| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.24 pm
Ms Beverley Hughes (Stretford and Urmston): I should like to comment on one or two of the contributions and points that have been made.
We have heard much in the press--indeed, it has been rehearsed tonight, in part, by my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich and Crewe--that the thrust for some of the modernisation reforms has arisen from the arrival in the House of many new Members. The perception is that they have a different agenda as to how the House procedures should work.
It is worth remembering that, before the Labour party came into government, Labour Members who were here identified--well before the arrival of new Labour Members--that it was important to include in our reforms the question of how far the House needed reforming. That commitment to the electorate in our manifesto arose from the experience of those Members who were here in opposition. Although new Members may endorse all or part of that agenda, it has arisen not from any particular agenda that we brought, but from the experience of Labour Members who have been in the House a long time in opposition.
Mr. Tyler:
Will the hon. Lady also acknowledge that it was not one single party? Part of this proposal came out of the Maclennan discussions between our two parties, so it is a broadly based proposition.
Ms Hughes:
I am happy to acknowledge that.
It is worth rehearsing as well the reasons why Members at that time thought that reform was important. One of the important reasons was the understanding that the public perception of politics, of politicians and of what was going on in the House had fallen into disrepute. They thought that something needed to be done to reinforce public confidence and esteem in the parliamentary process, and that we needed to consider how far procedures as they were then and, to some extent, still are now, needed to come into the modern world and to address the agenda for the next century, rather than previous centuries. I am certainly not one of those who wants to jettison tradition for its own sake--I do not feel that at all--but I support the process of examining how far we need to make measured and necessary changes to bring the parliamentary process into the modern age.
Again, the press has made much of the fact that that agenda might include such things as reform of working hours. That is important. I do not want to dissociate myself from those issues. As someone who has been a working parent for 20 years, juggling paid work, politics and parenting, I find that nothing irritates me more than being leashed to the voting Lobby until 11, 12 or later at night, when I could be doing more useful things.
However, as important as that is, I fully endorse the view that that is not the primary objective of the modernisation process. Its primary objectives must be to enhance the quality of legislation and the quality and effectiveness of procedures, and to maximise Members' expertise and the effective use of their time. Indeed, some Members have raised other issues that are also important, such as the ability to scrutinise legislation more effectively and to hold the Executive to account.
As a Back-Bench Labour Member, I fully support that. That is part of our role, but, although we are considering measures tonight that do not get to the heart of those important issues, what we are considering is a necessary prerequisite to get to that stage. To enhance our ability to scrutinise legislation and to hold the Executive to account, we need a cultural change in parts of this place--in this Chamber and in Standing Committees. I believe that Standing Committees have potential in that regard. It is far from being realised at present, certainly for some Government Back Benchers. However, although we are not there yet, what we are talking about tonight is, as I have said, an essential prerequisite for dealing with those further questions.
I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich and Crewe, both for her expertise--
Mrs. Dunwoody:
Perhaps we could call it Crewe and Nantwich?
Ms Hughes:
I beg my hon. Friend's pardon--it would indeed be enormously helpful if constituencies were shown on the annunciator. I thought that her constituency was Crewe and Nantwich, but was repeating what an experienced Member said earlier, obviously incorrectly.
I have enormous respect for the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for her speech, and listened very seriously to the points that she made. I do not share her view on two points. First, I think that the quality of many speeches and debates will be improved if there is a focus, which is sometimes--when appropriate--provided by imposing a time limit.
Secondly, some hon. Members seem to have assumed that time limits will automatically result in whittled-down speeches. However, the report makes it clear that discretion will rest entirely with Madam Speaker, and that she will decide when time limits are necessary and what those time limits should be. I think that we can all have confidence that--in exercising her role in protecting hon. Members' right to participate in debates--she will allay those concerns. I therefore think that the amendment on short speeches would assist in improving the quality of our speeches and debates.
I should like to raise only one other issue--as I am keeping my speech short, in line with the general content of my speech. I believe that discipline and structure--words about which other hon. Members have expressed concern in this debate--can provide benefits if part of a framework, which is what a debate timetable can be. Over time, the benefits of a disciplined and structured approach can also be realised in the parliamentary process.
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole):
It is important that change should be incremental. As I am both a Conservative and a conservative, I think that it is a pity that we are making changes so early in a Parliament. Usually, there is a reason for things being the way they are. As our Parliament has been going for centuries, traditions have developed that are built around the rights of individual Members. One should therefore be very careful about changing too quickly what has gone before, as there may be a very good reason for it--although that reason may not be obvious to a new hon. Member, such as myself.
I am very pleased with the new format for the Order Paper. I must say that, when first elected, I was one of those who could not understand the Order Paper format. The key point is that change should be incremental.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned the confrontational atmosphere in the Chamber. I think that the House is sometimes at its best in such an atmosphere. In how many Chambers in the world is there real heat in debate? It is not so much what people say, but the expression on their face, what they are doing with their hands, or whether they are jumping from foot to foot.
I think that our system is very good. When mistakes are made, and when people are called to account our system, it is second to none in the world.
Our intervention system is also very good, and allows rather more spontaneous debates. On many occasions--particularly when Ministers are generous in giving way--it allows hon. Members to elicit more information and a fuller explanation of a clause or Bill, which is beneficial to all hon. Members, and sometimes saves not only speeches but time.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on speeches. Although limiting speeches seems to be a trend around the world, one of the few powers that we have as hon. Members is the ability to speak for our constituents and constituency. Although limits may not be so bad if there are 400 hon. Members of one party, many of whom can speak for eight or 10 minutes to make a point, we must have regard also to the hon. Members who belong to extremely small parties. At some point, they may want to have their say, and may need more than eight or 10 minutes to do so. The House may be 659 in number, but we must have regard to the ones and the twos, who have a perfect right to have their say and to make their representations. We should not think purely within the context of the major parties, because this is a Chamber for all.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made a very important point on the annunciator, which I find very difficult to see up in the rafters. Unless one clocks the clock in the Chamber or is kicked by someone on the shins, one does not know when to stop speaking. Earlier this week, my speech was cut off when I was in full flight. One feels an idiot when such things happen, and it is difficult for the occupant of the Chair. It is also undignified.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |