| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraph 20(a)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Chairman of Committees explained, I tabled the amendment to resolve the choice set out in paragraphs 17 to 21 of the report. As the Chairman of Committees said, the question of switching the general debate day was first discussed in the House on 22 March 1999 and, as the report explains, again on 23 January 2001. On that occasion four years ago, I moved the successful amendment. I have no complaint about revisiting the matter. Since then, we have almost 100 new Members in the House and we have lost some of our former colleagues. Other Members are entitled to change their views. I only ask newer Members in particular not to consider this as a trivial matter, a detail of procedure on the fringe of the larger issue of reform discussed in the House two months ago.
I agree that a switch between Wednesday and Thursday is almost certainly more convenient for a majority of Members. In effect, the House would have a two and a half day working parliamentary week and, except for a few days in the spring and summer, Members would have no further serious obligations on Thursdays. We would arrive, if we chose, on Monday afternoon, and more often than not we would leave just before dinner on Wednesday or probably soon after. In the debate six years ago the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was eloquent on the case for change, and the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, among others, made a strong case for change on the basis of inconvenience for
24 Mar 2005 : Column 368
those living and working in the north, Scotland and the other territorial extremities. The case for change was repeated in the debate four years ago rather more forcefully. I fully understood then, and I understand now, the difficulties and irritation of travelling back and forth twice a week when that seems necessary. For Members coming from distant places, it would be much easier and more convenient to switch Wednesday and Thursday.
It would also be generally convenient for busy Ministers and Government Back-Benchers even if they live and work in or near London, although in that case I am rather less sympathetic about hardship. If there was a switch, a majority of Ministers would be free on Thursday to get on with their work in their departments or stretch their visits around the country or abroad. There would be fewer unexpected events to dislocate their orderly business. I readily admit that for 11 years as Minister in the Commons I occasionally found Parliament rather a nuisance that absorbed too much of my time, but Ministers should always remember that Parliament comes first and government follows. As for Back-Benchers, there is nothing more wearisome than hanging around just in case there might be an unexpected Division, but that is the price one pays when one party wins an election and implements its legislative programme.
Nowadays, the House is expected to pack up on Thursday about 7 p.m., but if there was a switch Thursday would become a relaxed day with few obligations; the beginning of a long, long-weekend. That begs the question of whether switching Wednesday and Thursday is significant. Are we making rather too much fuss? Many of our Members who make an immense contribution to the work of the Chamber and in committees successfully combine that with important obligations outside. I believe that they will not reduce their parliamentary work if the House effectively has a two and a half day week. But I also believe that sooner or later, perhaps imperceptibly or over a Parliament, Thursday will begin to die. There will be a poorer attendance at Questions and fewer speakers in general debates. There will be fewer Members in the Corridors and Lobbies, the Library, the Guest Room, the Bishops' Bar, the Dining Room and elsewhere. This place will be like any half-closed place of work—empty of life and flat.
The processes of Parliament are more complex and subtle than an office or institution in either the public or the private sector. The personal contacts and relationships within and across parties help to create the fabric of its effective role. A two-and-a-half-day legislative week will give this Executive or any executive—the government of the day—a little more freedom at a time when, by common consent, they are becoming much too dominant.
I recognise convenience. I also acknowledge the family-friendly spirit of the age. I accept the need to strike a balance between obligations and interests. But we should hold fast to Parliament, of which this House is an integral part, and not allow the erosion of its weight and influence. I beg to move.
24 Mar 2005 : Column 369
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraph 20(a)".—(Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.)
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, as the two amendments are being taken together, it is appropriate that I speak now. My amendment is of course contradictory to that of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. It would, in effect, sanction the changing of the general debates from Wednesday to Thursday. My arguments too are different from and contrary to his. I submit that the House is now being given a much greater opportunity to hold the Government to task in a number of ways, which I will explain. On the previous occasion when we debated the matter, it was a three-day working week; it is now a two and a half day working week. But the workload of the House has increased considerably, and there are many avenues through which Members make their contribution to the work of the House without sitting for any length of time in this Chamber.
The House has changed considerably. It has changed in its membership; as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, nearly 100 Members—I think that it is 96—have entered it since we previously debated the issue. If we take the changes in membership and in how we work that have taken place since 1999, they are considerable and important.
In the 1999 discussion, the focus of the debate was on the importance of general debates on Wednesdays. It was even held by some that those debates were of equal importance to the scrutiny of legislation. I found that argument difficult to accept then, and it is impossible to accept it at present. Of course the Wednesday general debates are useful and of interest. On occasion, they are extremely important—when the House is looking at some issue that is non-partisan but perhaps political or social and emerging into the public arena, or when the matters are rather sensitive and difficult to debate in other forums.
However, general debates on Wednesdays have to be taken in the context of the business of the House as a whole. In all the consideration given to the role of this Chamber when we have debated the future of the House of Lords, there has been unanimity on the overriding importance of the House as a revising Chamber. The methods of revising and calling the Government to account have been extended, and I shall mention some of them.
We now take the Committee stage of some Bills off the Floor of the House and put them into Grand Committee. Some minor business of the House that does not necessarily require the whole attention of everyone takes place in the same way. That enables the House simultaneously to consider two sets of business. Many Members did not like the change to the way in which we handled Committees. I confess that I had reservations about it myself; I did not realise until I came to this House how many conservative strains there were in my nature. But that change has been very useful and valid. We need the time to deal, at different times of the week, with different sets of government and House business.
24 Mar 2005 : Column 370
More draft Bills are now considered by a joint pre-legislative scrutiny committee. Many Bills are considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The House's own Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has grown in influence and power. That has all increased the opportunities of the House to influence policy and call the Government to account.
So too has the increased number of Select Committees. When I joined the House in 1978, there were only two Select Committees—those on science and technology and on Europe. There are now at least three permanent Select Committees—the Science and Technology Committee, the European Union Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee. Then there is the Constitution Committee, and from time to time other ad hoc Select Committees are set up to deal with specific issues of great importance.
That adds up to a much increased workload for the House. It cannot be spread over two and a half days and will not be. It will be spread over the week as it is now.
The general debates have to be considered in the context of the changes that I have mentioned. There is now more work competing for the prime day of Wednesday. It is not beyond the ingenuity of government business managers and the usual channels, because both have to agree, for a sensible allocation of time to be worked out, both for Government business and for influencing the policies of the nation through all the other ways that I have suggested.
The House prides itself on being representative and I think that it is. All the professions, business people, people from the public sector, the voluntary sector and the charitable sector, and people involved in family affairs are represented in this House. But we are not so representative when it comes to regional representation. Again, in the consideration of reforms of this House, it was almost unanimously agreed that we need to have more regional representation.
I suggest that it might be a good idea for the House to start by becoming more region-friendly. When that issue was considered previously and again today, the question of the convenience of Members, particularly those such as myself who come from the north of England, have been mentioned. I would suggest that it is not a matter of personal convenience, but it is a matter to better facilitate all Members of your Lordships' House, so that they can bring in their important outside interests to add to the value of our debates in that way. I do not see that that would be diminished in any way by moving Wednesdays' debates to Thursdays. It would give us greater flexibility, but would not bring about any great changes.
Attendance in this Chamber is no indication of the strength of involvement of your Lordships. Wednesday debates can be an example. On 16 March, I sat in for the whole of the first debate—apart from the last three minutes. I sat in because I thought that that debate on the future of our 16 to 18 year-olds was important, although I was not speaking. Yet, during that debate, putting aside the Front Benches, there
24 Mar 2005 : Column 371
were not more than 20 Members in the Chamber at any one time. The core was around 14 or 15 and other Members came in and out as they felt fit. It was not until the last few minutes of the debate, when other Members began coming in for the next debate, that there were more than 20 Members in the Chamber—and it was, again, probably less than 30.
So, we cannot take that as an indication, because on that very same day, according to the records of the House, some 399 Members were present in the House at some time on some aspect of your Lordship's business. I suggest that there would be little difference if we changed to Thursdays. Indeed, if we look at the record of daily attendances, there is a pattern. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays attendances are, by and large, fairly even—although they fluctuate. Tuesday is the best day of the week for them. I suggest that that type of pattern would continue.
I hope that Members will support my amendment, which is for the change to take place for one Session of Parliament. If it does not work, we will of course review the situation and decide what to do. So I hope that you will support my amendment. In order to do that, I must ask you to vote against the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, because only in that way can we resolve the question before us.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |