§ 44. Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge)What representations she has received about programme motions for legislation. [159333]
§ The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)A number of Conservative Members have continued to oppose any use of programme motions, but I believe that many Members consider that the Sessional Orders do not 18 go far enough. Refinements to the present experimental procedures have been suggested by the Modernisation Committee in its first report of this Session.
§ Mrs. CampbellI thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has she had time to analyse the points that have been made during programme motion debates? Does she agree that they tend to be repetitive and that we should consider whether those programme motions are really necessary?
§ Mrs. BeckettMy hon. Friend makes an important point. She takes a close interest in those matters, so I am sure that she knows that that issue was discussed by the Modernisation Committee and lay behind the production of our most recent report, which commanded support across the Committee and from all parties. Sadly, however, on this occasion, that support was not unanimous.
§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)Does the right hon. Lady accept that Conservative Members have opposed programme motions because they are guillotines in disguise and were introduced without regard for the nature or complexity of the Bills in question and without any proper consultation with the Opposition? In fact, they are a disgraceful treatment of Parliament.
§ Mrs. BeckettNo, I am afraid I do not accept any of those points.
§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)Does my right hon. Friend accept that the matter is not one that should be debated on a party basis? The quality of the scrutiny that legislation receives ought to be important for the House of Commons. Is it not a sad commentary that the cumulative effect of many changes has been to remove better scrutiny? The suggestion that somehow programme motions should be debated without talking about programming shows a sad want of understanding of what happens in the House.
§ Mrs. BeckettMy hon. Friend has from the beginning expressed opposition to the experiment. She is right that different points of view exist on both sides of the House. However, I simply repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). There was support from all parties for the Modernisation Committee's most recent report. It is by no means insignificant that the present and past Chairs of the Select Committee on Procedure, both of whom are experienced, supported it.
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)While supporting the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in her desire to achieve better scrutiny in the House, may I ask the Leader of the House whether she will guarantee that the recommendations of the recently issued first report of the Modernisation Committee—which she chairs—will be implemented? She will be aware that there was some cross-party support for the report, not least from me, because the way in which we introduce programming is not working, as she knows. It is vital that the recommendations and guidance 19 of the Modernisation Committee are implemented at an early stage of the next Parliament, whichever party is in government.
§ Mrs. BeckettThe hon. Gentleman is right to identify the fact that, to a certain extent, there is an understanding. Although I would not venture to agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I accept that we have all been learning from the initial experiment and that improvements can be made to achieve genuinely better opportunities for scrutiny. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be the first to remind me that it is not for me to say what the House will decide, but I take his point that the House should have an opportunity to pronounce on the recommendations of the most recent report of the Modernisation Committee and that, as always, that should be done on a free vote.