HC Deb 11 March 1996 vol 273 cc646-8
33. Mr. Bayley

To ask the Lord President of the Council what procedural measures he proposes to increase the accountability of Ministers to the House. [18024]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)

The Government will contribute to the Public Service Committee's examination of ministerial accountability in the light of the Scott report. Sir Richard made no specific recommendations about the procedural arrangements of the House, but I am always ready to consider suggestions on procedural matters from hon. Members or from the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Bayley

In response to the Scott report, the Government claimed, ad nauseam, that Ministers had not knowingly misled Parliament, but the word "knowingly" was added to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" only in July last year. Was it simply added to provide an alibi for the Government in the knowledge that the Scott report was coming? Will the Leader of the House consider removing the word from "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" so that Ministers who transgress must do what Lord Carrington more honourably did after the outbreak of hostilities in the south Atlantic, and resign?

Mr. Newton

The hon. Gentleman seems to be attempting to rerun a substantial debate that we have already had. If the Public Service Committee wishes to raise such points, no doubt they will be considered, but I find it a bit difficult to see why something that is done unknowingly should incur the wrath that the hon. Gentleman would like to bestow on it.

Mr. Wilkinson

Will my right hon. Friend look again at Friday sittings? Non-sitting Fridays deny Back-Bench Members of Parliament a valuable opportunity to table a private notice question. They also deny Ministers what can be a valuable opportunity to make a ministerial statement at 11 am on a matter quite unforeseen and of great national importance.

Mr. Newton

My general view is that the House collectively feels that the changes that were made following the Jopling report have been working rather well—including those that come up in a later question—and have given considerably increased opportunities to Back-Bench Members. I have no plans for a change at present.

Mr. Spearing

Would not the accountability of Ministers be improved if the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—in a later question on the Order Paper—for a Question Time on European Union matters were adopted? Would it not also be entirely compatible with protocol 13 of the treaty of Maastricht? Would not the Government be in a stronger position in respect of their colleagues in the European Union if they adopted the proposal of my hon. Friend and reverted to the practice before 1979?

Mr. Newton

The question whether there should be a dedicated Question Time on European matters has been looked at once or twice in the past and has not seemed to be a good idea. The Scrutiny Committee, which is currently conducting a further inquiry into the operation of scrutiny arrangements, might wish to make such a suggestion, although I am not aware at present that it is looking at that.