| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gill: Yes, but I have much to say.
Mrs. Winterton: I shall be very brief and am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He mentioned courtesies of the House. I wonder whether other hon. Members noted that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies)--whose speech was very sadly
described as "sour" by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is considered to be one of the most courteous Members, with tremendous integrity and a consistent record in speaking for his constituents--clearly is very discourteous and does not understand the courtesies of the House, such as that of remaining in the Chamber until the next speech has been completed. Does my hon. Friend join me in deploring such behaviour and in wishing to see the old-fashioned courtesies continue? Perhaps Ministers could also make that point to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central when, eventually, he returns to the Chamber.
Mr. Gill: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments. I was not in the Chamber when that happened, but perhaps the hon. Member for Croydon, Central, who is a relatively new Member--I believe that he was elected at the last general election--left the Chamber unaware of those courtesies of the House. Perhaps he does not understand them.
I should add, having been prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), that today it was unfortunate that the hon. Member for Chorley left the Chamber after making a very direct, but not necessarily very courteous intervention on an Opposition Member. As he is implicated--because of his actions yesterday, which I have described--in the matters that we are now debating, one would have thought that he should remain in the Chamber to hear more of this debate, rather than leaving shortly after making an intervention. I am very glad that he is back in the Chamber now.
As I was saying, the Opposition have in no way tried to obstruct the Food Standards Bill, which commands widespread support. Nevertheless, the Bill raises issues of great importance which I, for one, had hoped to be able to address on Report or Third Reading. However, as I said, the Bill is the unwitting victim of earlier events in the House. There is no evidence that the Bill would have been obstructed on Report or at Third Reading. I would go so far as to say that I had a genuine fear that it would not go the distance, and that there would be insufficient Members in the Chamber to sustain the debate until 7 o'clock this evening.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
I have been doing a calculation while my hon. Friend has been speaking--although I was listening to every word that he said. Some 35 amendments have been selected by Madam Speaker for debate. If we had the full six hours to go through them, we would be allowed 10 minutes of debate per amendment. Does my hon. Friend agree that 10 minutes per amendment is a gross insult not only to Parliament but to the people whom we serve?
Mr. Gill:
I very much regret that the Bill will not have a greater amount of time. My hon. Friend is right to point out how little time is left for each group of amendments. He will recognise that some of the amendments are more important than others and that some will demand more time than others. Nevertheless, he is right to say that the average time allowed is insufficient.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping):
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. A few moments ago, he made it quite clear
Mr. Gill:
I am saying that I very much regret the way in which a Bill in which I, as a Back Bencher, have an interest, and in the debate on which I wished to participate this evening, is being dealt with. I am debating this issue because of something outwith my control. If the Government had got a grip on their business and had been able to answer the questions that arose on Monday, we would not find ourselves in our present bind, which has been compounded by what happened last night.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
I am trying to work out whether the hon. Gentleman approves or disapproves of the suggestion by the Modernisation Committee that there are three ways of dealing with a Bill, any one of which can be open to the House. That is relevant to the discussion. We do not want to go back over Monday's discussion, but the House was following the procedures set down by the Modernisation Committee, and voted. Some of us might not think it particularly sensible, and some might be totally opposed to guillotines--whichever Government move them--and even more opposed to the moving of double guillotines. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know which of these approaches the hon. Gentleman supports.
Mr. Gill:
Like the hon. Lady, I am not a great lover of guillotines although I understand that, from time to time, Governments will seek to impose them. I believe that that should be done sparingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said powerfully that we are talking about the denial of opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute to debates.
I am concerned that, because the Railways Bill has been referred to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, the opportunity for Back Benchers to contribute are severely restricted. How do Back Benchers make their views on the Bill known to the Committee? Are Back Benchers allowed to table amendments? Is the Committee allowed to consider them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is again going over the Railways Bill and the debate on Monday evening. I would be grateful if he came back to the motion.
Mr. Gill:
I will follow your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will appreciate that I was responding to an intervention by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
Before my hon. Friend took the intervention from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), he said that the Government had lost control of their business on Monday. What I find so bizarre is that the Government did not lose control of their business on Monday--they got their business on Monday and have continued to do so this week. Yet, in her extraordinary statement at 10 o'clock
Mr. Gill:
My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I did not say that the Government had lost their business--I made the point that the Government did get their business on Monday. I have explained to the House that it was spurious of the Leader of the House to say that a guillotine was to be imposed because the Government could not get their business, and I went on to explain that she said that it was not possible to make progress last night. I have demolished that argument as well. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will forgive me for being hard on him, but he could not have been listening carefully to what I said.
Mr. Maclean:
If my memory serves me correctly--others can check Hansard--the only business lost on Monday night was when Labour Members objected to a motion moved by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on behalf of the whole House.
Mr. Gill:
That event will have been recorded in the journals of the House, but I take my right hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Fabricant:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
At this stage, I should remind the House that I am not a professional politician who comes to this place simply to talk for the sake of talking. I come to the House to speak when I feel strongly about something and when I have something to say on a subject that I know and understand. I am acting very much out of character this evening by speaking in this debate, but I want to make it clear why I feel constrained to do so. A Bill in which I am interested is being sabotaged because of the Government's ineptitude on Monday, their failure to answer the questions that they were asked and their failure last night to get a grip on Labour Back Benchers, who forced divisions that we need not have had.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |