| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.29 pm
Mr. Forth: The House is debating whether this matter should immediately be considered in Committee, and anyone who was in the Chamber during the Second Reading debate--which virtually no Labour Member attended--would realise immediately that the problem that confronts the House is the Minister's persistent refusal to give proper answers to the questions asked by Opposition Members during the debate.
The motion must be viewed in the light of what went before. Surely we cannot expect automatically to agree a
deviation from the normal procedures of the House without taking some account of what happened previously; that would be entirely unreasonable. That, I suggest, is why procedures allow for the short debate on which we are now embarking, in which I suspect several of my hon. Friends wish to participate, because we must now consider, as a House, whether we are ready to consider the matter in Committee now, as opposed to at a future date.
The difficulty is not confined to the poor quality of the Minister's response. It also revolves around what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said earlier about the difficulties that may or may not arise from the ability of the Committee--were it to sit--to consider amendments. I say that specifically because my right hon. and learned Friend has been over-generous to the Government and to the Minister. I am sorry to say that, but I think that he has. He has made them an offer that I could just about go along with, were it to be agreed to.
I would prefer that we be allowed to reflect on what was said on Second Reading--on the points so eloquently made by Opposition Members and on the Minister's bumbling and rather arrogant replies. We should reflect on those and consider, in the light of the Second Reading debate, which has just finished, whether we want to amend the Bill. We should consider whether to take the package generously offered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire or, as I would prefer, to seek to move separate amendments, dealing separately with the key points that emerged from the debate.
Those key points were, first, the proposed lifting of the restriction on the recruitment of a permanent secretary and, secondly, the point skated over by the Minister as though it were of no consequence--the age limit on the service of a permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Those matters may or may not go together. I am starting to think, reflecting--as I have had only a few moments to do--on the Second Reading debate, that those matters can and should be dealt with separately. However, were the Minister to be prepared to be reasonable to the line taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, my colleagues might be prepared to go along with him. It would not be proper, however, in the light of the debate that has taken place, for matters such as that to be rushed into.
The Minister made the procedure sound like a minor technicality. He tried to spoof the House as if to say, "Why are Conservative Members here? Why are they taking part in the debate? How have they the nerve to come to the Chamber to raise these points and waste my time?" I believe that I sum him up not unfairly.
That will not do. The Minister may be relatively new in government, but he must learn that the Government are accountable to the House of Commons and that that accountability expresses itself in debate, in the mature consideration of points and in the consideration of amendments that are tabled now, rather peremptorily, on the Floor in Committee, or in Committee upstairs.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that among the points that the Minister signally failed to answer was the point about the fact that the Bill was not introduced in another place? As several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, we would expect that to be the procedure in the case of legislation that directly reflects on the position of the Lord Chancellor. That is another matter that needs reflection while the House is considering whether it is prepared to have the Bill pushed through without proper debate, all in one day.
Mr. Forth:
My hon. Friend is right, and he reminds me that that was yet another argument that received, as far as I recall, no response from the Minister. I should have thought that, as a courtesy to the House, he might have explained why he and his colleagues in the Government had decided to table discussion of the Bill on a Thursday evening, to slip it through--probably while no one was noticing--and then to dust it off and send it to the other place.
That is not the way that we should deal with these things. This is a serious matter--a matter of substance. We recognise that. The number of my colleagues who have attended the debate, the thought that they have given to the Bill and the thoughtful speeches that they have made are ample evidence of that.
The matter that we are now considering--which we should not rush, either--in the light of what has been dealt with so far today, in the light of the debate on Second Reading, which some hon. Members now in the Chamber have just sat through, is whether it is reasonable and proper, in parliamentary terms, in scrutiny terms, in legislative terms, for us to rush into Committee without a chance for reflection. Should we do so without a chance, if I even dare suggest it, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire to have discussions with the Minister, to discover whether something might be worked out?
I sensed that there was some common ground, in spite of the Minister's bluster. I sensed that the reasonableness of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire might have provided the basis of an agreement; but can we do that on the hoof? I doubt it. I doubt that we shall get a quality of outcome from this matter if there is an attempt to rush the Bill through.
These are serious and weighty matters, which the House must consider, and I hope that due consideration can be given. As you have gathered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I remain to be convinced that we are ready for the matter to be dealt with now, as opposed to at a reasonable future date. Unless I am much more convinced than I have been by the Minister, that would remain my view. I hope that he will reflect on that and realise that we are--I probably speak for all of my colleagues--in a mood to be helpful on this if only he will help us. That is all I am asking. It is not an unreasonable request.
Mr. Malins:
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right; the Minister gave no help on Second Reading. He was utterly dismissive of many of our arguments. Specifically, we repeatedly asked what the nature of the consultation was and whether presiding judges were consulted. Were the Crown court circuit judges, the Bar Council or the Law Society consulted? Who was consulted? We received no answer.
Mr. Hoon:
We are debating whether this matter should proceed immediately into Committee. We have heard a great deal of lyrical objection, especially from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who I think will become celebrated, as a result of his contribution to the Second Reading debate, as the author of the phrase, the debate that we have had today indicates that we have a vigorous Opposition. Unfortunately, the vigorous Opposition on that occasion only amounted to the five Members who passed through the No Lobby, so the official Opposition managed to get fewer Members through the No Lobby than the number who spoke on Second Reading. Perhaps Conservative Members were so exhausted by the process of the Second Reading debate that they could not summon the vigour to walk through the No Lobby.
It is important for the House to realise that the official Opposition have had notice of our intention to deal with this matter for some seven days. During those seven days not a single representation was made from any Opposition Member, through the usual channels or in other ways, indicating any objection to this matter being dealt with through all its stages today. I urge the House to accept the motion.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
With the leave of the House. That is not good enough.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak for a second time in this debate.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary made no attempt to respond to the key issue in the debate.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |