HC Deb 28 June 1999 vol 334 cc15-7
37. Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden)

What progress has been made in reforming the procedures of the House since May 1997. [87237]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)

The procedure for the scrutiny of European Union legislation has been overhauled. New mechanisms for pre-legislative scrutiny are in operation. That is probably the most significant reform that we have introduced. Certain old-fashioned aspects of conduct in the Chamber have been updated. We are experimenting with sitting hours, and I look forward to the autumn when we begin to experiment with sittings in Westminster Hall.

Siobhain McDonagh

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree with me that while many of the changes, particularly those relating to behaviour in the Chamber, are important, pre-legislative scrutiny will lead to better legislation on behalf of our constituents? As a result, we shall be able truly to consider proposals in a more balanced light and, if necessary, bring about changes.

Mrs. Beckett

Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I believe that that process will be conducive to fundamental changes leading to more efficient and orderly management of the House, as well as substantial improvement to what is in many ways our prime purpose in being here. The Committees have worked on four draft Bills so far and a joint Committee has been established on the draft local government organisation and standards Bill. The draft freedom of information Bill is before the Public Administration Committee and another Select Committee in the Lords. I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that all these measures will lead to an improvement in the quality of legislation.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

Was not one reform where the Government hoped to make progress that of injecting greater certainty into the parliamentary calendar? As the date of the summer recess is still shrouded in uncertainty, does the right hon. Lady propose to give further attention to that matter?

Mrs. Beckett

As I have just said, making the parliamentary calendar more predictable was certainly one of the aims, but that is only a knock-on and beneficial consequence of our fundamental aim, which is to have good scrutiny of legislation. Although we have made progress on pre-legislative scrutiny in Committee, there are other aspects of management of the House's affairs where perhaps we have not yet made quite so much progress. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that with both Kosovo and Northern Ireland, this has been an exceptional year.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

Will my right hon. Friend look seriously at the way in which the American legislature deals with giving individual members independent and accurate advice on legislation? If we were to have the equivalent of the general accounting office available to the House, Members would be able to assess the accuracy of the information that they were being given by Government Departments and by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, and do something about it. That might be a distinct improvement.

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important, serious and interesting point. What she says is to some degree the direction in which the House has been going, with the increase in numbers of staff who are available to hon. Members, with the precise purpose of ensuring that those Members carry out their role more effectively. My hon. Friend's underlying point about a fresh facility for the House is one not merely for me but one that may come under discussion in the years ahead in the House of Commons Commission and other such bodies.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

Following the right hon. Lady's previous answers, does she agree that one of the most important recommendations from the Modernisation Committee, which she chairs, relates to the management of business in the House? I understand that 14 Bills have been the subject of agreed programme motions. Unfortunately, we have still had a number of guillotine motions. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the former are preferable to the latter? What efforts will she make to try to ensure that measures are implemented in the next few months to make certain that we have more agreed programme motions?

At various stages 14 Bills have been the subject of agreed programme motions—we have been able to debate them in time and we have had opportunities to take decisions at the right moment—but will the right hon. Lady note that only one Bill has been the subject of a programme motion in Standing Committee? Is she disappointed by that, and what steps can be taken to improve upon that?

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

Discuss.

Mrs. Beckett

An essay, I think.

I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is infinitely preferable to have agreed programme motions than for the Government to introduce guillotines, which under this Government have always followed on what we have seen—although no doubt this would be contested—as exploitation of time, rather than use of time properly to scrutinise legislation. In a sense, the imposition of a guillotine suggests the failure of the notion that underlies a programme motion—that all Bills should be properly scrutinised in all their aspects.

The further use of programme motions would require agreement and good will in all parts of the House. It has been evident of late that the view expressed at the outset by the Leader of the Opposition that all Bills should have programme motions is not entirely shared by all on his Benches. However, we shall continue to try to build good will and sensible understanding to the benefit of the public whom we are here to serve.