Sir Peter Emery: Of course. I did not mean to leave the hon. Lady out of the list.
Sir Peter Emery: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady's thesis, but I do not preclude the possibility that Chairmen could receive some allowance recognising the extra work that they do for, and the dedication that they bring to, Select Committees. However, we must be certain that such an allowance would not become an aspect of the Government payroll, and that hon. Members appointed as Select Committee...
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend suggests. The records show that that suggestion first appeared in a report from the Procedure Committee that was compiled when I was its Chairman. My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I agree entirely. Members might say that they are too busy to spend two days a week on Select Committee reports. I am concerned, as I believe that a Member of...
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend speaks a great deal of truth. Pavement politics started with Mr. Lubbock, who won a famous by-election in Orpington and preached that one won seats by spending all one's time knocking on people's doors. That is not what a Member of Parliament is for.
Sir Peter Emery: I have never said that that was the sole reason for hon. Members not spending more time here. I am saying that Members of Parliament should be spending more time here, controlling the Executive, rather than attempting to be councillors. I will say no more about the lady who was mentioned. I did not even know that she was there; obviously, she must be doing a marvellous job. I wish to refer...
Sir Peter Emery: The Leader of the House's comments on guillotining or programming are true: the procedure has been around for a long time. However, the concept of taking votes which would usually be taken after 10 pm on Wednesday at 3 pm is new. It has hardly been discussed in the Modernisation Committee. The idea that it was all right to present that proposal to the Committee, vote on it with next to no...
Sir Peter Emery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was going to refer to him as my right hon. Friend because we have served in the House for so long together. I hope that he would not take that amiss. Given the criticisms that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined and those contained in the report, and the fact that the Government talk about wanting to listen to the House, does he agree that...
Sir Peter Emery: On that particular point, several Members have always advanced the major argument that programming should ensure that all parts of a Bill, and all major matters in it, can be debated in Committee. That greatly benefits legislation, but I can find nothing in the order that sets out that principle. I believe that principle should be set out. Indeed, one could easily have put it in paragraph...
Sir Peter Emery: I rise to make two important points. The Modernisation Committee has not seen, let alone discussed, the orders on the Order Paper. The principles behind them have appeared in reports, but when it comes to the detail of how the orders will apply, they may well represent a different view and approach, which the House might wish to consider and debate.
Sir Peter Emery: I do not know if "wanted to say" is right. The words are the Government's words, interpreting the reports which have been before the House for some time. In as detailed a matter as this, I should have expected the method by which the alterations would be applied to have come before the Committee, which has been dealing with the matter for some months, so that it could have seen the way in...
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to have given way to my hon. Friend, but he has stolen the last line of my speech. My second point is that it is most unusual for the person who leads for the Opposition on the Modernisation Committee to come forward with a detailed Opposition paper on the recommendations under consideration. That report is a detailed outline by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West...
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Lady is an assiduous member of the Modernisation Committee, and has most ably contributed several views, which are not always popular with her party. Her comments reinforce those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). She is right to say that the Modernisation Committee believes that the changes should be presented by the end of the Session so that...
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that you interrupted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you remind me of what I am trying to say. I am obviously not saying it well enough, and I need much longer, to ensure that I do. The timetabling that the motion suggests is unfair to the ordinary Back-Bench Member. The duty of the Leader of the House to the House means that she must always be fair to hon. Members from all...
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the normal practice has been that we would debate such matters, and orders would later be tabled for the House to decide on, having considered what the debate had produced? That will not happen today.
Sir Peter Emery: Does the Minister realise that on the ground in Kosovo there is considerable concern about the apparent lack of co-operation between certain of the military forces and, even worse, as I tried to expound in the defence debate last week, there is uncertainty about where and how the United Nations is carrying out its mandate? Will the Minister look into that? The last thing that we want is to...
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is most unusual for a statement to be made in the middle of a debate, particularly when the Minister has 21 minutes to reply and the statement took approximately four minutes—20 per cent. of the time. It is within your power to extend the debate for another five minutes, and I think that you should do so.
Sir Peter Emery: Before my hon. Friend finishes his list, will he point out that most of us who spoke yesterday made a number of serious points which received no reply? Will he reiterate the need for us to know what the Government intend with the Parliamentary Assembly if the Western European Union is done away with? Perhaps the Government would also like to say what extra money or manpower is needed for them...
Sir Peter Emery: A view that used to be held in the House, and to which I subscribe, was that a debate should be a debate, and not simply the delivery of several prepared speeches. I therefore compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who opened the debate for the Conservative party, on the way in which he outlined beyond peradventure the Prime Minister's volte...
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I was trying not to raise the temperature. I want to get to the main part of my speech. The collapse of the Berlin wall, the end of the Russian-American stand-off and the proven success of NATO has largely rendered obsolete the traditional categories into which the fear of world war had previously thrust us. The old traditional distinctions between...
Sir Peter Emery: rose—
