Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

2. What plans he has to improve scrutiny of the Government by the House.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

As Leader of the House, I want to ensure that the public see the Government reporting to and being accountable to this House. As a Government, we have increased the number of ministerial statements in comparison with the previous Government; given more time for the Report stages of Bills; and published more Bills in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny. We are also encouraging public engagement in the House’s scrutiny, with public reading stage pilots and, as I have announced today, a new 10,000-signature threshold for e-petitions to trigger a Government response.

[Katy Clark]

I understand that the Government plan to introduce a business Committee by the end of 2013. Will the Leader of the House tell us how he views the proposal at this stage, and whether he thinks that such a Committee will improve scrutiny by giving Back Benchers more of a say in, for example, the timetabling of Bills and opportunities to vote on amendments?

[Mr Lansley]

As the House will know, I have the greatest admiration for the reforms introduced by my predecessor, including the creation of the Backbench Business Committee, which has provided substantial opportunities. The hon. Lady rightly drew attention to the Government’s commitment in the coalition programme, and I look forward to constructive discussions about it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the House could improve the quality of scrutiny immediately by making the post of Chairman of the Committee of Selection an elected post. Would it not be totally absurd if an independent Chairman of that Committee were replaced overnight by a former Whip?

[Mr Lansley]

Again, I pay tribute to my predecessor. The introduction of elections to membership of Select Committees represents a considerable step forward in terms of Members’ ability to determine the shape of decision making in the House. However, it is also important for the Committee of Selection to reflect the interests of the parties—

[Mr Bone]

Of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

Both sides of the House have an interest in getting business through, as well as respecting the rights of Back Benchers.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Could we get rid of Deputy Prime Minister’s Question Time, because he is hopeless, and introduce a format enabling Boris Johnson to come and give evidence to the House, because he clearly has more influence over Government policy?

[Mr Lansley]

I seem to recall that Labour Members wanted the time for Deputy Prime Minister’s questions to be extended.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

7. I welcome the Leader of the House to his new position. May I ask him to consider improving scrutiny of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by extending the time allocated to oral questions to its Secretary of State?

[Mr Lansley]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s interest in that issue. I think that the time available for DEFRA questions has proved adequate, and we have no plans to change it at present.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is two and a half years since the Wright reform of the election of Chairmen of Select Committees was introduced. At that time there were very few candidates for some of the posts, and in the case of one Committee there was only one candidate. Would this not be a suitable time for the existing Chairmen to resign, so that all Members, including new Members, could have a chance to have their turn, in order that the work of Select Committees could be refreshed?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think that I would hold myself or my predecessor responsible for whether people put themselves forward. I think it is perfectly reasonable to give Members that opportunity. If they do not take it up, that is a matter for them.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I note what my right hon. Friend said earlier about responses to e-petitions with 10,000 signatures. Will he clarify that by telling us what time frame would be involved, and can he give us any more details?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that it will be possible to respond rapidly to petitions with 10,000 signatures. I cannot tell the hon. Lady at this stage how quickly we will do it, but I hope that we will do it in a matter of weeks. I want members of the public to feel that they have a genuinely interactive relationship with scrutiny of the Government in the House, which involves direct responses to their use of the website and, indeed, to their e-mail addresses.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. Whether the Government plan to impose penalties on Ministers who fail to observe the House's expectations in regard to statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

4. What plans he has for pre-legislative scrutiny of Government Bills.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The Government are committed, wherever possible, to publishing legislation in draft with a view to pre-legislative scrutiny. We have published nine sets of draft measures so far this Session and will publish more as it progresses.

[Diana Johnson]

But given the right hon. Gentleman’s unfortunate experience with the Health and Social Care Bill, does he not agree that it would be best for all Government Bills to have extensive scrutiny before reaching the Floor of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Lady and the House will recognise that it is not possible for all Bills to have pre-legislative scrutiny, but as I said, the Government have published a substantial number of such measures. When I was Secretary of State for Health, we published the Care and Support Bill in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny—I look forward to its commencement this autumn—and it has also been the subject of both consultation and a public reading stage.