that facility.
This debate is contemptuous of the Scottish people and their needs and, I suspect, of the Welsh people, the Northern Irish and many people from the English regions. This is a London debate about some hon. Members getting home to their families at night. We do not have that opportunity.
§ Mr. Timothy Kirkhope (Leeds, North-East)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
§ Question put, That the Question be now put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 28.
917| Division No. 204] | [1.54 pm |
| AYES | |
| Arbuthnot, James | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas | Fallon, Michael |
| Atkins, Robert | Favell, Tony |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Baldry, Tony | Forth, Eric |
| Bellingham, Henry | Freeman, Roger |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Boswell, Tim | Gregory, Conal |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Grist, Ian |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwlch) | Ground, Patrick |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Brazier, Julian | Hague, William |
| Bright, Graham | Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Burns, Simon | Harris, David |
| Butterfill, John | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) |
| Carrington, Matthew | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Cash, William | Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) |
| Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Chope, Christopher | Hunt, Rt Hon David |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Irvine, Michael |
| Colvin, Michael | Jack, Michael |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Jackson, Robert |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Janman, Tim |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Dorrell, Stephen | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Knapman, Roger |
| Eggar, Tim | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Latham, Michael | Redwood, John |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Renton, Rt Hon Tim |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn |
| Lightbown, David | Ryder, Rt Hon Richard |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Maclean, David | Sims, Roger |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Mans, Keith | Squire, Robin |
| Maples, John | Stern, Michael |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Stevens, Lewis |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Thurnham, Peter |
| Moss, Malcolm | Tredinnick, David |
| Moynihan, Hon Colin | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Norris, Steve | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Yeo, Tim |
| Paice, James | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Patnick, Irvine | |
| Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Patten, Rt Hon John | Mr. Tom Sackville and |
| Portillo, Michael | Mr. Timothy Wood. |
| NOES | |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Beith, A. J. | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Ross, William (Londonderry E) |
| Carr, Michael | Salmond, Alex |
| Cox, Tom | Skinner, Dennis |
| Dewar, Donald | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Dixon, Don | Spearing, Nigel |
| Fyfe, Maria | Vaz, Keith |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Wallace, James |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Wilson, Brian |
| Grocott, Bruce | |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Haynes, Frank | Mr. Bob Cryer and |
| Lewis, Terry | Mr. Alan Meale. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Amendment proposed, in second paragraph, to leave out 'to adjourn from place to place'.—[Mr. Cryer.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division:—
§ Mr. Salmond(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it be construed that those who will serve on the Select Committee have a financial interest in defeating the amendment and should be debarred from voting on it?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)Every hon. Member is perfectly entitled to vote on the amendment.
§ Mr. William Ross(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not have been in order for those on the Select Committee to declare an interest before they voted?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThis is a procedural motion, and any hon. Member is entitled to record his vote.
§ The House having divided: Ayes 23, Noes 121.
918| Division No. 205] | [2.04 |
| AYES | |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Foster, Derek |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Godman, Dr Norman A. |
| Cox, Tom | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Dixon, Don | Grocott, Bruce |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Haynes, Frank |
| Janman, Tim | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Spearing, Nigel |
| McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) | Vaz, Keith |
| Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Meale, Alan | |
| Powell, Ray (Ogmore) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Ross, William (Londonderry E) | Mr. Bob Cryer and |
| Salmond, Alex | Mr. Terry Lewis. |
| Skinner, Dennis | |
| NOES | |
| Arbuthnot, James | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Atkins, Robert | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Knapman, Roger |
| Baldry, Tony | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Beith, A. J. | Latham, Michael |
| Bellingham, Henry | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Lightbown, David |
| Boswell, Tim | Lilley, Rt Hon Peter |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Maclean, David |
| Brazier, Julian | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Bright, Graham | Mans, Keith |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Maples, John |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Burns, Simon | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Butterfill, John | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Carr, Michael | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Carrington, Matthew | Moss, Malcolm |
| Cash, William | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Chapman, Sydney | Norris, Steve |
| Chope, Christopher | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Paice, James |
| Colvin, Michael | Patnick, Irvine |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath) |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Patten, Rt Hon John |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Portillo, Michael |
| Dewar, Donald | Redwood, John |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Renton, Rt Hon Tim |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn |
| Eggar, Tim | Ryder, Rt Hon Richard |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Fallon, Michael | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Favell, Tony | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Sims, Roger |
| Forth, Eric | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Freeman, Roger | Squire, Robin |
| Fyfe, Maria | Stern, Michael |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Stevens, Lewis |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Gregory, Conal | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Ground, Patrick | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Hague, William | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie | Thurnham, Peter |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Tredinnick, David |
| Harris, David | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) | Wallace, James |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Wilson, Brian |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Yeo, Tim |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Hunt, Rt Hon David | |
| Irvine, Michael | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Jack, Michael | Mr. Greg Knight and |
| Jackson, Robert | Mr. Timothy Wood. |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Main question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 14.
919| Division No. 206] | [2.15 am |
| AYES | |
| Arbuthnot, James | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Atkins, Robert | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Baldry, Tony | Knapman, Roger |
| Beith, A. J. | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Bellingham, Henry | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Latham, Michael |
| Blackburn, Or John G. | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Boswell, Tim | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Lightbown, David |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Lilley, Rt Hon Peter |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Brazier, Julian | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Bright, Graham | Maclean, David |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Mans, Keith |
| Burns, Simon | Maples, John |
| Butterfill, John | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Carr, Michael | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Carrington, Matthew | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Cash, William | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda | Moss, Malcolm |
| Chapman, Sydney | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Chope, Christopher | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Norris, Steve |
| Colvin, Michael | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Paice, James |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Patten, Rt Hon John |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Portillo, Michael |
| Dewar, Donald | Redwood, John |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Renton, Rt Hon Tim |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Ross, William (Londonderry E) |
| Eggar, Tim | Ryder, Rt Hon Richard |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Fallon, Michael | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Sims, Roger |
| Forth, Eric | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Foster, Derek | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Freeman, Roger | Squire, Robin |
| Fyfe, Maria | Stern, Michael |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Stevens, Lewis |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Gregory, Conal | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Grocott, Bruce | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Ground, Patrick | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Hague, William | Thurnham, Peter |
| Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie | Tredinnick, David |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Harris, David | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Wallace, James |
| Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A) | Wilson, Brian |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Yeo, Tim |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Hunt, Rt Hon David | |
| Irvine, Michael | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Jack, Michael | Mr. Irvine Patrick and |
| Jackson, Robert | Mr. Timothy Wood. |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | |
| NOES | |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Meale, Alan |
| Cox, Tom | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Dixon, Don | Skinner, Dennis |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Vaz, Keith |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Haynes, Frank | |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Tellers for the Noes: |
| McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) | Mr. Bob Cryer and |
| Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) | Mr. Terry Lewis. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That a Select Committee of fifteen Members be appointed to consider whether the public and private business of the House might be conducted more effectively by making changes to the order and timing of items of business, the hours of sitting, and the arrangement of the Parliamentary year; and to make recommendations thereon:
That five be the quorum of the Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference:
That the Committee have leave to confer and meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on procedure of that House for the purposes of deliberating and of examining witnesses on any aspects of the Committee's order of reference which affect that House as well:
That Hilary Armstrong, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Alistair Burt, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. David Harris, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Cranley Onslow, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Roger Sims and Mr. Michael Stern be members of the Committee:
That the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure in Session 1986–87, in the last Parliament, relating to the use of time on the Floor of the House, be referred to the Committee: and
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of the Parliament.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You probably heard the note of derision from Conservative Members when they heard that there were only 14 votes against the motion. There are 15 members on the Committee that has been set up, and a majority of those members, who will travel all over the world before deciding on the sittings of the House, have never been present for the debate.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.