| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) rose--
Mr. Davies: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I give way first to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who caught my eye first.
Mr. Garnier: Is not the Government's decision to cease debate made all the worse by their introduction on Report of a raft of new clauses which fundamentally and dramatically enlarge the Bill? There has been no chance to discuss those measures--that was drawn to the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) when we began our debates this afternoon--and no chance for these matters to receive the proper scrutiny which they would normally have received in Committee. Those measures have been foisted on the House at this late stage, and now this arrogant Government have simply decided to rip away the opportunity for debate so that they can all go off to bed and read their nursery books.
Mr. Davies: I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I had occasion to refer to exactly that point in our debate on insolvency. The Government tabled a new clause that completely contradicted the Bill that they had introduced on Second Reading and debated in Committee. The Minister of State did not want to confess that he had done a somersault or a U-turn, but he self-evidently had. Once again, the Government have been trying to run away from the consequences of their own actions.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I give way next to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
Mrs. Browning: The Government tabled new clauses as late as Friday past. We have been debating the Bill since 3.30 yesterday afternoon, and most of our time has been spent on Government new clauses. The Government have dispatched their own business on Report, but, arrogantly, they will not give Members who have tabled amendments reasonable time for them to be discussed and dispatched. We have been courteous enough to discuss and debate the Government's new clauses.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think there has been sufficient implied criticism of Madam Speaker's selection and we should move off from that.
Mr. Davies: I did not hear any criticism of Madam Speaker's selection at all. I heard--[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] No, I did not; I heard criticism of the way that the Government have behaved.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He need have no fear because, unlike his Front Benchers, I have no desire to stop him speaking in the House. However, I must deal with the point that has been made, because it is serious.
At stake is how the Government decide to treat not merely Parliament, but the general public. Stakeholder pensions are one of the major issues for us to debate, but the most extraordinary thing has happened. The Government rapidly produced an ill thought through Green Paper and attached to it was a consultation that would last until 31 March. The public, the experts, the industry, the academic world and so forth were all cordially invited to make their representations by that date.
The Government must have realised that their proposals were so hare-brained that the results of the consultation would profoundly embarrass them. What did they do? They cut off the consultation procedure midstream--in fact, almost before it started--and published a Bill at the beginning of February. They got the Bill through Second Reading and Committee using their majority, and then brought the Bill out of Committee because we had finished discussing the stakeholder pension provisions several weeks before the end of the consultation.
As if that were not enough, the Government then came here yesterday afternoon with proposals that contradict those that we debated in Committee on, for example, insolvency. They have thus treated the Committee with contempt.
There are only two possible explanations for the Government's behaviour. Either they were not taking seriously clauses 11 and 12 of their own Bill, and knew that they had in their back pocket their real intentions, which they would try to smuggle into the legislative process later--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we have dealt with those matters. The question is whether it is right that consideration of the Bill be adjourned at this point.
Mr. Davies:
Given the Government's approach to parliamentary scrutiny of their legislative proposals, which is graphically demonstrated by their behaviour in this context--as it is by many of the other examples that I have cited and will cite in the course of my remarks--we should deny the Government the right to adjourn further consideration of the Bill. Given that they have been found out, why should we allow them simply to escape the consequences of their behaviour by summarily attempting to bring our proceedings to an end?
Mr. Corbyn:
I can understand how the hon. Gentleman discovered his voice--he obviously practises megaphone
Mr. Davies:
I can see that, for the hon. Gentleman, the lure of his bed overrides all other considerations. That should not be our priority, because we have uncovered a Government who have been treating Parliament with systematic arrogance. I come back to their treatment of the insolvency provision because it is germane to the point that I am making.
There are only two possibilities. Either the Government knew that the Bill as published did not contain their real legislative proposals, and they had in their back pocket something else which they would bring out tonight, having tabled it at the last minute on Thursday in the hope that no one would notice. That is a terrible thing for a Government to do in a parliamentary democracy. Alternatively, they genuinely believed in the original proposals--clauses 11 and 12--and then changed their mind or decided that they had made a mistake. Perhaps they literally do not know what they are doing between Tuesdays and Thursdays. That is another possible explanation.
The House can choose any of those explanations; I do not know which is the least complimentary to the Government. If anybody can think of a third or fourth logically feasible possibility, I hope that they will intervene on me. Given that no one is seeking to intervene, I take that as confirmation of my description of how the Government have been conducting their affairs.
When the Government are found out in this way, should we just let them go off to bed and try and forget all about it? I do not think we should. Some profound issues need to be brought out into the open and debated.
We should not be afraid to give the Government a very hard time, because that is what Parliament should do with a Government who have been intoxicated by the arrogance of power. We have no intention of letting them off lightly. We intend to make them regret and repent their ways, and we shall be doing a good job for parliamentary democracy if we do so. We shall make it plain that, if they get things badly wrong and do not have the honesty and straightforwardness to accept that they have got them badly wrong; if they make mistakes or U-turns and come to the House and pretend that they have made no U-turns and that black is white and red is green, we shall not say, "Well, all right. We shall just stop proceedings because it is getting embarrassing for you. You can all go home to bed and try again another day when you might get away with it". We will not do that. We shall make them stand here and answer the many questions that require to be answered.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
Many of us who admire the hon. Gentleman's talents have often wondered why he was not given a Front-Bench job in the last Government. Now we realise that he would never have stopped talking. He is a courteous gentlemen, so could he give us some indication of when he proposes to sit down. We could all come back for his last 30 seconds, but in the meantime we could go off and do something more useful.
Mr. Davies:
I do not know whether I should return the compliment by saying that we are sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not promoted to the Front Bench. Given the situation in which he finds himself now, perhaps a more significant and important role for him is the one that he can perform on the Back Benches. It is equally important that Labour Back-Bench Members keep the Government on their toes and prevent them from getting away with their recent monstrous assumptions about how they can treat the House. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do a good job for the Labour party, and if he wants the Labour party to have a future, I suggest that he uses his undoubted energies and talents to make it plain to the Government that such behaviour will not wash and will not be tolerated.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |