| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman should also read paragraph 19 and the paragraphs that follow it. Paragraph 19 deals with pre-legislative scrutiny. It was said in Committee that the procedure offered a number of innovative ways in which the House could give consideration to a better form of legislation. If the previous Government had adopted that approach, they might not have ended up on the Opposition Benches quite so quickly.
Mr. Jenkin: That is a nice little try, but I expect better of the hon. Gentleman. Paragraph 19 reads:
- "In paragraph 5 we pointed out that the House has hitherto had very limited opportunities to scrutinise legislation in draft form."
- "The present Government's declared intention to build on its predecessor's policy of publishing a number of Bills in draft form provides a real chance for the House to exercise its powers of pre-legislative scrutiny."
Mr. William Cash (Stone): I endorse what my hon. Friend is saying about the appalling behaviour of those on the Government Front Bench. Does he agree that clear guidance should be given that no whipping in any circumstances should take place in the Select Committee? Does he agree also that some consideration should be given to whether leading counsel should be brought in--that has happened on other occasions--if it becomes impossible to determine the manner in which the evidence should be properly evaluated?
Mr. Jenkin: I have no doubt that the Government have every intention of following the proper procedures and that they will not be applying any undue influence or pressure on the Select Committee. However, I share with my hon. Friend--
Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We do not have whipping in Select Committees.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was more a point of debate than a point of order.
Mr. Jenkin: I shall gladly give way to the hon. Lady if she wishes to make a point.
I share the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that a Committee already having expressed an extremely supportive view of the Government's policy will not provide arduous debate and scrutiny of a controversial Bill, which is attempting to undo the previous Government's privatisation of the railways. I emphasise that we have no objection to genuine, programmed pre-legislative scrutiny, but the motion is not that.
Thirdly, why do the Government require the Committee to report back on 12 November? It is unusual for any committal motion to specify a date on which the Bill must return to the House.
Mr. Pickles:
Does my hon. Friend agree that scrutiny, if it is to take place, has to be thorough? He will have heard the Minister say from the Dispatch Box that the deliberation will take place during the overspill period. Given the need to agree a report and make it on
Mr. Jenkin:
I share my hon. Friend's concern about the tight timetable. The requirement to report back on 12 November means that the spillover period will be busy for the Committee if it is to do a proper job--I do not doubt for a minute that that is what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich will seek to do--but the deadline is tight, unless a mere re-run of the issues and evidence that it has already considered is to take place. In that case, the process would become rather superfluous and it would appear to be a face-saving measure rather than genuine scrutiny.
We have one real anxiety about this--[Interruption.] This is a serious issue. We know that the Government's legislative timetable is crowded and that Bills have been held up in this Session, particularly by Members of the other place who have been scrutinising Bills that have been guillotined in the House rather hastily. I should like the Minister to give an assurance that there will be no guillotining of the Railways Bill. We fear that the semblance of scrutiny during this Session--albeit of a Bill that will be introduced in the next Session--will give the Government an excuse to guillotine the Bill hastily in the next Session, denying the official Opposition and the other parties in the House proper opportunity to cross-examine Ministers on the Bill, clause by clause.
Mr. Wilshire:
My hon. Friend mentions the possibility of a guillotine. Does he agree that the deadline of 12 November is just that--a guillotine on a procedure during the scrutiny of legislation?
Mr. Jenkin:
I agree with my hon. Friend. In an attempt to squeeze more Bills into a crowded legislative programme, the Government are trying to have some scrutiny of the Bill undertaken in this Session so that they can curtail scrutiny in the next Session, rush it through and send it swiftly to the other place without proper clause-by-clause scrutiny being carried out in Standing Committee.
The Bill is important, but not excessively long. It should be possible to put it through Standing Committee in a reasonable number of weeks so that it can proceed with due and appropriate speed to the other place, but I fear that our co-operation and acceptance of such scrutiny as legitimate would become the pretext for a guillotine in the next Session. That would be unfair and unjust, which partly explains why we are unhappy about approving the motion.
I remind the House that this procedure has arisen from a turbulent period in the Government's internal politics, which has descended into the politics of personality. They originally intended to publish a draft Bill much earlier in the Session, but they were unable to do so because of internal disputes. During the week when the Secretary of State was attempting to get the procedure approved, the Prime Minister told the world that his back was scarred
after his battles with the public sector. At another meeting, the Secretary of State was busy getting things off his chest. That was the week--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to give the background to his reasons for developing this particular argument on the motion, but he may not do so repetitively--which is what I am beginning to suspect.
Mr. Jenkin:
We were expecting the announcement of the publication of the Bill on Tuesday 29 June. The press were briefed on that, but no announcement emerged in the Secretary of State's speech because, we understand, his plan for the Bill had been referred to the Ministerial Committee on the Queen's Speeches and Future Legislation for discussion on 5 July. That was a bad week for him. It was intended eventually--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the ruling that I gave a moment ago.
Mr. Jenkin:
Of course, I defer to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the Government had intended to introduce the Bill on 14 July, rather than today.
Mr. Prescott:
How does the hon. Gentleman know that?
Mr. Jenkin:
The Government are not as watertight as the right hon. Gentleman would like to believe, but that is not a matter for discussion now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
My total commitment to the House of Commons and its rights and procedures is reasonably well known. I believe in the Select Committee system because it is the one aspect of the House of Commons' work where Members of Parliament are prepared to work together to reach a consensus on the basis of evidence that is put before them.
I want to make it clear to those with any doubts that my Select Committee has not, through me or any other Member, sought to influence how the Bill should be dealt with, or responded to suggestions which, in my view, would be wholly improper. I strongly resent the suggestion that the procedure that the Government have chosen somehow implies that the Select Committee is not prepared to do a proper job of scrutiny.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |