Parliamentary Procedure (Hansard, 2 November 1995)

HC Deb 02 November 1995 vol 265 cc405-50 405

§ [Relevant document: The Eighth Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 1994–95, on 'Sitting Hours Reform' (HC491).]

§ 4.8 pm

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)
I beg to move, That— (1) Standing Order (Consolidation bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session: (1) In this order 'a consolidation bill' means a public bill which falls to be considered by the select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 123 (Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills). (2) Notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in committee in respect of a consolidation bill may be received by the Clerks at the Table before the bill has been read a second time. (3) When a motion shall have been made for the second reading, or for the third reading, of a consolidation bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith. (4) If a motion that a consolidation bill be not committed is made by a Minister of the Crown immediately after the bill has been read a second time, the motion shall not require notice and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed. (2) Standing Order (Law Commission bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session: (1) Any public bill, the main purpose of which is to give effect to proposals contained in a report by either of the Law Commissions, other than a private Member's bill or a bill to which Standing Order (Consolidation bills) applies, shall, when it is set down for second reading, stand referred to a second reading committee, unless—

(a) the House otherwise orders, or

(b) the bill is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.
(2) If a motion that a bill such as is referred to in paragraph (1) above shall no longer stand referred to a second reading committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith. (3) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (6) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall apply to any bill referred to a second reading committee under paragraph (1) above.

§ Madam Speaker
I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions: That with effect from the beginning of the next Session— (1) Standing Order (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills) below shall have effect: (1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions authorising expenditure in connection with a bill and on ways and means motions in connection with a bill—

(a) forthwith, if such a motion is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time; or

(b) not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings, if the motion is made otherwise.
(2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed. (2) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(d) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted. That with effect from the beginning of the next Session— 406 (1) Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) below shall have effect: (1) There shall be one or more standing committees, to be called Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation, for the consideration of such instruments (whether or not in draft) as may be referred to them. (2) Any Member, not being a member of such a standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the Committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum. (3) Where a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order) be approved, the instrument shall stand referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, unless—

(a) notice has been given by a Minister of the Crown of a motion that the instrument shall not so stand referred, or

(b) the instrument is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.
(4) Where a Member has given notice of—

(a) a motion for an humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or a motion of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument, or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or a motion that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or

(b) a motion that a measure under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent, or a motion relating to an instrument made under such a measure,
a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that the instrument be referred to such a committee, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not fewer than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it. (5) Each committee shall consider each instrument referred to it on a motion, 'That the committee has considered the instrument'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a motion, if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for one and a half hours (or, in the case of an instrument relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, two and a half hours) after the commencement of those proceedings; and the committee shall thereupon report the instrument to the House without any further question being put. (6) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraphs (3) or (4) of this order, in relation to any instrument reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (5) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon and such question may be decided at any hour, though opposed. (2) In paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees) and in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) for the words "statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments or measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such measures" there shall be substituted the words "instruments (whether or not in draft)". (3) Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure) shall be entitled "Delegated legislation (negative procedure)"; and at the end of the said Standing Order there shall be added the words "or be disapproved, or words to that effect". (4) Standing Order (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) below shall have effect:

"(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Community documents not later than one and a half hours 407 after the commencement of such proceedings, subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)).

(2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."
(5) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(b) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted. (6) Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments)) shall be entitled "Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation)"; in paragraph (1)(a) of the said Standing Order for lines 5 to 7 there shall be substituted the words "of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or of a motion that the"; in paragraph (1)(b) of the said Standing Order for the words "a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument" there shall be substituted the words "an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order)"; and the words "or draft instrument" shall be omitted wherever in the said Standing Order they occur. (7) For paragraph (2)(e) of Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

"(e) motions relating to instruments (whether or not in draft) referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation));".
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session— (1) Standing Order (House not to sit on certain Fridays) below shall have effect:

"(1) The House shall not sit on ten Fridays in each Session to be appointed by the House.

(2) If a motion to appoint such Fridays is made by a Minister of the Crown the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.

(3) At its rising on the Thursday before each of the Fridays so appointed the House shall stand adjourned till the following Monday without any question being put, unless it shall have resolved otherwise.

(4) Unless the House shall have resolved to adjourn otherwise than from the previous Thursday to the following Monday, the Fridays so appointed shall be treated as sitting days for the purpose of calculating any period under any order of the House and for the purposes of paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) and of Standing Order No. 62 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills); and on such Fridays—

(a) notices of questions may be given by Members to the Table Office, and

(b) notices of amendments to bills, new clauses and new schedules and of amendments to Lords amendments may be received by the Public Bill Office,

between eleven o'clock and three o'clock."
(2) Standing Order (Wednesday sittings) below shall have effect:

"(1) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past nine o'clock and shall between that hour and two o'clock proceed with a motion for the adjournment of the House made by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) Save as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) below, the subjects for debate on the said motion shall be chosen by ballot under arrangements made by the Speaker; and no subject shall be raised without notice.

(3) On the last Wednesday before any adjournment of the House for more than four days, the subject for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be "matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment".

(4) On not more than three Wednesdays in each Session to be appointed by the Speaker, the subject or subjects for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.
408
(5) Not more than two subjects shall be raised before half-past twelve o'clock, and not more than three between that hour and two o'clock.

(6) A motion for the adjournment of the House not disposed of at two o'clock shall lapse and the sitting shall be suspended until half-past two o'clock; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions; no subsequent motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made until all the questions asked at the commencement of public business have been disposed of; and, save as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), no Member other than a Minister of the Crown may make such a motion before the orders of the day or notices of motions shall have been entered upon."
(3) In paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) the words "Wednesdays " and "Wednesday" respectively shall be omitted; and in the proviso to paragraph (7) of the said Standing Order, after the word "o'clock" in line 57, there shall be inserted the words "in the evening". (4) Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) shall be repealed; the reference to the said Standing Order in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words from "conclusion" in line 10 to "and" in line 14 shall be omitted. (5) In Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) shall be omitted; in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) for the words from "returns" in line 4 to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "and questions"; in Standing Order No. 15A (New writs) the words "or notices of motion" shall be omitted; in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) the words "or notices of motions" in line 15 shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words "or motions" in line 18 shall be omitted. (6) In paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee) the word "and" in line 4 shall be omitted and after the word "Commission" in line 7 there shall be inserted the words "and

(c) to report to the House its choice of select committee reports to be debated on such Wednesdays as may be appointed by the Speaker in pursuance of paragraph (4) of Standing Order (Wednesday sittings)".
(7) Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Periodic adjournments) below shall have effect:

"When a motion shall have been made by a Minister of the Crown for the adjournment of the House for a specified period or periods, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, and may be decided at any hour, though opposed."
(8) Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Consolidated Fund Bills) below shall have effect:

"When a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, no order shall be made for the committal of the bill and the question for third reading shall be put forthwith; and the said questions may be decided at any hour, though opposed."
(9) In paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No: 14 (Exempted business) the words "or any Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill" shall be omitted. That with effect from the beginning of the next Session Standing Order No. 45A (Short speeches) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order (Short speeches) shall have effect:

"The Speaker may announce at the commencement of proceedings on any motion or order of the day relating to public business that she intends to call Members to speak for not more than ten minutes in the debate thereon, or between certain hours during that debate, and whenever the Speaker 409 has made such an announcement she may direct any Member (other than a Minister of the Crown, a Member speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, or not more than one Member nominated by the leader of the second largest opposition party) who has spoken for ten minutes to resume his seat forthwith."
May I inform the House that I have selected for debate amendments (a), (b) and (c) to motion No. 4. At the conclusion of the joint debate on the motions and the amendments, I will put successively the Questions on motions Nos. 1 to 3. When we come to motion No. 4, I will invite the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to move amendment (a). If it is not agreed to, amendment (b) will fall. If amendment (a) is agreed to, I will invite the hon. Gentleman to move amendment (b). Once the House has taken a decision on the principle underlying amendments (a) and (b), amendment (c) will fall. Once the amendments have been disposed of, I will put the Question on motions Nos. 4 and 5.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for your explanation of the sequence of events. But am I not right in thinking that amendment (a) and amendment (b), which is a consequential amendment, and amendment (c) are not necessarily mutually exclusive? All three amendments have in common the principle of additional time, or retaining time, for private Members' motions, but if (a) and (b) are carried, there will be four hours for such motions on Wednesdays and if (c) is carried there will be additional time on Mondays. Surely amendment (c) should taken as well, even if (a) and (b) are not carried?

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. This is rather more than a procedural motion. Of course, I understand that your view is prescribed by the rules of the House, but it is a matter of great import and I do not believe that the amendments are interchangeable. I hope that you will seriously reconsider the matter, because many of us believe that decisions affecting the House are being taken without proper consultation.

§ Madam Speaker
In the light of what hon. Members have said, I am prepared to look again at the amendments. We shall proceed with the debate, I shall reconsider the matter and give my decision as soon as I can.

§ Mr. Newton
It may be for the convenience of the House if I refer to the other four motions on related topics while you, Madam Speaker, are considering the other matters that have just been mentioned.
Last December, the House approved a far-reaching package of reforms of the procedures of the House—some elements were expressed in Sessional Orders and others in understandings reached between the Government and the Opposition through the usual channels and recorded in a written answer—which gave effect to recommendations made by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House in 1992. I pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) who chaired that Committee. Unfortunately, he is unable to be here today due to ill health.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), with whom the agreement was negotiated. I should also like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the 410 Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is present this afternoon and is the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which has reported in such positive terms on the experiment that we conducted this Session.
Our debate last December showed that there were reservations in several parts of the House—eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) in a rare but memorable contribution—about the substance of the proposals. I believe—at least, I hope—that many of those reservations have now been overcome, and that the experiment is generally considered to have been a substantial success.
I shall deal first with those elements of the reforms that depend on "best endeavours" and agreements through the usual channels rather than on Standing Orders. Voluntary timetabling of Bills, which is of fundamental importance to the success of the reforms as a whole, has worked well in practice. My perception, which I hope the hon. Member for Dewsbury will confirm, is that the Opposition have had the time they felt appropriate to debate the issues to which they attached importance—at least in general terms.
At the same time, the Government's legislative programme has made progress without the House being kept up late and without the use of measures such as the guillotine. We are not proposing to put those arrangements in Standing Orders. This year's experience has confirmed the view that I formed in the course of our discussions last year: there is no sustainable halfway house between a voluntary agreement reached through the usual channels and something which, to all intents and purposes, is a guillotine.
We have achieved a substantial reduction in late sittings. The average time of rising during the experiment has been significantly earlier—hon. Members who want the details will find them in the Procedure Committee's report—and the occasions on which the House has sat late into the night have been very few: only nine of the 131 sittings during the relevant period lasted beyond midnight. An evening which ends with a vote at 11.30 pm is now regarded as a late night; for the first two Parliaments in which I was present, that would have been regarded as an early night.
We have also succeeded in keeping Thursdays almost entirely free of contentious business after 7 pm, which has been of material assistance to hon. Members when planning their constituency business on Friday and over the weekend.
I have also been able to give the House much earlier notification of recess dates. The Easter and Whitsun recesses were announced just after Christmas and the dates for the summer recess were made known before the end of June. That was substantially better than in most previous years. I am not yet in a position to give the recess dates for the next Session of Parliament, but I hope that I shall be able to give some at a reasonably early stage when we resume.
The House has been generous enough to accept that what I have been able to say on a Thursday about the business for the second week, even though by no means always complete, has helped Members in planning their weekend engagements, particularly when, as in almost every week, I have been able to give a pretty clear indication of the nature of the business on the Thursday, which is the important day for people's planning.
411 I want to explain to the House as briefly as I can the main provisions in the five motions amending Standing Orders. To a large extent, they simply restate the Sessional Orders under which this Session's experiment has proceeded.
The first motion, on consolidation Bills and Law Commission Bills, restates the provisions of the Sessional Orders which provide expedited procedures for those law reform measures. The only new provision in the motion is that the question on Second Reading, as well as Third Reading, of a consolidation Bill will be disposed of without debate.
I should emphasise that a different procedure applies to Law Commission Bills that change rather than consolidate the law. That is particularly important in view of some of the exchanges that we had only a few moments ago.

§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
With regard to the question on Second Reading of a consolidation Bill being put forthwith so that there is no debate, if amendments were tabled there would be the absurd situation that the House would go into Committee. That is rather odd because it would probably result in longer proceedings. I had experience of that only a few days ago when I was able to speak on Second Reading and comment on amendments that I had tabled. Had I been denied that opportunity, I would inevitably have had to make longer speeches on each amendment. That seems rather odd.
In addition, on that occasion the Solicitor-General and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman wanted to compliment the Law Commission on its work, but if there were no Second Reading such an opportunity would be denied them.

§ Mr. Newton
I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point in relation to the resolution and comment on it later. But he is right that what I am proposing would deprive my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General of the opportunity to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore, I take this opportunity on behalf of the hon. Gentleman and myself, and no doubt the whole House, to express my thanks to Mr. Justice Brooke, the Law Commission and the draftsmen who served them so well for the valuable work that they do in keeping the statute book in good running repair.
I emphasised that a different procedure applies to those Law Commission Bills that make some changes in the law rather than simply consolidate it. Those Bills will be referred automatically to a Second Reading Committee, but—this is an important point—the Government would expect, as at present, to respond to any request from the Opposition for a Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House. The opportunities for hon. Members to scrutinise the details of those Bills in Committee—this may be of particular importance to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—and on Report will be exactly the same as for any other Bill.
The second motion on money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions follows the Sessional Orders in providing that they will not be debatable if taken immediately after Second Reading of the Bill to which they relate. I think that it has been generally accepted that that was a sensible change made for the present Session.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there have been 412 occasions in the past when Second Reading debates have been extended, either to 11 o'clock or to midnight, so that all hon. Members who wished to speak could do so? That is a fairly cumbersome procedure. The big advantage of the money resolution was that an hon. Member who might be cut out of the debate could put pressure on others to shorten their speeches. There was always that safety valve. Why is it necessary to get rid of it?

§ Mr. Newton
I note the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a matter of judgment, but the former arrangements led, in my view, to some highly artificial debating in respect of the relatively narrow terms of money and, especially, ways and means motions. I will not disguise my personal feeling that the change that was made was for the general convenience of the House, and that a greater application of arrangements for the Chair to limit the length of speeches has proved the right way in which to tackle the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
Is the Leader of the House aware that discussion of the monetary aspect of a Bill often allows hon. Members to make points that they would not normally make on Second Reading? With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his description of such debate as "highly artificial" reflects more his wish for his legislation to be passed speedily than the true interests of the Back Bencher who may have been squeezed out of an important Second Reading debate.

§ Mr. Newton
I believe that the view that I have expressed is by no means confined to the Leader of the House. There was a general feeling that it was more convenient for the House to know when a Second Reading debate would end and when the votes would take place. I understand what the hon. Lady has said—and I respect her judgment, even if I do not agree with it—but I feel that the way in which to tackle this is to apply the so-called 10-minute rule to speeches, rather than extending debates into the night.

§ Mr. Spearing
Does the Leader of the House agree that some Bills involve important financial issues? The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, for instance, was virtually predicated on finance, which may not have been a major feature of the specific Second Reading debate. The same applies to the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill. Surely to make such a change because the majority view in the Government favours it is to reduce the opportunities for Back Benchers who wish to make specifically financial and sometimes crucial points.

§ Mr. Newton
I note the hon. Gentleman's point, according him my usual respect. I feel, however, that a proper Second Reading debate—especially if the speaking rule that I mentioned is applied by the Chair—provides a perfectly adequate opportunity for hon. Members to make the points that they wish to make.
I entirely accept that, in the end, the House must make a judgment, and decide whether it prefers my view and the view reflected in the Sessional Orders—which I am seeking to carry into the Standing Orders—or the view expressed by the hon. Members who have intervened during the past few minutes.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
rose—

§ Mr. Newton
I sense, however, that we are about to hear from another hon. Member.

413

§ Mr. Dalyell
Does the Leader of the House accept that some of us hold the considered view, rightly or wrongly, that had Michael Foot and the late Jack Mendelson been confined to 10-minute speeches, this country would almost certainly have sent troops to Vietnam—rightly or, as some of us might think, wrongly? In the 1960s it was Michael Foot, Jack Mendelson and others who dissuaded the House of Commons from what might have been the wishes of the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. In 10-minute speeches, neither Michael Foot nor Jack Mendelson, nor anyone else, would have had a chance.

§ Mr. Newton
I often say at the Dispatch Box—and it is more than just empty words—how much I respect the contribution that the hon. Gentleman makes to our proceedings, although, again, I do not always agree with him. I acknowledge the judgment that he has made. I believe, however, that the changed arrangements—those involving the 10-minute rule, for instance, go back much further than any proposals for last year's Sessional Orders or the current Standing Orders—have been widely welcomed in the House as enabling more hon. Members to take part in many debates. I certainly would not think it right to propose a departure from those arrangements in response to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
It has just crossed my mind that when Labour get into government in a short time, Tory Members will not be able to make as much money on the side as they make now because of the Nolan restrictions. Even if we lose the vote on Monday, we shall bring in those restrictions in a fortified form. As they will not be able to make so much money, they will want to be in here kicking the ball about. Tory Back Benchers and members of the Government who will be Back Benchers—those who are not on the chicken run and are coming back—will come to this place at 8 o'clock at night and it will be shut.
I do not want to sound like an advocate of what will be the new Opposition in a couple of years' time, but the Conservatives will be in one hell of a mess. They will not be making money out of directorships because of Nolan, and they will not be able to come here because the right hon. Gentleman is closing down all the opportunities to get stuck into the Labour Government. For the life of me I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman is digging a trench for himself.

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue some of those points in a later debate. I await that with interest.
The third motion, which deals with delegated legislation, restates the Sessional Order provisions for the automatic referral to Standing Committees of affirmative statutory instruments and for a limit of one and a half hours on debates on statutory instruments and EC documents. The Government will continue to respond positively to any reasonable request by the Opposition, as I think we have demonstrated this year, for an instrument to be de-referred. We will, of course, consider making more than one and a half hours available for debates on particularly important instruments by agreement through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
rose—

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
rose—

§ Mr. Newton
I will take my hon. Friend's intervention first, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.

414

§ Mr. Gill
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of removing the powers of 20 hon. Members to object to affirmative instruments will be, technically, a diminution of the rights of Back Benchers to control the Executive?

§ Mr. Newton
I do not agree. Arrangements for orderly debate in which as many Members as possible can take part provide an effective check on the Executive. The arrangements that we have made for dealing with statutory instruments, and especially our willingness to respond to representations about more time being required, deal effectively with my hon. Friend's concern.

§ Mr. Gill
I understand that these powers have seldom, if ever, been used. What is the compelling reason to wipe them out of the Standing Order which will replace Standing Order No. 101?

§ Mr. Newton
I have already demonstrated by what I said last year about Sessional Orders and by what I am saying here on the proposed Standing Orders that I have in mind the convenience of the House in providing what I think are generally regarded as proper opportunities for debate on both primary and secondary legislation. Certainly, the recommendations are the result of widespread consultation in the House and reflect the Procedure Committee's recommendations on these matters. I know that all those who have been concerned are conscious of the rights of Back Benchers and of the importance of ensuring that matters are properly discussed.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being very indulgent, and I beg his pardon, but it is important to consider these matters seriously. I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). Is it not true that statutory instruments taken in Committee are frequently considered at enormous speed? Therefore, far from expanding the amount of time that is available for these debates, we may curtail it, and it is clear that there is to be no flexibility in relation to tabling motions on EC matters. Such flexibility would have been welcomed by many people because of the importance of so much EC legislation.

§ Mr. Newton
I again note the views that are being expressed. On the question of instruments and sometimes other matters proceeding at a fair pace in Committees, may I say that that would normally be because those who are on the Committees—I think that it is well known that it is not always easy to find people who are keen to serve on such Committees—do not feel that they wish to take a great deal of time in discussions. It would certainly not be correct to draw the conclusion that somehow debate is being suppressed because some non-controversial orders go through a properly constituted Standing Committee with relatively little discussion. That would not be a right deduction.
The fourth motion deals with private Members' business. The new arrangements under which private Members' business, except private Members' Bills, is transferred to Wednesday mornings, have—it is important that I should emphasise this—given private Members more time on the Floor of the House than the previous arrangements ever did. Since the experiment started, even allowing for the fact that morning sittings did not begin until the third Wednesday after the Christmas recess, 415 private Members made a net gain of eight hours' debating time. In a full Session, if we had had Wednesday morning sittings since November, that would have been a net gain of 19 hours. Just as important, the number of opportunities for Back Benchers to initiate a debate has doubled, and those opportunities occur more regularly and at a much more sensible hour.

§ Mr. Bennett
Does the Leader of the House accept that there may be more time for debate, but that there is far less time for any votes on issues that we have debated?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman raises that point in one of the amendments on the Order Paper. Evidently, he will wish to make a speech and, no doubt, elaborate on that point.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Will the Leader of the House satisfy my curiosity? Are the Wednesday morning motions chosen by ballot, by alchemy or by Speaker's choice?

§ Mr. Newton
As the decisions about Wednesday morning debates are taken under arrangements agreed by you, Madam Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to describe them in detail, but I understand that a balloting arrangement is involved.
The motion provides for non-sitting Fridays each Session, which Members will be able to keep free for their constituency duties, and for the House to sit on Wednesday mornings for Adjournment debates initiated by private Members who have been successful in the Speaker's ballot. The Wednesday morning before each recess will be devoted to a general debate on matters to be considered before the forthcoming Adjournment", to which, of course, I as Leader of the House would expect to reply on the Government's behalf. That change was introduced in response to widespread requests in the House after the original main Sessional Orders were debated and decided. I was glad to make it, and it has worked well.
The motion also takes up an idea that the Procedure Committee considered in its recent inquiry, but that it decided, in the event, not to pursue. I thought, however, that it was an extremely good idea and, with agreement through the usual channels, I have therefore included it in the motion. The idea is that the start of the sitting on Wednesdays should be brought forward to 9.30, with a clear-cut, half-hour suspension between 2 and 2.30.
The reasons why I proposed that are obvious and I sense that some hon. Members who disagree with me on other points agree with me on that one. It brings the start of the sitting on Wednesdays into line with our practice on Fridays. It reduces, at least to some extent, some of the pressures of more than 12 hours' continuous sitting on the staff of the House, and it avoids what was sometimes an untidy junction between the morning sittings and Question Time in the afternoon. I emphasise that exactly the same amount of time will be available for private Members as at present.
The motion also makes provision for up to three Wednesday mornings, between 9.30 and 12.30, to be devoted to debates on Select Committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee. That reflects a recommendation made by the Procedure Committee, but varies from it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) may wish to note. The Committee recommended that there should be six Select Committee 416 Wednesday mornings, but some practical difficulties exist in ensuring that those days are properly spaced throughout the Session, so I suggest, without having a closed mind for ever on this matter, that we should start with three and see how that works out. We have had those morning sittings only since January and it would be reasonable to proceed a bit cautiously with proposals for changing their character to the extent that that could mean.
That argues in favour of starting with a relatively small number, although, of course, like everything else in these resolutions, it is a matter for the House to decide. It remains the case that, if hon. Members want to spend more time on Select Committee reports than the motion provides, there is the opportunity, even without changing the order further, the possibility of which will always be there, to apply for time to debate Select Committee reports separately from the three Wednesday mornings by entering the Speaker's ballot in the usual way.
Finally, the motion takes the opportunity to make a minor amendment to the Standing Order governing Consolidated Fund Bills. The Standing Order has to be amended to remove the now obsolete provision for an all-night debate on the Adjournment after the proceedings on the Bill. I am proposing that we should also drop the requirement that the Bill should be the first Order of the Day since it can be, and often is, the first Order of the Day without being the first item of business. The requirement serves no useful purpose.
The fifth motion—this re-enters the controversy raised a few moments ago—which allows the Speaker to make greater use of the power to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers follows the provisions of the current Sessional Order. I should remind the House that Front-Bench spokesmen will not be governed by a formal limit. They have been asked to endeavour to keep their opening speeches to 30 minutes and their closing speeches to 20 minutes. As I have now been speaking for some 25 minutes, partly because of interventions, the right thing for me to do now would be to sit down.

§ Madam Speaker
I should tell the House that I have reflected on the amendments. As the House will know, amendment (a) is the paver for amendment (b). If amendment (a) is defeated, amendment (b) will automatically fall. If amendment (a) is successful, I will put the Question on amendment (b). Amendment (c) has virtually the same aim as amendments (a) and (b), but it deals with the Monday rather than the Wednesday option. I believe that the Question should be put on amendment (c) regardless of whether amendment (a) is defeated or amendments (a) and (b) are successful. I want to be helpful to the House so that there can be a Division on all of those.

4.36 pm

§ Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)
I am sure that the House—or at least my hon. Friends—will be grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for that reconsideration of the amendments.
This is one occasion on which I agree with the Leader of the House. That is not always the case, certainly not on all issues. I am one of those who believe that the experiment which has been conducted over the past year has been successful and I am willing to enable the experimental changes to be consolidated and put into the Standing Orders of the House.
417 Many hon. Members have looked with a great deal of relief at what has been happening over the past year. As the Leader of the House pointed out, the past year has seen a reduction in the finishing time and a different system and atmosphere on Thursday evenings. Hon. Members, especially those with non-London constituencies, have found it extremely beneficial to be able to return to their constituencies on Thursday evenings. It has meant that hon. Members have been able to carry out their job more effectively and efficiently.

§ Mr. Gill
Clearly, the House is interested in the prospect of having more sociable hours. However, surely the main consideration for the House is the way in which it scrutinises legislation. Does the hon. Lady believe that the level of scrutiny of legislation is satisfactory, and does she consider that it has been improved or worsened by the changes proposed?

§ Mrs. Taylor
I shall come to that point. First, I want to say that I do not think that these changes should be judged by what has happened in the past year alone. I believe that I differ from the Leader of the House in my views on this matter, but I do not believe that the past year has been a typical parliamentary year. We have not had the amount of controversial legislation that we might expect, for example, in the first year of a new Government.
The amount of Government business and the number, complexity and controversial nature of that business have not been what it might have been in other years. Before we start judging the changes against the factors that I mentioned at the beginning, we should bear it in mind that the past year has not been typical. We must disentangle the benefits that the House has received as a result of the Jopling proposals from the incidental benefits that we have received because this has been a year of light business.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asked the central question about whether the changes substantially affect the House's ability to scrutinise the Government and their legislation and to hold the Government to account. My view is that the changes make very little difference. There is a great need for reform of the way in which the House works. Many of us feel that we would do our jobs as Members of Parliament much more effectively and efficiently, and I do not believe that the one excludes the other.
The Jopling proposals are really about making us work more efficiently—not necessarily about making us work more effectively. Other changes are required to bring about better effectiveness—including, for example, a greater use of Second Reading Committees. Other changes would also help to keep the Executive more accountable.

§ Mr. Bennett
Does my hon. Friend accept that we should be considering some of the other changes to which she has just referred? Would it not have been logical to try further experiments before consolidating the current experiments into our Standing Orders? It seems that everyone is saying, "We have had enough. We have done a little bit and we should stop here." In fact, some of the other areas that could be covered by experiments might prove to be more rewarding and effective than some of those that we are discussing today.

418

§ Mrs. Taylor
The Jopling Committee reported on 18 February 1992, but we did not begin the experiment until December 1994. It would be foolish simply to continue with the experiment, because the House would never make a decision. I am optimistic that in future there might be more Members who would want to consider changes to our methods of working. However, in the meantime I would prefer to consolidate the changes that have been covered by our experiment, which I believe has been very successful, and then think about other changes. That would be better than continuing to have different sorts of experiments, one following on from the other.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the changes have deprived Back-Bench Members of an effective way of encouraging Governments, of all colours, to take on board what could be contentious legislation? Quite frankly, if the Abortion Act 1967 had not had time on a Friday and had not been able to go through the voting system, it would not be on the statute book today.

§ Mrs. Taylor
I respect the views of my hon. Friend, who has a great deal of experience in such matters. I accept what she says about the avenues open to Back Benchers having been diminished to a certain extent. However, I part company with her when she says that those were effective means by which Back Benchers could influence events. In response to her comments about pressure being put on Governments to provide time for votes on a private Member's Bill, she will realise that it has been made clear today that that is dependent on a Government's business managers. They make the decisions about providing such time.
I do not believe that any of the losses in Back Benchers' rights are significant. Many of the proposed changes, in particular—I stress this because it is important—the much better use of Back-Bench time on a Wednesday morning, compensate for any losses in other areas. We should bear in mind the lack of effectiveness of the mechanisms that we are losing.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
Is there not a distinction between the different Back Benchers in the House? Many more informal avenues are made available to Conservative Back Benchers than to Labour Back Benchers, who must make use of every available procedure to get their views across and to raise constituents' interests. Therefore, we should be careful about allowing some of those rights to disappear.

§ Mrs. Taylor
I am sure that Conservative Back Benchers, who will be in opposition after the next election, will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. Of course additional avenues are open to Government Back Benchers, but—I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—the mechanisms that have been lost to Back Benchers have not been used very often, and certainly have not been used effectively. I have looked at what has happened during recent years, but I cannot find any precedent for the effective use of the mechanisms that my hon. Friends complain we are losing.

§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)
I had not intended to intervene, but rather to make this point in my speech, but I feel it important at this time to point out that the opportunities for Back-Bench Members to raise issues of any nature have risen from 80 to 160. The number of 419 opportunities has doubled. It is wrong to suggest that hon. Members do not have the opportunity to hold the Government to account or, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, to introduce private legislation. In fact, Back-Bench Members have double the number of opportunities.

§ Mrs. Taylor
No doubt my hon. Friends will wish to take up the right hon. Gentleman's point later. I understand my hon. Friends' case to be that although Back Benchers may have gained in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, they have lost the right to vote on certain motions. That forms the basis of the amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends. I can remember when we had ballots for motions. I also remember that often there was an elongated debate simply to prevent the second debate taking place. It was using Back-Bench time to block another Back Bencher. I remind my hon. Friends that all was not sweetness and light with that system, nor were there many occasions on which a vote in those circumstances made a great deal of difference to any future decision.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I refer my hon. Friend to an occasion on which I was instrumental—together with one or two colleagues—in keeping the House up all night in a very elongated debate. We might think that we were eloquent, but that was neither here nor there. The subject of the debate was Iranian sanctions. Because we kept talking and because the Government had a problem with a closure motion, it was the first occasion on which the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, did a U-turn. On the criterion of effectiveness, that debate—which was about not our eloquence, but the use of parliamentary time—was extremely effective.

§ Mrs. Taylor
I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the unlimited time that used to be available for the Consolidated Fund debate. That is not a subject of the proposed changes; indeed, the procedure for that debate was changed a long time ago. We are not discussing it tonight and neither was it part of the experiment. We will not be voting on it tonight.

§ Mr. Spearing
rose—

§ Mrs. Taylor
I shall give way for the last time. I do not want to abuse the time allocated to me under the informal arrangements.

§ Mr. Spearing
I was rather surprised by my hon. Friend's comments about motions. As the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, we now have double the number of opportunities, so even if three quarters of the time used is not effective, surely opportunities must be made available for hon. Members to raise matters of great topical importance. Otherwise, debates on those matters would never happen.

§ Mrs. Taylor
My hon. Friend is too pessimistic about the events of the past year. The Wednesday morning debates have been used to good effect by Back Benchers to raise exactly the sort of issues that my hon. Friend mentioned—for example, animal welfare, opencast mining, the problem of drugs in Scotland—which was debated last Wednesday—and the future of rugby, which was debated a few months ago and which appears to have altered some of the decisions being made at that time.
420 The changes that have been implemented during the past year have proved to be extremely effective. A large number of hon. Members have participated in the Wednesday morning debates. There have been 110 Wednesday morning Adjournment debates, with 634 speeches and interventions. For those hon. Members who do not have London constituencies or who are not London based, the use of a Wednesday morning rather than a Friday or a Monday afternoon is extremely valuable.

§ Mr. Gill
Does the hon. Lady accept that the changes that she has been talking about have more to do with creating the opportunity for individual Back Benchers to ventilate their particular concerns than they have to do with controlling the Executive or scrutinising legislation? I am sorry that she seems to want to talk about the general convenience of the House and the sweeties available to individuals rather than about the serious purpose of the House, which is to control the Executive and scrutinise legislation.

§ Mrs. Taylor
That is why I said earlier that the Jopling reforms were not fundamental, which is how they are often described. I would be happy to consider other suggestions on how to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I do not think there is anything in the proposed changes that will make it difficult to achieve what the hon. Gentleman intends.
I shall make a couple of other points about the changes. The informal agreements on future business and the fact that the Leader of the House has on occasion been able to provide us with information about that business has been helpful. We accept that he cannot always do that, and I think that he will agree that, when he has had to change the business or modify arrangements, having given us early warning, we have not complained.
I hope that that will continue, although I want to make a small special plea about recess dates and constituency Friday dates, the non-sitting dates. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take proper account of the difficulties that face hon. Members when the arrangements do not coincide with school holidays. I do not see why we cannot be civilised when considering such dates and try to ensure that they are as convenient as possible for family life as well as for the arrangements of the House.
Reference was made to the length of speeches, and the Lord President made a joke about Front-Bench speeches. That is one matter on which we have not succeeded as we could or should have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has been keeping a close watch on speeches and has produced a table showing the length of all Front-Bench speeches in the past year. [Interruption.] It is available, and if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) wants to publish it, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not object.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
Can we all get it?

§ Mrs. Taylor
Yes, and representations can be made to any offenders, of whom there are probably more among the Conservatives than among Labour Members.

§ Mr. Bennett
Does my hon. Friend accept that the important thing is not the length of speeches themselves but the need to take account of interventions? Interventions are one of the most important parts of the proceedings of the House. The worst thing about the 421 10-minute rule is that it discourages taking interventions. I do not think that Front-Bench Members should be criticised for taking a little longer if they give way several times. Of course, one or two put their heads down and do not give way at all.

§ Mrs. Taylor
My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has also calculated the number of interventions. There was no correlation between the length of speeches and the number of interventions accepted. While I accept that we have to be flexible and encourage interventions, we should not allow Ministers in particular to hide behind pre-arranged interventions to make the debate go in a particular direction.
The changes have been beneficial. They are not dramatic or radical but they are helping to make Parliament work more efficiently. I agree that we have to do much more to make Parliament work more effectively but, in view of the experiment that we have undertaken and the responses that the Procedure Committee received from hon. Members showing that the changes are by and large popular, I commend the proposals to the House.

4.53 pm

§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)
In the 13 years that I have been Chairman of the Procedure Committee, many people will have heard me say that I have been struggling to drag the procedures of the House into the 20th century, let alone the 21st century. I believe that the Lord President of the Council and the resolutions that we are discussing are the instruments to achieve that end.
More people are coming to understand Parliament and respect the way in which we carry out our business. The House will know that the Procedure Committee agreed to monitor the working of the Jopling report, and the Leader of the House asked us to do a number of other things such as review setpiece debates. I remind hon. Members, and anyone outside who may be interested, of the responses that we received to our questionnaire.
The figures in paragraph 7 of the report show that we received 524 responses. That figure has now risen to 530, which is a response rate of 82 per cent. That is larger than anyone would have imagined. Public relations companies say that it is a remarkable return.
We divided the questionnaire into six sections, each examining a distinct aspect of the particular package of alterations to the Standing Orders. The vast majority of hon. Members—88 per cent.—expressed general support for the reforms. A similar number, just under 90 per cent., found the alteration to the House's sitting hours an improvement. Similar results were obtained to questions about changes to the pattern of business, the scope of short speech Sessional Orders and the early notification of business. More than three quarters, or 77 per cent., of hon. Members believed that the Sessional, or temporary, Orders should be turned into Standing Orders, which is what we are discussing today.
I shall for a moment analyse some of the responses, because it is important to get them into perspective. Of the replies received, 255 were from Conservatives, which is approximately 78 per cent. of all Conservative Members; 200 came from Labour Members, which is 74 or 75 per cent. of their total; 18 came from Liberal 422 Democrats, which is 78 per cent. of Liberal Democrat Members; and 20 were from members of other parties, which is the equivalent of 87 per cent. of their number. As I said, 88.7 per cent. of those who replied believed that in general the reforms were to be welcomed and should be implemented.
We asked whether the introduction of Wednesday morning Adjournment debates were advantageous to the House. Eighty-four per cent. of Conservative Members, 88 per cent. of Labour Members and 83 per cent. of Liberal Democrats agreed that such debates were advantageous, and were to be welcomed. They accepted absolutely that they should become permanent.
It is perhaps important to note that, if the House prorogues on 8 November—I understand that is much more than a possibility—it will have sat for 156 days in the 1994–95 Session, not counting eight constituency Fridays. That compares with 154 days with no sitting Fridays in 1993–94, 167 days in 1988–89 and 172 days in 1985–86, which were the third years of their respective Parliaments. Therefore, the notion that the reforms have drastically reduced the number of days that the House sits is incorrect.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
In the survey circulated to hon. Members, there was no mention—was there?—of the change in the Sessional Orders now before us, meaning that both Law Commission Bills and consolidation Bills have been slipped on our agenda tonight very craftily, and that there will not be a Second Reading of consolidation Bills on the Floor of the House. Therefore, Bills coming from the Law Commission, such as the proposed Bill on divorce, will immediately be referred to a Second Reading Committee. That has been slipped on to the Order Paper today and has never been put to the House of Commons before.

§ Mr. Skinner
Sneaky and underhand.

§ Sir Peter Emery
Perhaps I may suggest to the hon. Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who sit below the Gangway, that they read our report, because what they say is not the case. Such matters were put in the questionnaire, and as I work through, I shall come to that, without any doubt.
The shift to Wednesday morning debates—doing away with the Consolidated Fund, the end-of-term Adjournment debates and private Members' motions—has, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), meant that Members of Parliament have double the opportunities for debates.
Much has been made about the claim that that change does not allow for a vote. I am informed that private Members' motions went to a Division on only about 12 per cent. of all occasions in the previous Session. The interesting fact is that at no time did the Government lose such a Division. So the concept—

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Sir Peter Emery
Not for the moment. If the hon. Lady sits down I shall give way to her soon.
Therefore, the concept that having that vote is a great influence on the Government is just not the case.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
Frankly, if 12 per cent. of occasions are sufficiently controversial to demand a vote, and if 423 those votes are a clear sign of how the House is moving, the Government do not have to be defeated on a particular vote to take note of the fact that they must respond to especial concerns in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman and I have been here long enough to know that all sensible Governments take very good note when sufficient numbers of Members vote on a particular private matter which happens to be contentious.

§ Sir Peter Emery
I have been here slightly longer than the hon. Lady and I believe that it is much more important that Members should be able to hold the Government to account on more and more subjects on more and more occasions. It is quite surprising to discover how many hon. Members have spoken in Wednesday morning debates, and, indeed, to see the Government responses to a number of those debates. Such occasions have been much more use in holding the Executive to account, as was suggested earlier, than previous opportunities.

§ Mr. Bennett
If the right hon. Gentleman is not very keen on votes, perhaps he should abolish the idea of having votes of confidence in the Government. I would have thought that, since 1945, there must have been a large number of votes of no confidence in the Government. I think that only one was carried. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not proposing to abolish that idea? There may have been votes on only 12 per cent. of occasions, but some of them were useful.

§ Sir Peter Emery
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is slightly more intelligent than to think that votes of censure and votes on a private Members' motion are in any way comparable. He knows that they are not. He is not even making a debating point.
I come to the next aspect of analysis: the reduction in late sittings. It is not very surprising that 90 per cent. of all respondents approved of the reduction. To the question whether they approved of non-sitting Fridays for constituency business, 88.7 per cent. of hon. Members responded in a favourable manner. To those Members who believe that that is an unimportant aspect, I refer them to paragraph 26 of the report, in which the hon. Member for Dewsbury is quoted—it is well worth repeating—as saying: I really think that we should not be shame-faced about the House not sitting on Fridays … The idea that Members of Parliament are only working when they are sitting in the Chamber is total nonsense. There is a need for some political education and we have a responsibility to provide some of that political education. In other words, it is absolutely clear that there is work to be done in the constituency, and it should' be carried out.

§ Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)
This point is fundamental because the media consistently portray Members of Parliament scampering off as quickly as possible and voting for shorter hours. Anyone with a constituency outside London—if he is doing his job—knows that Fridays are essential because they are the only days of the week when a Member of Parliament has an opportunity of making contact with people who are also at work; in factories, schools and others places. If Members are restricted merely to visiting on Saturdays, proper contact cannot be made.

§ Sir Peter Emery
My hon. Friend's point is relevant and important.
424 The Select Committee report comes into conflict with the Government over the timetabling of Bills, although it does not necessarily suggest that the process has not been a success in the past Session. It is interesting that only 18 per cent. of respondents felt that the voluntary timetabling of Bills should not be carried on for ever, while 65 per cent. felt that it had been successful. However there was a considerable demand—65 per cent. of respondents—for the timetabling of Bills to become part of Standing Orders. Of those wanting such a development, 69 per cent. were Conservative Members, 58 per cent. Labour Members, and 89 per cent. Liberal Democrats.
So a majority of almost two thirds of Members were in favour of turning the voluntary agreement into a permanent arrangement. I think that the feeling behind that was that it was all very well last year, but the same position might not remain in future and ought to be made part of Standing Orders.
I shall deal now with money and Ways and Means resolutions, statutory instruments and prayers, and European Community documents, which were all included in the report. Indeed, the Law Commission factor was there as well. Approximately, 78 per cent., 88 per cent. and 81 per cent. of respondents respectively believed that the existing arrangements should continue and be made permanent.
The last two important aspects of the analysis were that 87.7 per cent. of respondents felt that the Speaker's ability to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches should be continued. I should point out that, when the speeches of hon. Members have been affected by major interruptions, the occupants of the Chair have been flexible in genuine cases, although they would not necessarily accept or admit it, but if hon. Members consider the question, they will see that there have been times when Members have spoken for much longer than the 10 minutes allowed.

§ Mr. Bennett
rose—

§ Sir Peter Emery
I have given way a great deal.
The proposal that the Speaker should be given power to limit speeches to 10 minutes during 90-minute debates also met with massive approval. Indeed, there have been many excesses in 90-minute debates, when some hon. Members have spoken for 20 or 25 minutes and left no time for others.
I believe that, on the whole, Members have very positively responded in support of the action that has been taken. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to carry through the recommendation that debate on the Budget and on the Queen's Speech should be cut for a day to allow for a major economic debate in the spring. I believe that that is a sensible suggestion, which I hope will be adopted in time.
In conclusion, it is quite clear that reform can be attained only when the majority of hon. Members agree to it. There will always be one, two or a small handful of hon. Members who will object to any aspect of change.

§ Mr. Skinner
The awkward squad.

§ Sir Peter Emery
If ever there were a leader of that squad, it is the hon. Member for Bolsover, who is sitting opposite me now. I believe that a majority of hon. Members are in favour of the proposals on the Order Paper. I urge that they be carried, without amendment, into the Standing Orders of the House.

425 5.10 pm

§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)
I strongly support all the changes that appear on the Order Paper today. I believe that they are a first and a minimalist step toward what I hope will be a fundamental root-and-branch reform of the way in which we do business in this place. I understand perfectly the honourable, respectable and good tradition of the "awkward squad" in this place. I hope that that will always be the case. There will always be a role for hon. Members who have bona fide reasons for giving the Government of the day a hard time. That is one of the functions of debate in this place.
Having said that, I believe that people in the community find it difficult to understand the way in which the House does business currently. They find the procedures arcane, outmoded and inefficient. I pay credit to the Leader of the House for going the last mile in trying to ensure that the minimalist changes have a basis of consent. I hope that he will not give up on reform once he has banked the changes—because I hope that that is what will occur—this evening. I hope that it is just the beginning of a momentum for change that will ensure that the House of Commons is a modern Chamber that is fit to govern in the 21st century. Unfortunately, at present the public do not believe that that is the case.

5.12 pm

§ Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)
I wish to raise two points in the debate. I have already raised the issue of not sitting on certain Fridays with my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), by way of intervention. One may align that with the fact that we often have less urgent business on Thursday evenings, which allows hon. Members to return to their constituencies to perform their constituency duties properly. It does not take too much imagination to realise that, if the time of hon. Members is too restricted, they will not be able to make essential contacts with their constituents—including industrialists, schools and local government organisations—on a non-political basis.
Consequently, the proposal is very welcome. I have been in this place for a long time and, like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I believe that the change should have occurred years ago. I only hope that the next reforms will not be so long in coming.

§ Mr. Dalyell
The people of Warwick and Leamington are not deprived of the hon. Gentleman's presence because of what occurs in the House of Commons on a Friday. If he wishes to return to his constituency, he is able to do so under the old system that we are abolishing. [HON. MEMBERS: "At 3 o'clock."] Exactly. Hon. Members are rarely prevented from returning to their constituencies on a Friday.

§ Sir Dudley Smith
The answer is that one cannot have it both ways. If hon. Members are able to return to their constituencies on a Thursday evening, they may make appointments there at 9 o'clock or 10.30 the next morning. Many of us have not attended the Chamber on a Friday for that reason and, consequently, our attendances on Fridays are extremely poor. Because of constituency commitments, we are often unable to participate in the important and interesting debates on Fridays. That factor must be taken into account.
426 I support the reforms almost unreservedly, but I must address the question of time limitations on speeches, to which the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) referred. I hope that we shall not go too far in timetabling speeches. Despite what anyone says, that would discourage interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, which are the kernel of our debates. Many effective and important interventions have been made over the years and they have always been part and parcel of the procedures in this place.
Anyone who has had experience of parliamentary procedure on the continent will know that interventions are a fairly rare occurrence. Those who have had experience of parliamentary assemblies associated with international and European organisations will know that the practice of intervening in the speech of another is very much frowned upon, if not banned. Consequently, there is a set pattern of speech after speech without any of the variety and intensity of debate that occurs so often in this place.
Our Parliament is often criticised for being confrontational because the parties sit opposite each other; we do not adopt the same soft line as the Europeans. I believe that that makes our debates a darn sight more interesting: they have flavour and they are often very pertinent indeed. One only wishes that Parliament received better media coverage generally so that we could put our case to the people. That could only benefit the institution of Parliament.
By and large, I welcome the procedures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tonight.

5.16 pm

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who said that the past parliamentary Session was not typical. I think it is very dangerous to measure procedural experiments in an untypical Session. I believe that it would have been better to allow the informal arrangements to continue for three or four years, perhaps trying a few more experiments and observing how they worked, and then include them in the Standing Orders. I realise that the Standing Orders may be changed in the future, but I believe that the House should be very cautious in accepting that all the reforms are beneficial.
I welcome the fact that hon. Members may be able to leave the House at 7 o'clock on a Thursday night. That is a very sensible proposal. However, we must be very careful that that does not change the nature of the whole of Thursday. I have been surprised by how difficult it is to persuade people to attend meetings within the House—not in the Chamber—on a Thursday because they assume that they may be able to return to their constituencies on a Wednesday night. Therefore, Thursday becomes a quieter day. If one compares Prime Minister's Question Time on a Thursday with Prime Minister's Question Time on a Tuesday, one sees that there are far fewer hon. Members in the Chamber on a Thursday.
Having business questions and then a statement on a Thursday leaves only two hours, or even less time, for debate. Therefore, there is a tendency not to have major debates on a Thursday—unless the Government are being particularly Machiavellian and want to squeeze the time 427 allowed for debate. The business on Thursday is less likely to have a three-line Whip and, for that reason, I suggest that we are changing the nature of Thursdays.
Hon. Members who serve on Standing Committees may have noticed how reluctant Committees are to meet on Thursday evenings because other hon. Members are likely to have left the building. Committee members often find themselves wandering around empty corridors like ghosts. We must look carefully at the implications of the proposals for Thursdays. Perhaps business questions could be moved to Wednesdays to allow time for a guaranteed three-hour debate on Thursdays.
There are two strong arguments for retaining the possibility of debating money resolutions. One hopes that there would be agreement among hon. Members, and no one would need to use the time allocated for money resolutions. However, if many hon. Members were competing to get into a debate, one could always make it clear that, if one's speech could not be squeezed in, one would speak on the money resolution. It was amazing how often Front-Bench spokesmen were prepared to give up a little more of their time to make sure that everybody got in. Money resolutions represented an important opportunity to guarantee that people got into the main debate. They were also a useful muscle for the Opposition. If there was a disagreement, the Opposition could threaten to debate the money resolution, and everyone would be delayed a little longer.
The more those opportunities are reduced, the more hon. Members have to turn to more disruptive activities to get across the passions that they feel. It was a Conservative Member who picked up the Mace, but the more we remove the means of putting pressure on the Government, the more we encourage hon. Members in such activities as picking up the Mace. I urge the House not to remove all the ways for hon. Members to demonstrate rebellion and disagreement.
I now refer to the motion for shorter speeches. One of the most disappointing developments since I have been in the House is that the debate often deteriorates in the evening, and restricting speeches to 10 minutes makes it worse. We might as well have a room upstairs where people can deliver a speech to a mirror, as once the 10-minute rule is imposed there are no interventions. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that the Chair could use its discretion, but all too often there is no chance of that, because hon. Members do not give way if they have only 10 minutes, so there is no question of the Chair exercising discretion. Matters would be greatly improved if speeches were 10 minutes excluding interventions.
We have now removed all opportunities for Back Benchers to cause votes on motions. That is an amazing reduction in their powers. The Government have the right to table motions. The Opposition have Supply days and so do the minority parties, but Back Benchers will now have no opportunity to vote on a motion.
There was a time when, if hon. Members put their names to an early-day motion, there was a chance that it would be debated. One trick that could be played if one came first in the ballot was to pick up an early-day motion that had support from hon. Members on both sides of the House who had claimed to their constituents that they were in favour of it. One could then table a motion using exactly the same words, to find out whether they really supported the early-day motion to which they had put their name.
428 Now there will be no way for Back Benchers to test the opinion of the House. There will be cosy agreements between the Front Benches, but no rights for Back Benchers. I accept that it was unusual to come first in the ballot and that it was rare to have a vote, but the Government should consider finding some way of giving Back-Bench Members the right to table motions and have votes on them as a safeguard.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that only a few votes were taken on private Members' motions. However, on 1 July 1994, a majority in the Chamber supported the call for a Minister responsible for veterans' affairs, and the Government did not dare divide the House because they would have lost. Apart from the Opposition, a commanding majority of Conservatives supported the idea of a Minister responsible for veterans' affairs, so the Government did not divide the House. To say that only 12 per cent. of motions resulted in votes hides the fact that on many occasions the Executive get the message and dare not have a Division.

§ Mr. Bennett
I understand how the Government manoeuvred to avoid a vote, but real and direct pressure was put on the Executive by the possibility that there could have been one. The Leader of the House has to find a way of restoring that right to Back Benchers, either by accepting amendments (a) and (b) in my name or by considering the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that we have ballots on Mondays. I do not mind whether it is Wednesday morning or Monday afternoon, but it is important to restore to Back Benchers the right to have votes.

§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I would like to express my concern and that of all Back Benchers. The issue is clearly of considerable importance with the present balance of arithmetic in the House, but in future, if we have a balance of parties with no overall majority for the Administration, it will be even more important that Back-Bench groups can find opportunities to vote on important issues of principle. Therefore, there will be widespread concern on both sides of the House that the Leader of the House should listen to that point this evening.

§ Mr. Bennett
We should also examine the ballot procedure. We were assured from the Chair that Madam Speaker has an arrangement for balloting for Wednesday morning debates. I make a plea that it should be more transparent.
The old way in which hon. Members went into the Lobby, signed their names in the ballot book, and the raffle was carried out by the Chair, was a transparent procedure. One got a slot before announcing what one wanted to debate. It was a way of putting pressure on the Government. I remember at least one occasion during the last Labour Government when someone allegedly from the awkward squad came first in the ballot and there were frantic negotiations and deals struck between the Whips as to what motion that individual would table. None of that exists in the present procedure. If the majority of Back-Bench time is to be controlled by ballots run by the Speaker, other Members should know which hon. Members have put in their names, what they have selected and who has been successful or otherwise.
429 The Government should not stop the experiments; they should continue to have experiments, but they should not rush into making them permanent until we have had more time to see how they work in the long run. Particularly in respect of the rights of Back Benchers to cause votes, the Government should think again.

5.26 pm

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
It is important to remember that tonight's debate is the culmination of a number of occasions in the past 20 years when power has been taken from Back Benchers and handed to the two Front Benches. The practice has not been confined to the Tory party, as it is on this occasion—it happened under the Labour Government of 1974–79. Today we are removing a little more power from Back Benchers and handing it over to the Government of the day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred to the Consolidated Fund Bill. We could keep debate on it going ad nauseam through the following day, not because we wanted to be awkward but to stop some lousy Government business that would affect our constituents. On the occasion to which my hon. Friend referred, we were extremely successful. Not only did we have a vote on the Consolidated Fund, but we stretched out all three stages of the Bill. Gradually such opportunities were whittled down, until the debate finished at 9 o'clock without a Division.
Today's debate represents an extension of the exercise embarked on earlier this year when the Jopling proposals were introduced. Let us make no mistake about it. It is not about Labour versus Tory in terms of power. If Tory Back Benchers were worth their salt, there would be scores of them here today. They can see a Labour Government staring them in the face and they will not have the power that they had between 1974 and 1979 when they led the Labour Government a dance hour after hour through the night. I could recite all those occasions when Tory Back Benchers gave the Callaghan Government hell. That opportunity has been taken away. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
I was in the House during those years. Perhaps my hon. Friend recalls the occasion in mid-1974 when Conservative Members, in opposition, kept the House going on a Consolidated Fund Bill so long that it was stopped only by the appearance of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. That was over the slag heaps affair. A Tory Government is removing that right.

§ Mr. Skinner
That adds to my argument that Parliament is changing. Most members of the Government and many of our Front Benchers want that change, but it takes power from Back Benchers.
When I first entered the House, there could be a properly designated Adjournment debate before every recess—it was the real thing and could not be stopped. If 50 hon. Members wanted to speak, the Government had to invoke the closure procedure to stop them. That meant that the Government had to keep their troops here.
One weapon that Back Benchers have is the ability to occupy the Government's time and space. That applies to the Opposition in general, both Front Benchers and Back 430 Benchers. The only real power that they have is to show that they are not prepared to take Government proposals lying down.
A good example of that involved Geoffrey Howe, when he was Leader of the House for a short spell. He did not like that job, which had been given to him by Margaret Thatcher. Many of us kept the Government up for several nights and Geoffrey Howe pulled up stumps. He was not having any more of that. That was another occasion when the Government decided to limit the power of Back Benchers.
We have lost the ability to keep Adjournment debates going more than three hours. Such debates have been slipped into Wednesdays.

§ Mr. Dalyell
In their reforms, Front Benchers are being dreadfully and pitifully naive. They are taking away not only the time of the House but the concentration of the civil service and of Whitehall on what occurs in the House. The Leader of the House should not be naive and simplistic. If Parliament matters less and less—some of us think that that is to the detriment of the country—that is one reason.

§ Mr. Skinner
I absolutely agree. Some of my hon. Friends have already referred to money resolutions. Again, power has been taken from Back Benchers who, if they had not managed to participate in the Second Reading debate, had 45 minutes to raise issues. Again, that change does not affect Front Benchers. They still have their say, but Back Benchers lost another opportunity to contribute.
As for Wednesday mornings, I applied for an Adjournment debate on French nuclear tests and the capture of the Rainbow Warrior. Many hon. Members were concerned about the events of that Sunday afternoon, and I raised them in the House on Monday. The Speaker more or less told me that if I made an application for an Adjournment debate, I would get one. I did—on a Wednesday morning.
Under the old-fashioned system of winning a place in the ballot for a Friday or Monday, there would have been a three-hour debate. I got a quarter of an hour and was able to offer a couple of minutes to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and another hon. Member managed to utter a couple of sentences. If any 20 of us had been presented with the opportunity to ballot for a motion, there would have been a three-hour debate. In the old days, there could also have been a Division and the Government would have been even more embarrassed. Although it is argued that Wednesday mornings provide an opportunity for hon. Members to raise issues, it is not the same as before, when I was able to table a motion about imported coal to which many other hon. Members could contribute.
As for the four-day week, I understand the argument that there are things for an hon. Member to do in his constituency. My argument is that whatever gloss is put on it, the 4 million people who are unemployed will say, "Why can't Members of Parliament produce legislation for a four-day week, to mop up the unemployed and to give young men and women a chance to get a job?" That is one of the most important challenges that will face the next Labour Government.
Tory Members will have given away all that parliamentary power, and they are losing their directorships under Nolan. God knows what they will do 431 with themselves at night. The Government will have got their legislation through at 8 pm and the House will not sit on Fridays—there may be another 10 Fridays off. Make no mistake: that will be the new Blair agenda.
All the Tory Members who are not in the Chamber will wish that they had been here to battle for the cause of Back Benchers. They have thrown it all away. I am standing up for the rights of a few of us. We will divide the House tonight, but we will have one big laugh when they put pink curtains up at No. 10 Downing street and the Daily Mirror reporter is able to go in there any day of the week. Then again, he may not. Those days will be different from 1974 and 1979.
Tory Back Benchers, with or without directorships, will rue the day that they shovelled away the power of Back Benchers. When a party is in opposition, it has loads of Back Benchers with loads of grievances. Labour Ministers will be arrayed on that Treasury Bench and they will be laughing all the way home. It will be left to me and my hon. Friends to carry the torch on behalf of Back Benchers, but we will not have the power that we used to have. Today, power is being taken from Back Benchers and handed to members of the two Front Benches, and there is no clear blue water between them.

5.38 pm

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put his finger on the point. There may be more time on Wednesdays and a more useful arrangement of time, but that time is for opinion rather than decision initiated by Back Benchers. My hon. Friend's example of a possible motion expressing an opinion about French nuclear tests will ring a bell in the minds of the public.
Our ability to raise such matters and to threaten a Division is not for our benefit but for those whom we represent. Without that power, the House will not have the respect that it would otherwise enjoy. That is one reason why public esteem for the House has reduced. More and more, matters are fixed between members of the two Front Benches. I will deal with that when I respond to the lack of enthusiasm shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for my amendment on private Members' motions.
Delegated legislation going Upstairs automatically by a Standing Order is dangerous, because the time allowed for such legislation is usually attenuated by the Chair after a little talk and takes up perhaps 30 seconds of the time of the House. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, it takes 20 hon. Members to stand up and say no. Some years ago, it was not difficult for one hon. Member, knowing that he had 19 supporters, to make representations, after which the statutory instrument might be dealt with on the Floor of the House or there would be discussion of it. That power is being removed without adding one minute to the time of Back Benchers.
When the experiment was first suggested, many of us did not object to the Wednesdays. I am afraid that the speech by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee illustrated the problem with what is happening now. Doubling the time for Adjournment debates on Wednesdays is being used as an excuse for taking away private Members' power to speak and, more important, to divide. I hope that the media will not say that Members have endorsed the reforms. As far as Wednesdays go, I 432 am not a member of the awkward squad. By all means give us double the time, but do not reduce our power under this camouflage.
Independent motions are part of the fabric of democracy and form part of our ancient parliamentary rights. A century ago, the time of the House was distributed fairly evenly between private Members' time, Government time and time for private legislation. The distribution varied from Session to Session, but since then private Members' time has been consistently whittled away with the connivance of Front Benchers on both sides, because it is in their interests to do that. Of course that prevents Members from representing the views of their constituents, often on non-party issues. The debates on private Members' motions will often bring out matters that have nothing to do with party opinion. Indeed, they can show the public that Members of Parliament are reasonable people of good sense, whose concerns mirror the public's concerns.
I hope tonight for some reassurance to the contrary from the Leader of the House, because Front Benchers on both sides are diminishing the status of Parliament and of private Members themselves. That in turn diminishes the legitimacy of those who speak from the Front Benches, and people will begin to doubt whether it is worth entering Parliament at all.
An important principle is at stake here. Until last year, on no fewer than 14 occasions in the year, Members successful in the ballot were able to debate a subject of their choice. The fact that that represented a tremendous threat to Front Benchers has been shown today in various ways. Often, a Member who has been successful in the ballot can be approached by other Members with more ideas touching on issues that affect the public. A thousand choices of subject present themselves in the early-day motions on our Order Paper, for instance. The Leader of the House is frequently asked for time to debate early-day motions, and in fact they are often debated: now that chance will go.
We also often hear the Leader of the House saying that the question raised by an hon. Member is a matter of great public importance, and that he should take his chances in the ballot. After today, unless we can be reassured otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman will no longer be able to say that.
It is true, as the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, that private Members' time for Adjournment debates has been doubled. The modest amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggests considering private Members' motions on four Wednesday mornings a year, which amounts to about half an hour a week. What is wrong with that? My amendment proposes four Mondays a year for this purpose, which amounts to no more than 20 minutes a week. My hon. Friends have already demonstrated that the Government are afraid of such motions, which is why, at the same time as doubling private Members' time to discuss subjects on the Adjournment, the Government are commuting our real power. There can be only one reason for eliminating that power: such debates really mattered.
The Leader of the House should accept one or other of the amendments—I am not too bothered which. I have proposed Mondays because I think that voting at 7 o'clock on a Monday on a motion or a closure would be a better 433 time. Even a closure can be a bit of a threat, for reasons of which we are all well aware. I think that that would be more convenient than voting at 2 o'clock on a Wednesday, as proposed by my hon. Friend. But if my amendment falls I will support his, since Madam Speaker has been gracious enough to allow us to proceed at some stage to both. Perhaps the Leader of the House will concede my idea of Mondays, if only because they will involve only three hours, instead of the four and a half or five hours involved in the other amendment.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury is not here at the moment. I neither followed nor agreed with what she said. I would hope that no Government will reduce the powers of Members of this House, because by doing so they would reduce the powers of the electorate as well. If the Government do that, they are demonstrating an arrogance which our democratic traditions should not tolerate. I hope that none of us, when we leave this place, will be sorry that we connived at the change.

5.45 pm

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)
It comes as a great shock to me to be called one of the awkward squad when, as hon. Members will know, I have been all my life the epitome of the gentle, calm and flexible politician. However, if I am to be awkward on this occasion, I hope that I shall do so with vigour and intent.
I have been here a very long time and I think it patronising to suggest that those of us who object to some of these changes do so merely because we are used to the old ways and have nothing useful to contribute. It is suggested that our objections are based, not on an understanding of what the House of Commons should be doing, but on a wish to stay as we always have been.
On the contrary, I believe that some of the problems raised this afternoon are fundamental. It is important to have extra time for Back Benchers, and I welcome Wednesday morning debates. Indeed, it would be ungracious of me not to, as I have been lucky enough to initiate one or two of them myself. But they should not be an alternative to allowing Back Benchers the muscle that goes with a vote. I am sure that the Leader of the House is not silly enough to think that they are an alternative. He must realise that Members of Parliament know the difference between a general debate and forcing the Government to take note of a vote which expresses the opinion of all parties.
So why are we being told that these are minimal changes to which we should not object because they simply ameliorate the workings of the House and, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), make it more efficient? That is not so. I do not mind people thinking me an idiot, but I do not want them to make it too clear. In this instance, the Leader of the House does himself an injustice. He does care about the rights of Back Benchers, but he cannot genuinely believe that we are so naive as not to be able to see what is happening.
Front Benchers, for their own sensible and focused reasons, are bent on ensuring that there are ever fewer opportunities for ordinary Members to cause trouble. But trouble is what Parliament is all about. I have sat in the 434 European Parliament and listened to those well organised debates in which people read out speeches without accepting any interventions and then brief representatives of the media outside the Chamber, congratulating themselves on ably representing a democratic system when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.
It is debate, fight and teasing out all the awkward things that people do not want known that is important about the Chamber. It has been like that for many centuries.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Does my hon. Friend remember the Member of the European Parliament who was least willing of all to give way at any time when she and I were indirectly elected MEPs? His name was Giulio Andreotti.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
Yes, and we all know that Mr. Andreotti was exceedingly good at organising procedure. Indeed, he made an entire career out of it. I was brought up by a man who believed in procedure because he understood that, when one was in a tight corner, having control of the standing orders was the way to limit any difficult debate. He understood that knowing how the standing orders operated gave one the power to control what was going on in any committee. That is a lesson that I have never forgotten.
I agree with 10-minute limits on speeches when many people want to speak and when the debate lends itself to hon. Members making one or two individual points. That is fine. There is not a problem with that. However, it is not always suitable. In some debates, people have to have the time to make a thoughtful speech, to accept interventions and to develop an argument. That cannot always be done in a truncated speech.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Does my hon. Friend agree that not only Members of the European Parliament but parliamentarians from various long-established democracies recognise that the rights that we have had in this place far exceed what they have? Is there not a danger that we shall go their way, in the sense of sitting shorter hours and putting much more emphasis on activities outside this place? What we have established over the years—a full-time Parliament which sits for far longer than other Parliaments in Europe—is being slowly eroded and undermined. That is not good for parliamentary democracy.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
It is no accident that some people apparently spend an enormous amount of effort getting here and then cannot wait to spend all their time out on College green. I am old-fashioned enough to think that this is the place where we ask questions of the Government. If we have long recesses and ever longer periods when there is no one sitting in the House of Commons, Governments are not altogether unhappy because it means that they do not have to answer awkward questions. We are here to pose the awkward questions.
There are already whole areas of legislation that slip through. The European Standing Committees are disgracefully undermanned and underwomaned. Many people who are well known outside the House on every television programme on the face of God's earth are rarely to be found in those boring old Committees in which a lot of the work is done hour after hour by people asking awkward questions and examining the implications of legislation.
435 I believe that the Leader of the House is genuinely trying to help, but I am so worried about the way in which the House of Commons is going that I believe that the time is coming for some of us to make our views painfully clear to the electorate. The House must never become merely a backdrop for a few hours of cable television. It must never ever become a Chamber to which people come only when they think that they have their soundbites and their colours correct. It must not become a place to which people come to deal with just one tiny aspect of a complicated subject.
Parliament is dependent on the detailed knowledge and commitment of Members of all sorts of shapes and sizes. In the 30-odd years that I have been here, I have seen many people with diverse views, many of which I did not accept. They made complex speeches about aspects of legislation which I had not envisaged because I had no way of knowing the impact of a particular Bill. They succeeded in convincing the House of their view because they had something important to say. If we ever lose that diversity and become mere exponents of the brief intervention and the calm acceptance that Back Benchers are here merely as walk-ons, democracy will be damaged.
It is not the noise that people object to in this place. It is not the shouting and the constant turmoil. It is the failure to understand that that turmoil frequently reflects genuine depths of feeling out in the country. If that ceased to be expressed, the silence would be deafening, and the result would be much more like anarchy.

5.54 pm

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). There is much in what she says with which I am bound to agree. I hope that the House will take notice of the advice that she gives from the standpoint of her long experience of parliamentary matters. I share her anxiety about the future of the House and the future powers of Back Benchers to express views and articulate the views of the people whom they represent. More and more I see the House becoming simply a rubber stamp for the Executive.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will appreciate that I speak from a particular standpoint. During the past year or so I have put myself in a position in which perhaps few Back Benchers have previously found themselves. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that the only thing that really mattered at the end of the day was the vote. That is correct. It is becoming more apparent that the views expressed in the House are perhaps listened to, but in great measure disregarded because for understandable reasons the Executive have a view as to which way they want to go and which way they want to take the country.
Sometimes, as has been proved recently, the Executive want to take the country in a direction in which the country palpably does not want to go. My colleagues and I were able to stand up to the Government during the past 12 or 18 months because we knew that the people whom we represented thought that we were right in that great debate and that the Government were wrong. Yet throughout the debate it was apparent for all to see that the only thing that the Government recognised was, not the force of the argument—night after night my colleagues deployed an argument which was undoubtedly 436 cogent and irrefutable—but the force of the vote. The Government prevailed because they had more voting power than we so-called rebels.
The single issue to which I have referred is not the point. The point is what is happening to our Parliament. It is relevant to consider what is happening to our Parliament in the context of the European Union. It is apparent for all to see—no one can argue about it—that what is decided in treaties has to go through the House even though the vast majority of Back Benchers may feel that it is wrong. By signing the treaties, the Government have signed away the right that we as Back Benchers previously had to decide matters.
That was demonstrated on 24 November last year when I and eight of my colleagues had the party Whip withdrawn because we failed to support the Government in a vote to send £75 million more to the European Union. I venture to suggest that, had it been a domestic issue, we would not have been drummed out of the regiment. The Government had to deliver on that particular promise, as on all the other promises that they have made, because they have committed Britain and all the people whom we represent by signing the treaties. That is a particular development of the past 25 years. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly said, that is the wrong way for Parliament to proceed.
I am worried about how difficult it will be to explain to our electorate exactly how little power we have here as Back Benchers. At present, by and large, the electorate feel that when they send us to Parliament we can have a great influence over what goes on here, decide matters on their behalf and ensure that their view is fully represented.
We can certainly make representations, but I return to the point that ultimately the only thing that the Executive recognise is voting power. The measures that we are debating today will give more time for Back Benchers to ventilate their own private or constituency interests, but it will be at the expense of the time that we have as Back Benchers for scrutinising legislation and controlling the Executive.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
I now call Mr. Rooker.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it be registered that others of us were waiting to speak when you called the Front-Bench spokesman? Anyone looking for an example of Front-Bench fixing could find it in the way the two-hour motion was slipped through on a Friday. I must say to the House authorities—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. I call Mr. Rooker.

§ 6 pm

§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and many of my other hon. Friends have made valid points this afternoon, as did the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I also recall many of the examples cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from the last Labour Government.
While there has been an experiment this past year, what my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said was true. The parliamentary Session now coming to 437 an end has not by any stretch of the imagination been typical of previous Sessions during my 20 years in the House, and I suspect that the Session due to start on 15 November will not be typical either.
We must make it clear to our constituents that we are the law-making authority. Nothing involved in the package affects the law-making process in terms of new legislation. That is sad; I wish that it were otherwise and that we could start to reform the House and produce quality legislation. A package of 24 items was announced and agreed last December and today we are dealing with just four or five. They are all important matters, but we are not dealing with some of them—for instance, the scandalous way in which we deal with European legislation. I understand from the Select Committee report produced in July, which I read in the recess, that hon. Members have often attended European Standing Committees and virtually been asked to agree legislation of which the text has not even been available. That practice must stop, as it is unacceptable. We need more time to tackle that problem.
I have just one question of clarification to ask the Leader of the House. Will he confirm that the rule remains in force whereby, on Second Reading of a Finance Bill, the 10 o'clock rule does not apply, thus allowing any hon. Member who has not been called yet to stand in his or her place and be called to speak and continue the debate? I see that the Leader of the House nods in agreement. It is an important matter.
I can think of only three cases in the past 20 years when an hon. Member has stood up at 10 pm, after the Front Benchers have sat down, and has said, "I demand my right under the rules to be called," and has been called by the Speaker. The House is not happy when that happens. I am one of the three people to have made use of that procedure, and I was not in the House's good books. I wanted to explain to my hon. Friends that there are procedures that they can use in the House if they have a mind to, but they do not. Sometimes procedures that are not used go by default. I should hate hon. Members to lose the opportunity of raising issues on Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday mornings have proved useful. I used one in March to raise the subject of domestic violence and was told by the Minister not to worry as a Bill was coming from the other place covering all the issues that I had raised.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Rooker
I cannot give way, because, for obvious reasons, my time is limited.
Change is slow to occur in this place. The sloth of this place is such that it took 34 months for us to begin the experiment proposed in the Jopling report. That is a thundering disgrace. I do not blame anyone in particular on either side of the House, but my example shows how slow the rate of change is in this place.
Procedure is not a tool in itself; it is a tool that we use to help and represent our constituents. It is not the be-all and end-all, but it is important. We must master the procedure, not let it control us; we must shape it, mould it and modernise it.
438 Life should be tough for Ministers. The 13-week recess belongs in a bygone age, and it will be when we have a change of Government. We need more reform than is proposed in the measures that we are discussing today. We must create a useful Parliament which holds Government to account, creates good quality legislation and allows those affected by our legislation to wield greater influence over our proceedings. None of those improvements will be achieved through the measures, which represent a tiny pinprick in a package of reforms that is long overdue.

§ 6.6 pm

§ Mr. Newton
I, too, have only a few minutes for my speech. We have been trying to allow as many speeches as possible in the debate. It is ironic that what has been said this afternoon contrasts with the cause of the earlier delay: the attempt to tease out an agreement. That period was uncomfortable for me because of the number of people who demanded the exact opposite of what has been demanded of me this evening. The great majority of hon. Members wanted the changes that we have made because they felt them to be right. While I do not dismiss—as I never seek to dismiss—points that have been made, we should be clear that the support expressed from the Front Benches and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) today is widely expressed around the House, and has been over many months.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not take much time to respond to those who have spoken in support of the measures, but respond to those comments that were less supportive. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will ensure that Madam Speaker's attention is drawn to some of the comments made about the Wednesday morning arrangements.
I cannot recommend the amendments, or any variant of them, to the House. The Jopling report specifically recommended that private Members' business should be taken on a motion for the Adjournment, to ensure that no votes were taken during a morning sitting. That system has worked well and has commanded general support. I note the proposal of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but the transfer of private Members' business to Wednesday mornings has, as has already emerged, given Back Benchers more time on the Floor of the House.
There is no case to be made for providing a further four half-days. That would be contrary to the basis of the Jopling reforms, which were designed not to increase the amount of time that the House sits, but to decrease it to a more realistic level and provide a balance. In practice, the experiment has resulted in an increase in the time available for private Members' business.
There is some irony in the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) should have made the speech that he did. I find it difficult to think of anyone who has demonstrated more clearly the effectiveness of the Chamber and the role of the Back Bencher than my hon. Friend and some of his hon. Friends during our consideration of certain recent Bills. No one who has been in the House during the past two years could say that the influence of the House has diminished and that Whitehall and Ministers need not bother about it. That is an extraordinary description of the way in which I perceive 439 and feel that the place operates and is perceived. I am sorry that I have no time for further and fuller comment. I merely say that we also had a piece of vintage Bolsover.

§ Question put:—

§ The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 17.

440

Division No. 227]	[6.10 pm]
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Alton, David	Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Amess, David	Hawkins, Nick
Arbuthnot, James	Heald, Oliver
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Hendry, Charles
Baldry, Tony	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Bates, Michael	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Horam, John
Bellingham, Henry	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Jack, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Jenkin, Bernard
Body, Sir Richard	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Boswell, Tim	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Bowis, John	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Brandreth, Gyles	King, Rt Hon Tom
Bright, Sir Graham	Kirkhope, Timothy
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Kirkwood, Archy
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Knapman, Roger
Browning, Mrs Angela	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Burt, Alistair	Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Butterfill, John	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Campbell-Savours, D N	Lidington, David
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Clappison, James	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Luff, Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	MacKay, Andrew
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Maclennan, Robert
Congdon, David	McLoughlin, Patrick
Conway, Derek	Major, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Malone, Gerald
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Mandelson, Peter
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Couchman, James	Martlew, Eric
Cran, James	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Merchant, Piers
Dicks, Terry	Michael, Alun
Dowd, Jim	Miller, Andrew
Duncan, Alan	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Eagle, Ms Angela	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Moss, Malcolm
Elletson, Harold	Nelson, Anthony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Neubert, Sir Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Nicholls, Patrick
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Norris, Steve
Evennett, David	Ottaway, Richard
Faber, David	Page, Richard
Fabricant, Michael	Paice, James
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Pawsey, James
Forth, Eric	Pickles, Eric
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Radice, Giles
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Rathbone, Tim
French, Douglas	Rendel, David
Gale, Roger	Riddick, Graham
Gillan, Cheryl	Robathan, Andrew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Gunnell, John	Rooker, Jeff
Hampson, Dr Keith	Sackville, Tom

440

Shaw, David (Dover)	Trend, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Tyler, Paul
Shersby, Sir Michael	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Skeet Sir Trevor	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Ward, John
Soames, Nicholas	Waterson, Nigel
Spencer, Sir Derek	Watts, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Wells, Bowen
Spink, Dr Robert	Whitney, Ray
Spring, Richard	Whittingdale, John
Streeter, Gary	Widdecombe, Ann
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Willetts, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Wright, Dr Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Yeo, Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Thomason, Roy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Timms, Stephen	Mr. Timothy Wood and
Tredinnick, David	Mr. Simon Burns.
NOES
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Madden, Max
Barnes, Harry	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Bennett, Andrew F	Simpson, Alan
Corbyn, Jeremy	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
	Spearing, Nigel
Cox, Tom	Spellar, John
Dalyell, Tam	Winnick, David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Flynn, Paul	Tellers for the Noes:
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Mr. Dennis Skinner and
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

§ Question accordingly agreed to.

§ Resolved, That— (1) Standing Order (Consolidation bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session:

"(1) In this order 'a consolidation bill' means a public bill which falls to be considered by the select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 123 (Joint Committee on Consolidation, &., Bills).
(2) Notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in committee in respect of a consolidation bill may be received by the Clerks at the Table before the bill has been read a second time.
(3) When a motion shall have been made for the second reading, or for the third reading, of a consolidation bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
(4) If a motion that a consolidation bill be not committed is made by a Minister of the Crown immediately after the bill has been read a second time, the motion shall not require notice and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and maybe decided at any hour, though opposed."

(2) Standing Order (Law Commission bills) below shall have effect from the beginning of the next Session:

"(1) Any public bill, the main purpose of which is to give effect to proposals contained in a report by either of the Law Commissions, other than a private Member's bill or a bill to which Standing Order (Consolidation bills) applies, shall, when it is set down for second reading, stand referred to a second reading committee, unless—

(a) the House otherwise orders, or
(b) the bill is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.

(2) If a motion that a bill such as is referred to in paragraph (1) above shall no longer stand referred to a second reading committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

(3) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (6) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall apply to any bill referred to a second reading committee under paragraph (1) above.

441

§ Motion made, and Question put, That with effect from the beginning of the next Session— (1) Standing Order (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills) below shall have effect:

"(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions authorising expenditure in connection with a bill and on ways and means motions in connection with a bill

(a) forthwith, if such a motion is made at the same sitting as that at which the bill has been read a second time; or
(b) not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings, if the motion is made otherwise.

(2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."

(2) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(d) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted.—[Mr. Newton.]

§ The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 19.

442

Division No. 228]	[6.21 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Gale, Roger
Alton, David	Gillan, Cheryl
Amess, David	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Arbuthnot, James	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Baldry, Tony	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bates, Michael	Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Hawkins, Nick
Bellingham, Henry	Heald, Oliver
Beresford, Sir Paul	Hendry, Charles
Body, Sir Richard	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Boswell, Tim	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Horam, John
Bowis, John	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Brandreth, Gyles	Jack, Michael
Bright, Sir Graham	Jenkin, Bernard
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Browning, Mrs Angela	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Burt, Alistair	Kirkhope, Timothy
Butterfill, John	Kirkwood, Archy
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Knapman, Roger
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Clappison, James	Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Congdon, David	Lidington, David
Conway, Derek	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Luff, Peter
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	MacKay, Andrew
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Maclennan, Robert
Couchman, James	McLoughlin, Patrick
Cran, James	Major, Rt Hon John
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Malone, Gerald
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Mandelson, Peter
Duncan, Alan	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Elletson, Harold	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Merchant, Piers
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Miller, Andrew
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Evennett, David	Moss, Malcolm
Faber, David	Nelson, Anthony
Fabricant, Michael	Neubert, Sir Michael
Forth, Eric	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Nicholls, Patrick
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Norris, Steve
French, Douglas	Ottaway, Richard

442

Page, Richard	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Paice, James	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Pawsey, James	Thomason, Roy
Pickles, Eric	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Radice, Giles	Timms, Stephen
Rathbone, Tim	Trend, Michael
Rendel, David	Tyler, Paul
Robathan, Andrew	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Ward, John
Rooker, Jeff	Waterson, Nigel
Sackville, Tom	Watts, John
Shaw, David (Dover)	Wells, Bowen
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Whitney, Ray
	Whittingdale, John
Shersby, Sir Michael	Widdecombe, Ann
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Willetts, David
Soames, Nicholas	Wright, Dr Tony
Spencer, Sir Derek	Yeo, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Spink, Dr Robert
Spring, Richard	Tellers for the Ayes:
Streeter, Gary	Mr. Timothy Wood and
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Mr. Simon Burns.
NOES
Austin-Walker, John	Martlew, Eric
Barnes, Harry	Meale, Alan
Bennett, Andrew F	Michael, Alun
Campbell-Savours, D N	Simpson, Alan
	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Spearing, Nigel
Cox, Tom	Spellar, John
Dalyell, Tam	Winnick, David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Flynn, Paul	Tellers for the Noes:
Gunnell, John	Mr. Dennis Skinner and
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

§ Question accordingly agreed to.

§ Motion made, and Question put, That with effect from the beginning of the next Session— (1) Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) below shall have effect:

"(1) There shall be one or more standing committees, to be called Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation, for the consideration of such instruments (whether or not in draft) as may be referred to them.
(2) Any Member, not being a member of such a standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the Committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.
(3) Where a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order) be approved, the instrument shall stand referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, unless—

(a) notice has been given by a Minister of the Crown of a motion that the instrument shall not so stand referred, or
(b) the instrument is referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.

(4) Where a Member has given notice of—

(a) a motion for an humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or a motion of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument, or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or a motion that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or
(b) a motion that a measure under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent, or a motion relating to an instrument made under such a measure, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that the instrument be referred to such a committee, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the question being put, not fewer than twenty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, the Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.

(5) Each committee shall consider each instrument referred to it on a motion, 'That the committee has considered the instrument'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a motion, if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for one and a half hours (or, in the case of an instrument relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, two and a half hours) after the commencement of those proceedings; and the committee shall thereupon report the instrument to the House without any further question being put.
(6) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraphs (3) or (4) of this order, in relation to any instrument reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (5) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon and such question may be decided at any hour, though opposed."

(2) In paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees) and in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) for the words "statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments or measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such measures" there shall be substituted the words "instruments (whether or not in draft)". (3) Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)) shall be entitled "Delegated legislation (negative procedure)"; and at the end of the said Standing Order there shall be added the words "or be disapproved, or words to that effect". (4) Standing Order (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) below shall have effect:

"(1) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings under any Act of Parliament or on European Community documents not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of such proceedings, subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)).
(2) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."

(5) In Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) paragraph (1)(b) and the proviso thereto shall be omitted. (6) Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments)) shall be entitled "Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation)"; in paragraph (1)(a) of the said Standing Order for lines 5 to 7 there shall be substituted the words "of a similar character relating to a statutory instrument or to any other instrument (whether or not in draft) which may be subject to proceedings in the House in pursuance of a statute, or of a motion that the"; in paragraph (1)(b) of the said Standing Order for the words "a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument" there shall be substituted the words "an instrument (whether or not in draft) upon which proceedings may be taken in pursuance of an Act of Parliament (other than a draft deregulation order)"; and the words "or draft instrument" shall be omitted wherever in the said Standing Order they occur. (7) For paragraph (2)(e) of Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

"(e) motions relating to instruments (whether or not in draft) referred to it in accordance with Standing Order No. 94F (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation));". —[Mr. Newton.]

§ The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 14.

445

Division No. 229]	[6.32 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Alton, David	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Amess, David	Lidington, David
Arbuthnot, James	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Luff, Peter
Baldry, Tony	MacKay, Andrew
Bates, Michael	Maclennan, Robert
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	McLoughlin, Patrick
Bellingham, Henry	Major, Rt Hon John
Beresford, Sir Paul	Malone, Gerald
Body, Sir Richard	Mandelson, Peter
Boswell, Tim	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Martlew, Eric
Bowis, John	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Brandreth, Gyles	Merchant, Piers
Bright, Sir Graham	Michael, Alun
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Miller, Andrew
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Browning, Mrs Angela	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Burt, Alistair	Moss, Malcolm
Butterfill, John	Nelson, Anthony
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Neubert, Sir Michael
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Clappison, James	Nicholls, Patrick
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Norris, Steve
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Ottaway, Richard
Congdon, David	Page, Richard
Conway, Derek	Paice, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Pawsey, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Pickles, Eric
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Rathbone, Tim
Couchman, James	Rendel, David
Cran, James	Robathan, Andrew
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Rooker, Jeff
Duncan, Alan	Sackville, Tom
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Shaw, David (Dover)
Elletson, Harold	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Shersby, Sir Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Evans Jonathan (Brecon)	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
	Soames, Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Spellar, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Spencer, Sir Derek
Evennett, David
Faber, David	Spink, Dr Robert
Forth, Eric	Spring, Richard
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Streeter, Gary
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
French, Douglas	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Gale, Roger	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Gillan, Cheryl	Thomason, Roy
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Tredinnick, David
Gunnell, John	Trend, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith	Tyler, Paul
Hawkins, Nick	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Heald, Oliver	Ward, John
Hendry, Charles	Waterson, Nigel
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Watts, John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Wells, Bowen
Horam, John	Whittingdale, John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)	Widdecombe, Ann
Jack, Michael	Willetts, David
Jenkin, Bernard	Wood, Timothy
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Wright, Dr Tony
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)	Yeo, Tim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Kirkhope, Timothy
Kirkwood, Archy	Tellers for the Ayes:
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Mr. Roger Knapman and
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)	Mr. Simon Burns.

445

NOES
Bennett, Andrew F	Skinner, Dennis
Corbyn, Jeremy	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Cox, Tom	Spearing, Nigel
Dalyell, Tam	Wilkinson, John
Flynn, Paul	Winnick, David
Gill, Christopher
Mackinlay, Andrew	Tellers for the Noes:
Madden, Max	Mr. Harry Barnes and
Simpson, Alan	Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.

§ Question accordingly agreed to.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That with effect from the beginning of the next Session— (1) Standing Order (House not to sit on certain Fridays) below shall have effect:

"(1) The House shall not sit on ten Fridays in each Session to be appointed by the House.
(2) If a motion to appoint such Fridays is made by a Minister of the Crown the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.
(3) At its rising on the Thursday before each of the Fridays so appointed the House shall stand adjourned till the following Monday without any question being put, unless it shall have resolved otherwise.
(4) Unless the House shall have resolved to adjourn otherwise than from the previous Thursday to the following Monday, the Fridays so appointed shall be treated as sitting days for the purpose of calculating any period under any order of the House and for the purposes of paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments) and of Standing Order No. 62 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills); and on such Fridays—

(a) notices of questions may be given by Members to the Table Office, and
(b) notices of amendments to bills, new clauses and new schedules and of amendments to Lords amendments may be received by the Public Bill Office,

between eleven o'clock and three o'clock. (2) Standing Order (Wednesday sittings) below shall have effect:

"(1) The House shall meet on Wednesdays at half-past nine o'clock and shall between that hour and two o'clock proceed with a motion for the adjournment of the House made by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) Save as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) below, the subjects for debate on the said motion shall be chosen by ballot under arrangements made by the Speaker; and no subject shall be raised without notice.
(3) On the last Wednesday before any adjournment of the House for more than four days, the subject for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be "matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment".
(4) On not more than three Wednesdays in each Session to be appointed by the Speaker, the subject or subjects for debate on the said motion until half-past twelve o'clock shall be select committee reports chosen by the Liaison Committee.
(5) Not more than two subjects shall be raised before half-past twelve o'clock, and not more than three between that hour and two o'clock.
(6) A motion for the adjournment of the House not disposed of at two o'clock shall lapse and the sitting shall be suspended until half-past two o'clock; the House will then proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions; no subsequent motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made until all the questions asked at the commencement of public business have been disposed of; and, save as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that 446 should have urgent consideration), no Member other than a Minister of the Crown may make such a motion before the orders of the day or notices of motions shall have been entered upon."

(3) In paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) the words "Wednesdays " and "Wednesday" respectively shall be omitted; and in the proviso to paragraph (7) of the said Standing Order, after the word "o'clock" in line 57, there shall be inserted the words "in the evening". (4) Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings of the House (suspended sittings)) shall be repealed; the reference to the said Standing Order in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words from "conclusion" in line 10 to "and" in line 14 shall be omitted. (5) In Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business) paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) shall be omitted; in paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House) for the words from "returns" in line 4 to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "and questions"; in Standing Order No. 15A (New writs) the words "or notices of motion" shall be omitted; in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) the words "or notices of motions" in line 15 shall be omitted; and in paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions) the words "or motions" in line 18 shall be omitted. (6) In paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee) the word "and" in line 4 shall be omitted and after the word "Commission" in line 7 there shall be inserted the words "and

(c) to report to the House its choice of select committee reports to be debated on such Wednesdays as may be appointed by the Speaker in pursuance of paragraph (4) of Standing Order (Wednesday sittings)".

(7) Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Periodic adjournments) below shall have effect: When a motion shall have been made by a Minister of the Crown for the adjournment of the House for a specified period or periods, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, and may be decided at any hour, though opposed. (8) Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall be repealed and Standing Order (Consolidated Fund Bills) below shall have effect: When a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, no order shall be made for the committal of the bill and the question for third reading shall be put forthwith; and the said questions may be decided at any hour, though opposed. (9) In paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) the words "or any Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill" shall be omitted.—[Mr. Newton.]

§ Amendment proposed: (a), in paragraph (2)(1), after `shall', insert: 'except on four such days to be appointed by the House' —[Mr. Bennett.]

§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—

§ The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 113.

447

Division No. 230]	[6.43 pm
AYES
Alton, David	Gale, Roger
Barnes, Harry	Gunnell, John
Boateng, Paul	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Campbell-Savours, D N	Mackinlay, Andrew
Corbyn, Jeremy	Maclennan, Robert
Cox, Tom	Madden, Max
Dalyell, Tam	Mandelson, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Martlew, Eric
Flynn, Paul	Michael, Alun

447

Rendel, David	Winnick, David
Simpson, Alan	Wright, Dr Tony
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Spellar, John	Mr. Nigel Spearing and
Tyler, Paul	Mr. Andrew F. Bennell.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Amess, David	Kirkhope, Timothy
Arbuthnot, James	Kirkwood, Archy
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Baldry, Tony	Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Bates, Michael	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Bellingham, Henry	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Beresford, Sir Paul	Lidington, David
Boswell, Tim	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Luff, Peter
Bowis, John	MacKay, Andrew
Brandreth, Gyles	McLoughlin, Patrick
Bright, Sir Graham	Malone, Gerald
Browning, Mrs Angela	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Burt, Alistair	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Butterfill, John	Merchant, Piers
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Nelson, Anthony
Clappison, James	Neubert, Sir Michael
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Nicholls, Patrick
Congdon, David	Norris, Steve
Conway, Derek	Ottaway, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Page, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Paice, James
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Pawsey, James
Couchman, James	Pickles, Eric
Cran, James	Rathbone, Tim
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Robathan, Andrew
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)
Duncan, Alan	Rooker, Jeff
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Sackville, Tom
Elletson Harold	Shaw, David (Dover)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Shersby, Sir Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
	Soames, Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Spencer, Sir Derek
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Spink, Dr Robert
Evennett, David	Spring, Richard
Faber, David	Streeter, Gary
Forth, Eric	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Thomason, Roy
French, Douglas	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Gillan, Cheryl	Trend, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Waterson, Nigel
Hampson, Dr Keith	Watts, John
Hawkins, Nick	Wells, Bowen
Heald, Oliver	Whittingdale, John
Hendry, Charles	Widdecombe, Ann
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Willetts, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Wood, Timothy
Horam, John	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Jack, Michael	Tellers for the Noes:
Jenkin, Bernard	Mr. Simon Burns and
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Mr. Roger Knapman.

§ Question accordingly negatived.

448

§ Amendment proposed: (c), in paragraph (5), leave out 'paragraphs (7), (8) and (9)' and insert 'paragraph (7) shall be omitted, in paragraph (8) the words 'On four days other than Fridays' shall be omitted and the words 'On not less than four Mondays' shall be inserted, and in paragraph (9) the words from the first word 'House' to the first word 'Notice'.' —[Mr. Spearing.]

§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—

§ The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 116.

449

Division No. 231]	[6.54 pm
NOES
Barnes, Harry	Madden, Max
Boateng, Paul	Mandelson, Peter
Campbell-Savours, D N	Michael, Alun
Corbyn, Jeremy	Simpson, Alan
Cox, Tom	Skinner, Dennis
Dalyell, Tam	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
	Spellar, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Winnick, David
Flynn, Paul
Gordon, Mildred	Tellers for the Ayes:
Gunnell, John	Mr. Nigel Spearing and
Mackinlay, Andrew	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Alton, David	Hampson, Dr Keith
Amess, David	Hawkins, Nick
Arbuthnot, James	Heald, Oliver
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Hendry, Charles
Baldry, Tony	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Bates, Michael	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Horam, John
Bellingham, Henry	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Jack, Michael
Boswell, Tim	Jenkin, Bernard
Bowis, John	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Brandreth, Gyles	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Bright, Sir Graham	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Browning, Mrs Angela	Kirkhope, Timothy
Burns, Simon	Kirkwood, Archy
Burt, Alistair	Knapman, Roger
Butterfill, John	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Clappison, James	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Lidington, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Congdon, David	Luff, Peter
Conway, Derek	MacKay, Andrew
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Malone, Gerald
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Couchman, James	Martlew, Eric
Cran, James	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Merchant, Piers
Duncan, Alan	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Nelson, Anthony
Elletson, Harold	Neubert, Sir Michael
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Nicholls, Patrick
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Norris, Steve
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Page, Richard
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Paice, James
Evennett, David	Pawsey, James
Faber, David	Pickles, Eric
Forth, Eric	Rathbone, Tim
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Rendel, David
French, Douglas	Robathan, Andrew
Gale, Roger	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Gillan, Cheryl	Rooker, Jeff

449

Sackville, Tom	Tyler, Paul
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Waterson, Nigel
Shersby, Sir Michael	Watts, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Wells, Bowen
Soames, Nicholas	Whittingdale, John
Spencer, Sir Derek	Widdecombe, Ann
Spink, Dr Robert	Willetts, David
Spring, Richard	Wood, Timothy
Streeter, Gary	Wright, Dr Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Thomason, Roy	Tellers for the Noes:
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Dr. Liam Fox and
Trend, Michael	Mr. Richard Ottaway.

§ Question accordingly negatived.

§ Main Question agreed to.

§ Motion made, and Question put, That with effect from the beginning of the next Session Standing Order No. 45A (Short speeches) shall be repealed and the following Standing Order (Short speeches) shall have effect: The Speaker may announce at the commencement of proceedings on any motion or order of the day relating to public business that she intends to call Members to speak for not more than ten minutes in the debate thereon, or between certain hours during that debate, and whenever the Speaker has made such an announcement she may direct any Member (other than a Minister of the Crown, a Member speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, or not more than one Member nominated by the leader of the second largest opposition party) who has spoken for ten minutes to resume his seat forthwith."—[Mr. Newton.]

§ The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 12.

450

Division No. 232]	[7.04 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Alton, David	Campbell-Savours, D N
Amess, David	Chapman, Sir Sydney
Arbuthnot, James	Clappison, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Baldry, Tony	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Bates, Michael	Congdon, David
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Conway, Derek
Bellingham, Henry	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Boswell, Tim	Couchman, James
Brandreth, Gyles	Cran, James
Bright, Sir Graham	Dowd, Jim
Browning, Mrs Angela	Duncan, Alan
Burns, Simon	Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Burt, Alistair	Elletson, Harold
Butterfill, John	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

450

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Nelson, Anthony
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Neubert, Sir Michael
Evennett, David	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Forth, Eric	Nicholls, Patrick
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Norris, Steve
French, Douglas	Page, Richard
Gale, Roger	Paice, James
Gillan, Cheryl	Pawsey, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Pickles, Eric
Gunnell, John	Rathbone, Tim
Hamilton, Sir Archibald	Rendel, David
Hampson, Dr Keith	Robathan, Andrew
Hawkins, Nick	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Heald, Oliver	Rooker, Jeff
Hendry, Charles	Sackville, Tom
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Shaw, David (Dover)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Shersby, Sir Michael
Horam, John	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)	Soames, Nicholas
Jack, Michael	Spellar, John
Jenkin, Bernard	Spencer, Sir Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Spink, Dr Robert
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)	Spring, Richard
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Streeter, Gary
King, Rt Hon Tom	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Kirkhope, Timothy	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Knapman, Roger	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Thomason, Roy
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Trend, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Tyler, Paul
Lidington, David	Waterson, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Watts, John
Luff, Peter	Wells, Bowen
MacKay, Andrew	Whittingdale, John
McLoughlin, Patrick	Widdecombe, Ann
Malone, Gerald	Wood, Timothy
Mandelson, Peter	Wright, Dr Tony
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Martlew, Eric
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian	Tellers for the Ayes:
Merchant, Piers	Dr. Liam Fox and
Michael, Alun	Mr. Richard Ottaway.
NOES
Barnes, Harry	Simpson, Alan
Bennett, Andrew F	Skinner, Dennis
Corbyn, Jeremy	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Cousins, Jim	Spearing, Nigel
Dalyell, Tam
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Tellers for the Noes:
Gordon, Mildred	Mr. Tom Cox and
Madden, Max	Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

§ Question accordingly agreed to.