House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Apr 1990

Mr. Speaker : I have had no request from the Government to bring forward another money resolution. As the hon. Lady has raised an important point in which the whole House may be interested, may I say that I have looked carefully at it. I am satisfied that amendments Nos. 8 and 10 would impose a charge on the public revenue not authorised by a resolution of the House. Therefore, under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 76, the Lords amendments must be deemed to be disagreed to.

Column 1211

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If a Secretary of State comes to the House and makes a statement which is palpably false, you would take a very severe view of it. Equally, if an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman accuses a Secretary of State of misleading the House, surely you would have the right to ask whether it can be substantiated. In a press statement, the shadow spokesman for local government accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of misleading the House over the administrative costs of the poll tax and the way in which the selection of capped local authorities was made. That is a serious allegation against my right hon. Friend, who is not here to defend himself. What action can you take, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that that matter may be properly aired in this House?

Mr. Speaker : It is frequently alleged that the House is being misled, but for a right hon. or hon. Member to be accused of deliberately misleading the House is a totally different matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) does not want to be too mealy-mouthed about the matter.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard about the Vietnamese boat people, but are you aware, Mr. Speaker, of the Hong Kong plane people? Apparently, planeloads of Conservative Members have been sent to Hong Kong and are being sent to Hong Kong. I think that the name of Ian Greer Associates has been mentioned, but I might not be correct. The Conservative party's Whips Office has also been mentioned. A very important measure will come before the House as soon as right hon. and hon. Members return from the Easter recess. It is a matter of interest that certain Conservative Members have been wined and dined, and for all one knows--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am not a member of this party, and I have no knowledge of these matters. I cannot see that they have anything to do with me.

Mr. Marlow : I am sure that my colleagues are totally incorruptible but, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in the event that a right hon. or hon. Member makes an overseas visit relating to, or arising from, membership of the House, if the cost of such a visit is not wholly borne by the right hon. or hon. Member concerned or by public funds, an entry must be made in the Register of Members' Interests. As to the involvement of the Conservative Whips Office, we are not sure whether the trips have been paid for out of public funds. I think that we ought to know to what extent they have or have not been paid for in that way.

You will also know, Mr. Speaker, that an entry must be made in the Register of Members' Interests within four weeks of the event. I understand that certain Members of Parliament are going this weekend, but the Second Reading debate will be taking place within about a week of their return. The House should know before right hon. or hon. Members vote on the Bill, or even speak on it, whether or not they have been on such a visit. It is a very important matter, and one that has created a great deal of controversy within the party and throughout the country. It is vital that the House should know which right hon. and hon. Members have been to Hong Kong and how long they spent there before they speak in the Second Reading debate. Several Hon. Members rose--

Column 1212

Mr. Speaker : Order. I have no knowledge of those matters. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will enjoy a very good Easter recess, but I have no knowledge of where they will be spending it. However, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) makes a serious allegation against his hon. Friends. I am certain that if they participate in the Second Reading debate they will declare their interest in the normal way.

Mr. Marlow : I said that my right hon. and hon. Friends are incorruptible.

Mr. Speaker : I do not think that anything can arise beyond that.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the point of order raised earlier by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Although I accept the accuracy and validity of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that, on an important issue such as the granting of housing benefit to students, it will do great damage to the credibility of this House if students can see that it has done nothing to debate a matter crucial to them because of the Government's failure to introduce a money resolution?

Mr. Speaker : The Chair is bound by Standing Orders, and I can exercise no discretion.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) did not concern a trivial matter, and the House should not be content simply to sweep it away. The Patronage Secretary is in his place, and he could come to the Dispatch Box and either confirm or deny the allegations. A very serious matter has been raised, and the Patronage Secretary has an opportunity now to clear it up. Several Hon. Members rose- -

Mr. Speaker : We have a heavy day ahead, and it is timetabled, so I hope that we can get on.

A propos the matter that has been raised, it is, of course, a serious allegation, and I said that. I equally said that I was certain that all hon. Members with an interest of that kind or any other kind to declare would declare it.

Sir John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I make no charge of corruption against any hon. Member, but is there not the important constitutional point that, when a Bill of such importance as the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill is due to come before the House, it would be more seemly and in keeping with the traditions of this great parliamentary assembly, the home of democracy, for us to have more time to consider it before it is introduced?

Mr. Speaker : That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a pont of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you that the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) were important because of the precedents. When people have been involved in treating, such matters have been debated and certain decisions taken.

I suggest that on this occasion the hon. Member for Northampton, North should put the facts in writing to you, as a matter of privilege--as should occur under the

Column 1213

new rules--and he should name names. Then, if the issue goes before the appropriate Committee, the Patronage Secretary should be brought before that Committee to explain his conduct in the matter. I would only add that if so many Tory Members are going to Hong Kong on a free junket, they could do us and the country a service and not come back.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of those who has been to Hong Kong--[ Hon. Members :-- "Ah."]--I registered that interest with the Registrar of Members' Interests, in the same way as my hon. Friend for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) registers his visits to the Iraqi dictatorship.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I have not been invited to Hong Kong. Were I to be invited, surely that would help my understanding of the situation there. We are in danger of gross humbug. I regard hon. Members who visit foreign countries as people who become experts in the affairs of those countries. I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) when it comes to middle eastern affairs. I note that in the Register of Members' Interests it says that he visited Iraq in September 1989 for five days. It adds that the money came from Arab sources, and it has been alleged that it came from the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us not have a debate on this issue. Wherever hon. Members go, I hope that they have a jolly good holiday.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I return to the point of order relating to the question concerning the Education (Student Loans) Bill. None of my hon. Friends would willingly be party to challenging the privilege that this elected House should have in respect of the expenditure of money. But I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use the time during the debate on the guillotine motion to reconsider your decision that Lords amendment No. 8 involves a question of privilege.

I believe that your ruling is based on your understanding that it involves the expenditure of new money. It does not. It involves a continuation of

Column 1214

expenditure already authorised by the House under existing legislation. While the Government have proposed that housing benefit should be removed from students, that legislation has not yet been approved by Parliament, so the existing statutory provision by which students are able to gain housing benefit stands.

That approval was given under a pre-existing money resolution, and in those circumstances it seems that no question of privilege arises, because the other place was simply asking that an authorisation already given by this House should continue. I realise that this is not something on which you can give an instant decision, Mr. Speaker, but I should like you to take time in the next three hours to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Speaker : As the House would expect, I have already done so, but I shall certainly reconsider it, and when I return later I shall make a pronouncement on the matter. We must move on now.

BILL PRESENTED

British Nationality (Hong Kong)

Mr. Secretary Waddington, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Secretary Howard and Mr. Peter Lloyd, presented a Bill to provide for the acquisition of British citizenship by selected Hong Kong residents, their spouses and minor children : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker : With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments. Ordered,

That the Legal Advice and Assistance at Police Stations (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 487) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. That the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 488) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Lightbown.]

Column 1215

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill

4.26 pm

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), has already complained about the delay in the publication of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. A few seconds ago the Bill was presented to the House. I was told by the Vote Office a few minutes ago that we will still not be able to get copies of the Bill at the Vote Office until after 5 o'clock. That is quite ridiculous, and it is inhibiting the work of the House that we did not get the Bill yesterday. The Bill was printed yesterday. It has been presented to the House and it is not available. You should protect the interests of Opposition Members and of Back Benchers on both sides of the House in this matter, Mr. Speaker, and ensure that the Bill is available immediately.

Mr. Speaker : I shall consider that matter. It is for the Minister responsible to ensure that copies of the Bill are available. I am sure that the hon. Member's voice will have been heard--at least, I hope so.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just given a First Reading to the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill. You may not know officially, but the House knows that the Second Reading is timed for Thursday 19 April. In other words, there will be a lapse of only two parliamentary days between now and then. Is it in order that such an important Bill should be provided with such little time for consideration between First and Second Reading?

Mr. Speaker : It is certainly in order. Whether the time available for hon. Members to study the Bill is sufficient is a matter for hon. Members to take up with the Government. It is not a matter for me. As was said earlier, it is perfectly true that two sitting days will elapse, but there are other days in the recess when hon. Members may have the opportunity to study the Bill.

Column 1216

Poll Tax (Abolition)

4.28 pm

Mr. John Hughes (Coventry, North-East) : I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Local Government Finance Act 1988 ; and for connected purposes.

I welcome this opportunity to introduce my Bill to repeal the Local Government Finance Act 1988. There should be no

misunderstanding about the poll tax. It was not the creation of any local authority or of my own authority, Coventry city council. The tax demands that the poorest, the young and the old should pay the same amount as a millionaire, a millionairess or the Prime Minister, and was spawned by the Government and by the Prime Minister, who will gain £2,000 a year with the imposition of the poll tax. It is an immoral Government measure which will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and it will impose untold hardship.

Hon. Members brought these facts to the Government's attention, but our pleas for compassion on behalf of the poor went unheeded. My attempt in July last year to introduce a referendum to prevent the poll tax becoming law was thwarted by the Government. If my poll tax referendum Bill had found its way on to the statute book, there would have been no demonstrations last Saturday and there would have been no violence, which I wholeheartedly condemn. Let there be no ifs or buts about that. The violence, looting and rioting which put at risk thousands of citizens and their families exercising their right to protest, and also the police handling of the affair demand a full parliamentary inquiry, and I call for that.

I condemn violence from any quarter--the violence of a parasitical minority and the violence contained in the many anti-social measures that the Government bring before the House of Commons and steamroller through it. Political thuggery or street thuggery--the product of their violence--is the same. There is no difference between the pain suffered as a result of being physically assaulted and the unbearable pain associated with the long wait for a hip replacement, or the excruciating pain that is suffered when someone is denied treatment for gall stones or kidney stones. The poll tax can be classified only as political thuggery and it will hit my poor constituents hard. Only four of the Coventry city wards have less deprivation than the country's average. The contrast in the life styles of Coventry's citizens becomes apparent if one flies across the city in the Goodyear airship, as I did. In the south-west of the city--Kenilworth road and the surrounding area where the beneficiaries of the poll tax live--one sees large houses and vast green spaces, undisturbed by factory buildings, and one private swimming pool after another. In stark physical contrast-- diametrically worlds apart--are the densely packed housing areas of Foleshill and Wood End, where homes jostle with factories and industrial estates. That is where the poll tax losers live.

In my constituency, every ward has more poverty than the average for the whole country. Foleshill and Wood End head the list. They have the highest unemployment, the greatest overcrowding, the greatest number of pensioners living alone and the greatest number of single-parent families. Moreover, Foleshill has the greatest number of families who have come from the New Commonwealth. Even a visit to the swimming baths puts a severe strain on their meagre incomes.

Column 1217

Two years ago, those impoverished citizens could claim a full rent and rate rebate. They could obtain grants for essential household items. Today, even the poorest must pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax. They shiver through the winter months, unable to heat their homes. Some even die from hypothermia. They cannot afford good food and good clothes. They are forced to go, cap in hand, to loan sharks to borrow money, or they are forced to take out a loan from the usurious Tory Government.

My poor constituents will be unable to pay the poll tax. It would be irresponsible of me to accuse them of being tax dodgers who are forcing an extra tax levy on the rest of Coventry's citizens. The blame for that must rest squarely on the Prime Minister's shoulders. The Prime Minister and her Government are the real tax dodgers in a quite personal sense in that they are the poll tax gainers. I should be guilty of an even greater degree of irresponsibility if I supported the poll tax and its draconian legal penalties, and I should be culpable of gross irresponsibility if I ignored my constituents' plight. The poll tax is an obscenity. It requires a depraved mind, capable of the most perverted reasoning, to vindicate a tax which exacts the same amount from the poor as from the rich. My constituents are affected by such extremes of wealth and circumstances. That is why I have decided, after a great deal of thought and after carefully examining my conscience, to refuse to pay the poll tax. As an elected representative, I did not take that decision lightly and I do not put pressure on my constituents to follow my example, but if they wish to take part in a non-violent campaign they will have my support.

There comes a time when every elected representative must examine the morality of his or her actions--and the poll tax is the pinnacle of immorality. There is an old socialist saying that it is better to break the law than to break the poor, and I support that. That is why I seek to change this anti-social law and why I bring my repeal Bill before the House. It provides for the use of a referendum as a means of bringing about that change, which has the support of 75 per cent. of the population, as any democratic Government would recognise. That is why local authorities can give the Government a lead on this, especially the 20 which have been poll tax-capped. They could hold their own referendum. They could be given a mandate by their electors.

That is why I call on my own authority, Coventry city council, to be in the vanguard. Coventry city council conducted a citywide referendum on the rates on 27 August 1981. I now call on it to hold a referendum on a far graver issue--the poll tax. With the assistance of Coventry and other local authorities, I hope that we shall be able to wipe the poll tax off the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr.

Column 1218

Bob Cryer, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Pat Wall, Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Poll Tax (Abolition)

Mr. John Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to repeal the Local Government Finance Act 1988 ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the unanimous support for the repeal of the poll tax which has been shown in the House today, I suggest that we move on to all the succeeding stages of this Bill so that we can carry it and satisfy the people out there, the electorate who want to get rid of it, and I so move.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not in order. A day has already been named.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that on the Bill that we have just had, to which there is the strongest possible opposition among some Government Members, no one moved against it or spoke against it, although the duty Whip was heard to say that he had never heard such nonsense in his life? Would he not have liked to get up and argue why he regarded the measure as nonsense, so that we could have a decision here and now about where Parliament stands?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : All that I need say is that what has occurred has been quite in order.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was here and heard my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) move his Bill, and it was supported by the House. Have you had any suggestion that hon. Members on the Government Benches were prevented from speaking against the Bill because of the embarrassment to the Government if the Bill were passed today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : We cannot debate the matter now.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Conservative Members are anxious to get on to the important business before us. We do not want to fool around with something that will never become law anyway.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am trying to do just that. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her help.

Column 1219

Education (Student Loans) Bill

(Allocation of Time)

4.39 pm

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor) : I beg to move

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education (Student Loans) Bill :

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

2.--(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above--

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended ;

(b) if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) declare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment ;

(c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall--

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended ;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment ;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments ; and (

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments ;

(d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments 3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

Column 1220

4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings. 5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion-- (

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair ;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall- -

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item ;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal ; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental 6.--(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

7.--(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the time at which, under this Order, any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

8.--(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings. (2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

I will begin by setting out why I believe that it is right to ensure orderly and sensible debate on the Lords amendments. First, as several hon. Members pointed out yesterday, this is a comparatively short Bill. Secondly, it has had lengthy and thoroughly comprehensive discussion in both Houses. All the issues before us today have been exhaustively debated and we now have to take decisions. Thirdly, the great majority of the amendments are either those in which the Government have responded positively to points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House as well as in the other place, which I hope will be acceptable to the House for that reason, or technical amendments. We are therefore demonstrating that the Government have responded to debates and we have reached the wrap- up stage.

Column 1221

I am sure that the motion is realistic and practical for the proper dispatch of business and that it will commend itself to all my hon. Friends and to most Opposition Members, if they are honest, because it does not impress anyone to delay returning to our constituencies for the recess by arguing pointlessly through the night on minute technical details.

I will elaborate on that. We have given the Bill substantial attention. This House and another place have together devoted some 90 hours to debate a Bill of four clauses and two schedules. That total includes about 40 hours in Standing Committee. More than 360 amendments have been tabled, half in this House and half in another place. More than 120 amendments were tabled in the Standing Committee, which then considered about 80 of them.

Those statistics totally refute any suggestion that the Government deliberately kept the Bill short in an attempt to prevent discussion on the finer points of the scheme. There has been every opportunity to explore all the principles, objectives and details of the scheme, down to the finer points of administration. There has been more discussion about detailed administration on the Bill and the scheme than on many other measures going through the House.

At the same time, there is recognition now that the format of the Bill has the great merit of flexibility of operation hereafter. It is understood that, as with the student grants maintenance scheme, from time to time there is obviously a need to change the details. We have said that we may wish to review the scheme, and from that review we may wish to change some of the details. Clearly, it makes sense to do that through secondary legislation rather than primary legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : Does the Secretary of State agree that there would be less debate and fewer amendments if the Government had been much clearer and more detailed in the first place about what they were proposing? Is not one of the reasons why a short Bill has taken a relatively long time the fact that the Government have said so little about so much?

Next Section

Home Page