| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Browning: I did everything that I could to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman's colleagues. At one stage, I referred one of his colleagues to other channels. I am not other channels, but, being in charge of the legislation, I was convinced that we could conclude it satisfactorily. Without the intervention of the Leader of the House at 9.50 pm, we would probably have concluded the Bill, including one more vote, by 10.30 pm. For that business to be lost to the House last night and deferred until next Monday was unnecessary.
Mr. Tyler: If it was not an intentional filibuster, it was certainly an effective unintentional filibuster. If the Government were not under instruction, they seemed to be doing it anyway, which seems an extraordinary situation. The credibility of what the Government have said has surely been blown to smithereens by their subsequent action of calling an absurd Division.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman says that it was a filibuster; it certainly developed in that way. However, those of us who set out in good faith on the next group of amendments had no idea that it was to be turned into a filibuster by no less a person than the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
How shall we be able to accept the Government's word during future legislation? Knowing how to allocate one's time effectively in order to give due consideration to those issues that require it is becoming a pretty precarious business.
Dealing with amendment No. 17 last night I said:
There still seems to be something of a mystery about the Government's agenda last night in curtailing progress on the Bill. Having voted to overturn a Lords amendment, it is clear that, even when we dispatch the Bill on Monday, it will have to go back to the other place.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills):
Under the new Labour Government, guillotine motions are becoming increasingly ritualistic. The Leader of the House and I have voted long and often against the principle and employment of guillotine motions as an instrument of Executive abuse of process. The House, as a collective body of elected representatives, can only attest, or assent--if it is a higher order of attestation--to the proposals brought before us for consideration.
I felt for the Leader of the House because, towards the end of any Session, with the pressure of the necessity of returning to our constituencies and giving our constituents undivided attention for 14 weeks, the Government naturally want to ensure that they have secured all aspects of their business.
The Leader of the House tried to negotiate that concept, and adduced arguments which were essentially arguments of divination. I say divination, because as one reads the arguments that the right hon. Lady adduced last night, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) cited, they have a curious ring. The right hon. Lady said:
A generation ago and before, guillotine motions were looked upon as something shocking because they are the denial of freedom of speech. They may have something to do with the enormous legislative programmes that modern
Governments seek to carry through. To list such programmes is almost the parliamentary equivalent of soundbites. From my own memory, I can recall a previous distinguished Prime Minister--to put it that way--who was elected on the basis that we have far too much legislation, coming to the Conservative 1922 Committee and cheering us, with a ringing affirmation, for passing 44 pieces of legislation during our first period of government. "Jolly good," the Prime Minister called out, then added, ominously, "but we can do better."
The claim to reduce the burden of legislation going through the House was in the Conservative party's election manifesto. But within one brief parliamentary Session that was out of the window and we were into the business of proclaiming how many pieces of legislation we had scuttled through the House.
Nearly 20 years later, a new Government have come in, and what is one of their most ringing cheers? Of course, they have to clear up the detritus, the misgovernment of Britain for 2,000 years, the misappropriation and all the rest. I seem to recall that one of the current Prime Minister's ringing and cheering assertions to the nation is of 52 pieces of legislation.
Perhaps the House and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me for just reflecting on what is the point of a Queen's Speech. It cites 16 or 18 pieces of legislation, but no longer reflects what we shall all be condemned to doing in the House during the next 12 months. I make those observations because they affect why the House sometimes becomes tense over the progress of Bills through the Chamber. That is really what this is about.
Why did I say that the Leader of the House was into divination? Although the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) made a very sour speech, if I may be allowed to say so, it is probably agreed by Members on both sides of the House that, on reflection, genuine questions were not answered. For example, although I try to follow such matters, I have no certainty about how one moves amendments in a Select Committee. So we come to the guillotine motion; in a sense, it is addressing the failure to satisfy the House on Monday. [Interruption.] I see that the usual channel has absented himself from the corner of the Chamber which he occupies.
The motion contains one of the features that we have taken up a number of times. It would not be true to say that those on the Treasury Bench invented the device of including the three hours, as set down in the Standing Orders, for discussions on guillotine motions within the overall time allocated for consideration of a Bill. I regret that that happened on one occasion that I can identify before 1997. However, the toy that has been given to the Government means that that is becoming a standard feature of guillotine motions. That is why I am very disappointed in the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I do not want to detract from the fact that he made a very good speech but hon. Members should note that, having almost completed it, he turned round and said, "But I hope no one else will cause any obstruction by making a speech, because we want to be able to discuss the merits of the Bill."
Mr. Shepherd:
I shall not go as far as saying that that remark was a little sanctimonious. The hon. Member for
Mr. Tyler:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to know that during my previous sojourn in this place in 1974, throughout the period of the Conservative Government and during this Parliament I have always voted against guillotine motions on principle.
Mr. Shepherd:
I am very cheered by that enunciation and I hope that it becomes part of the Liberal party's programme. I would say that, wouldn't I? However, I recall that the hon. Gentleman came close to falling into the hands of Lucifer over the absurd provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which the House considered last September. Not only was he not going to vote against the guillotine motion, but he actually signed it. Fortunately, the good and intelligent argument of his own colleagues and other Members of the House convinced him that it was inappropriate for him to sign that motion. In one of the most touching moments that I have ever witnessed in the House, a signatory to a motion on the Order Paper--presumably, signing the motion reflected a considered position--withdrew his support by standing up and saying, "I withdraw my signature." I do not condemn that, because we sometimes change our opinions. After all that the hon. Member for Slough has said on that point of rational argument, I accept it; I sometimes have my mind changed.
The point that I want to make is about a three-hour guillotine motion encompassing argument on the substantive legislative issues before the House and I hope that the Government--and the usual channel, who unfortunately is not in his usual place--will take it on board. In truth, using that little device does no Government any credit. Either the Government want to give us three hours' debate on these matters or they want to give us six. Surely they do not want to coerce us into surrendering a proper debate about whether the allocation of time is adequate. That is what we are discussing.
The divination to which I referred is in the words of the Leader of the House, who said:
The Leader of the House continued:
"I will be happy to allow speedy progress on some amendments on the Order Paper, but not amendment No. 17. What has happened as a result of the amendment bears full examination."--[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1262.]
Throughout the evening I gave every indication of where I needed to spend time on matters of substance while reinforcing the message that, where we could make rapid progress, we would.
"We have had a substantial amount of time 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."--[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1292.]
In the exchange that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was kind enough to allow me to pursue with her, I thought that we accepted that Members of Parliament have the right to try to express arguments on details, which are often outside the consultations. Therefore, any hon. Member can anxiously wait for an opportunity to rise on a clause which might be dismissed by a guillotine motion.
"The course of events over this week led the Government to have some anxiety about the progress of the Food Standards Bill."
This matter has nothing to do with the Food Standards Bill itself and, by a process of divination, the right hon. Lady knows that the character of certain Members makes it unsuitable for them to be permitted to address it. Why do I say unsuitable? Because she said that time had been wasted
"not necessarily by the official Opposition as such."
How gracious; now we are allowed--as an official Opposition, no less--to be commended for the way in which we discharge our business, although the hon. Member for Croydon, Central does not believe that there is merit in that position.
"It is no good hon. Members asking questions if they do not want to listen to the answer."
She was saying, "We'll guillotine it if necessary." She went on:
"The Opposition have every right to use time in the House"--
That was very big of her--
"that is their legitimate right".
She then talked about
"the duty of the Government".--[Official Report, 21 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1292.]
I know that after 10 o'clock we are all driven to make some absurd comments, but the particularisation and characterisation, which I think are wrong, is that any Member, however humble or however recently elected, can be guillotined out of the way.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |