| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The President of the Council was asked--
Human Rights Select Committee
33. Mr. Corbyn: If she will examine the case for establishing a human rights Select Committee. [31438]
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The White Paper "Rights Brought Home" said that the Government favoured the establishment of a new parliamentary Committee with functions relating to human rights. We intend to take into account what is said during the passage of the Human Rights Bill before deciding what form of parliamentary Committee to recommend to the House.
Mr. Corbyn: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to meet a group of hon. Members who take a particular interest in human rights issues to discuss how that Committee might be set up? Will she recognise that, as human rights are now at the forefront of the Government's foreign policy, it is quite difficult for the Foreign Affairs Committee to deal with human rights issues around the world as well as British foreign policy interests? Does she agree that we would be better off if we did what many other Parliaments do and had a separate, dedicated human rights committee that can take up and investigate human rights issues in the world and try to bring them to the attention of the British Parliament and, obviously, the Government?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that my hon. Friend anticipates some of the discussions that will take place in Committee on the Human Rights Bill. I am always available to meet hon. Members who wish to speak to me about these
issues, but we should judge the timing of any such meeting by what is said in Committee on the Human Rights Bill.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the President of the Council for her answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and join in pursuing his request. Is she as convinced as I am that it would do a great service to the House and to Parliament if we were seen to use the best experiences of other Parliaments to set up a body, potentially involving Members from both Houses, to examine human rights matters in this country and abroad? If the right hon. Lady is willing to come to a view after the Human Rights Bill has left Committee, that would be hugely welcome and could lead to a long overdue reform of the processes of this place.
Mrs. Taylor: I said in my original reply that the White Paper states that we favour the establishment of a parliamentary Committee. However, we should not prejudge what form it might take or whether it might be a Joint Committee but should wait until the Human Rights Bill has left Committee. Those matters are all aspects of the discussion that we shall take into account, and, of course, we shall consult widely.
Private Members' Bills
34. Mr. Hanson: What proposals she has to review the procedure for consideration of private Members' Bills. [31439]
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I have no current plans to do so.
Mr. Hanson: In the interests of modernisation, which I know she shares, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of timetabling private Members' Bills so that all stages of Bills that have the overwhelming support of hon. Members, such as that promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), have an opportunity to be considered and voted upon, and a small number of hon. Members do not have an opportunity to filibuster them out of existence?
Mrs. Taylor: I share my hon. Friend's deep disappointment at the antics of Conservative Members on Friday. He knows that the time that is available for private Members' Bills is established by the House. If the Government sought to change the rules, there would be a great deal of interest in the House. For example, if we changed the rules for one Bill, there would be legitimate arguments by the promoters and sponsors of others that they had been treated unfairly. In its first report, the Modernisation Committee said that it may wish to give attention to how private Members' Bills are treated.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Government have made it clear that hunting with hounds is not an issue that will be dealt with by public legislation, is it not an insult to democracy for them to make no time available for further consideration of the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, particularly bearing in mind that only one weekday is needed? Rather than engaging in political exchanges, does the right hon. Lady appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel strongly about this issue
believe that they have been sold down the river, basically because assurances were given in writing by people who now serve as Ministers?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that one day is still available for the Bill and that, if matters were as simple as he suggests, the Bill would make further progress this Friday. Ministers' assurances that there would be a free vote on the issue have been upheld--Labour Members have had a free vote--but there would be great problems in giving extra time at this stage and adverse consequences for the passage of the Government's business, which must take priority.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a seminar for Back Benchers in which she can explain that Back Benchers' ability to hold up legislation or to progress it is one of their last remaining powers and that those who talk about timetabling Bills do Back Benchers, irrespective of their party and certainly of the rubbish that goes on, a great disservice? Under the guise of modernisation, Back Benchers have already lost the power to vote on a number of Back-Bench issues, and have gained in return Adjournment debates that give them no power.
Mrs. Taylor: The changes have helped many Back Benchers to have important Adjournment debates on Wednesday mornings, and that provision is widely appreciated by the House; but my hon. Friend is right to point out that private Members' Bills depend on the overall will of the House. It would be difficult to reach agreement that there should be the type of timetabling that has been suggested. If I were to organise a seminar on these matters, I would ensure that she was one of the speakers.
Mr. Hancock: I am sure that the President of the Council shares the view that a majority of hon. Members are disenchanted with what happened last Friday and that a majority of people in the country are disappointed with the way in which Tories and others behaved. Will she consider proposing that the House should sit on Tuesday and Thursday mornings to give the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill a fair chance of succeeding in all aspects of its passage through the House and that that should set a precedent for other private Members' Bills that might be similarly affected by the bizarre behaviour of hon. Members who want to frustrate democratic processes in the House?
Mrs. Taylor: I am aware that there is considerable concern about the Bill both inside and outside the House. I was one of the people who stayed here last Friday to vote for the Bill and I shall do so again this Friday. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, were the Government to seek to change the rules for one Bill, promoters and sponsors of other Bills would have legitimate objections. We have to deal with these matters fairly. As I have said, it is one of the topics to which the Modernisation Committee may wish to turn its attention in the not too distant future.
Parliamentary Year
35. Mr. Bradshaw: What proposals she has to reform the parliamentary year; and if she will make a statement. [31441]
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Modernisation Committee will consider the matter shortly, now that it has completed its work on the two reports that were published thismorning: one on conduct in the Chamber, including recommendations on short speeches, precedence for Privy Councillors and the use of top hats; the other on the carry-over of Bills. I commend both reports to the House.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and I congratulate her on her reports. Am I right in thinking that, with Easter barely a month away, we still do not know if or when there will be an Easter recess, let alone a Whitsun or summer recess? Does she accept that many hon. Members would gladly settle for shorter recesses if they were more predictable, so that we could plan our lives?
Mrs. Taylor: I did indicate, in the first week the House sat in January, the likely dates of the Easter recess. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will appreciate that, with the business ahead of us and the
fact that we sometimes have to wait for Committees to finish or for Bills to come back from the House of Lords, it is difficult to anticipate the details of business a long time in advance. However, we are now giving two weeks' notice of business wherever possible and an early indication--even if it is sometimes in general terms--of other major events and when recesses are likely to be.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for the leadership she has given to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. Does she accept that the agreement on the carry over--and it has to be with agreement that Bills are carried over--will make it easier to define a parliamentary year? While I do not necessarily associate myself with everything the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) said, does the right hon. Lady accept that there would be a widespread welcome for a more structured parliamentary year?
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. It will be for the convenience of the House if we experiment with the carry-over procedure, and I believe that we will be able to make progress on that. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, if we manage to use that procedure successfully, it may be possible to anticipate, with greater certainty, the likely pace of the parliamentary year and when the recesses might occur.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |