| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Business of the House
10.10 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): In view of the lack of progress on business this week, the business for tomorrow will now be: consideration of an allocation of time motion on the Employment Relations Bill and on the Food Standards Bill--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The House must listen to the Leader of the House.
Mrs. Beckett: That will be followed by conclusion of the remaining stages of the Food Standards Bill. I shall announce in my business statement tomorrow the arrangements for the completion of Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): That is an extraordinary over-reaction to what has been happening this evening. In the debate that has just concluded, the Secretary of State spoke for longer than any of my hon. Friends: he spoke for 15 minutes and included references to "The Goon Show" and to Spitfire pilots. If anybody has been wasting time, it has been the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. As for the Employment Relations Bill, nearly all the remaining amendments are Government amendments and there are only two brief issues which my hon. Friends want to debate, so there is no reason at all to conclude the discussion on that Bill. Finally, what has happened between last Thursday's business statement and tonight's to justify guillotining the Food Standards Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: What has happened between last week's business statement and tonight's is clear to most hon. Members. We have had a substantial amount oftime wasted--[Hon. Members: "What?"]--yes, wasted, although I accept not necessarily by the official Opposition as such. Time has been taken up in the House. The Opposition--[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members asking questions if they do not want to listen to the answer. The Opposition have every right to use time in the House--that is their legitimate right and duty. It is also the right and duty of the Government to protect their business and to protect private Members' time.
The course of events over this week led the Government to have some anxiety about the progress of the Food Standards Bill. The official Opposition were offered a programme motion on the Bill, which is an uncontentious Bill that has had pre-legislative scrutiny. That offer was rejected. The Government are anxious to make sure that private Members' time on Friday is not jeopardised by individual Members dealing with the business tomorrow. That is what has happened between last week's business statement and tonight's.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
This is surely an extraordinary situation. One of my colleagues has just said to me, "Try to rearrange these words: piss-up, brewery, organise". [Interruption.] This is an extraordinary and
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. I do not think that that kind of language does the House any credit or helps the situation.
Mr. Tyler:
Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the House is treated in the way it has been treated by the Government in the past few minutes, you can understand why there are angry people in the Chamber tonight. There has been no consultation and no opportunity for the opposition parties to put their points of view. I believe that the handling of the Food Standards Bill, in particular, is a disgrace. There is no evidence whatsoever that the House would not treat with great care the proposals that were to be put before it tomorrow. Yet the Government have announced a guillotine motion.
We on these Benches have always been prepared to discuss programme motions, but we have not had an opportunity to have those discussions about this Bill or the Food Standards Bill. We find it quite extraordinary that the Leader of the House should come to the House at short notice--as though the business could not be handled on several days next week.
We are prepared to be flexible. I hope that the Leaderof the House will reconsider her attitude, particularly regarding tomorrow's business, and will be prepared to speak to the Opposition parties through the usual channels to see whether we can reach agreement. That is surely the best way for the House to consider the business of the House and to afford proper scrutiny to this important legislation.
Mrs. Beckett:
In one sense, the hon. Gentleman made a perfectly sensible and legitimate point at the end of his remarks. He said that it ought to be possible to reach agreement about tomorrow's business, which is uncontentious and has pre-legislative scrutiny.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton):
You did not even try.
Mrs. Beckett:
That is rubbish. If such an agreement were possible, the Government would give it favourable consideration. However, because it has not been possible to reach such an agreement and because the Government are not prepared to risk either the Food Standards Bill tomorrow or the private Members' business that follows it, we have made this proposal.
If, in the aftermath of this statement, cast-iron assurances can be given and delivered, the Government will consider the matter properly. However, the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for some time and he was here all this week and last week. What confidence does he have that those assurances will be delivered?
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
Will the Leader of the House explain to the House of Commons and to the country why she wishes to curtail discussion and debate on this legislation and the Food Standards Bill when we are about to enter one of the longest parliamentary recesses that this
Mrs. Beckett:
That is a brilliant example of exactly what I am talking about. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman thought for a second about checking his facts. If he had, he would know that there were far longer parliamentary recesses under the Government that he supported. Indeed, the recess that we have proposed is only slightly longer than the recess during the same stage in the previous Parliament. So that is absolute rubbish.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about curtailing discussion, the Government do not intend to curtail discussion either on this legislation or on the Food Standards Bill. We intend to have that discussion in proper time and to come to a proper conclusion. That is what people such as the hon. Gentleman do not like.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire):
Although the principle of the Food Standards Bill may not be contentious, a number of items within it are, and that is the reason for several of the amendments that have been tabled by Conservative and other Members who want a serious debate. The right hon. Lady said that the Bill had had pre-legislative scrutiny, but the relevant Committee did not go through the Bill line by line in the way a Bill should be examined in Standing Committee and on Report.
On one occasion, the Government rejected the views of the right hon. Lady's own Labour-dominated Committee which conducted the pre-legislative scrutiny. The House has every reason to question the Government again and to challenge them to say why they rejected the views of the Labour-dominated Committee that considered the Bill.
Mrs. Beckett:
The hon. Gentleman has, no doubt mistakenly, made the case for the proposal that I have just made, as he appears to be saying--he may not mean it--that he will demand not proper debate, which the Government have no intention of denying, but the kind of line-by-line scrutiny and detailed debate for which there has been no call at any business statement when I have announced the timetable for the consideration of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not even attended any business questions in recent weeks. There has been a repeated pattern of Conservative Members not even showing up when we announce the business of the House, and they have not raised the issue of there not being enough time. Now they turn up at the last minute and say, "We need another five days." I say: no.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
The right hon. Lady will know that I am of a very passive disposition. We share membership of the Modernisation Committee, and at many of its meetings she has said that she looks to avoid using timetable motions. She will be aware that, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I am also concerned, as I am sure she is, that the House should have procedures whereby legislation that the Government bring before the House for the benefit of the nation is adequately scrutinised.
Will the right hon. Lady read her Government's White Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", which gives 10 tips for better health? Tip No. 4 states:
"Manage stress by, for example, talking things through and making time to relax."
I wish the right hon. Lady a happy recess, but will she please assure me that she will allow the House to do as the White Paper advises?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |