| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who reinforces my point. Concealed within this heading can be any number of changes--some of which, I accept, may be reasonable. However, others may well materially affect the substance of the Bill, and therefore deserve further consideration.
Last but not least, we are to consider "Council Tax and precepts"--a matter which, in the past, has often given rise to debates that have lasted a whole day. In your many years of distinguished service to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have been party to debates in Standing Committee, if not on the Floor of the House, in which "Council tax and precepts" alone could have given rise to many hours of impassioned debate by hon. Members. So many aspects of this matter would normally require detailed consideration and debate.
I am beginning to wonder whether the motion to restrict debate is remotely acceptable. I hope that the Minister will feel it necessary to expand on what she said to reassure us why she believes that only three hours is sufficient to deal with all these important matters. I do not accept her characterisation of these matters as non-controversial. How could council tax and the powers of the Secretary of State be non-controversial? I have never heard of such a thing.
It is getting towards the end of term, and the Minister has her bucket and spade on her mind--some of her right hon. Friends have caravanning on their minds. Ministers are all worried sick about the reshuffle, about which the Prime Minister seems unable to make up his mind. However, those are not good enough reasons to hurry through the business this evening. Ministers are all worried out of their minds about losing their gigantic ministerial salaries, private offices and chauffeur-driven cars, but they are paid enough and they should be prepared to be here as long as necessary to do justice to the matters before us. They should not say insultingly that they want to rush business through in three hours so that they can go to their offices and worry about whether they will still be in their jobs tomorrow.
Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay):
I listened closely to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), the Opposition spokesman, and I heard nothing worthwhile to support his objection to the guillotine motion--a motion which, on principle, Liberal Democrats would normally want to oppose. However, we need reasons for opposing the motion.
A great deal of time has been spent on this Bill in this House, in Committee and in another place. We will spend some time on it tonight, and there will be opportunities in future to spend more time on it.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough):
That was an extraordinary speech from someone who claims to represent a party which is seeking to hold the Government to account.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that it was hardly an extraordinary speech? It was a typical speech from a Liberal Democrat.
Mr. Leigh:
I agree, and to take my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to task for what I thought was an over-moderate speech and for daring to speak one word of opposition to the Government was ridiculous of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders).
I wish to refer to timetable motions, which were quite rare. There were no timetable motions at all in the House until the controversies of the Government of Ireland legislation in the last century, when the Bill raged back and forth on Report alone for some 80 days and the Speaker had to stay in his seat literally for hour after hour. The whole Government were in danger of crumbling because they could not keep their people on the Benches for those hours.
When I entered this House, I did not think that timetable motions were applicable to minor amendments at this late stage of a Bill. The Government cannot have it both ways. If these amendments are uncontroversial, surely there is no need for a timetable motion. Surely nobody suspects that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would talk for hour after hour and hold up the Government's business. In fact, we will not be able to hold anything up, because there is no major business to conclude before we all go on holiday tomorrow.
Three hours is not long for any debate, but if my right hon. and hon. Friends wanted to spend three hours on the timetable motion, there would be no time at all to discuss the amendments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst maintains that the amendments are not uncontroversial. That may be part of the truth, but they contain nothing that is likely to detain the House for hour after hour.
The House will have to come to a sensible conclusion about timetable motions if we are to protect our traditional role of scrutinising the Executive. Are we entering a period when virtually every Bill is timetabled? Some think that that would be a good idea.
Ms Armstrong
indicated assent.
Mr. Leigh:
Some believe that one should have an agreement from the word go, to stop filibustering and prevent the Opposition from talking for hour after hour in Committee while Government Back Benchers are told by their Whips to say nothing. That is a perfectly justifiable point of view.
Mr. Forth:
My hon. Friend mentioned filibustering. I hope that he will accept that that is impossible in the House because of the diligence and wisdom of the occupants of the Chair, who will always prevent any suggestion of time wasting or frivolity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The right hon. Gentleman should not try to draw the Chair into the argument.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire):
My hon. Friend may not have noticed just now that the Minister showed that she wholeheartedly agreed that the more business was guillotined, the better it was from her point of view.
Mr. Leigh:
The Minister is an honest lady who is entitled to her point of view. She believes that all business should be timetabled. That is a rational and logical point of view. That might be convenient for the Government, because it would mean that they could plan their business exactly, but it might not be entirely convenient for the Opposition or, more important, for the process of democracy, which relies on Oppositions using the one power that is available to them--to speak. That power has not been taken lightly and has often resulted in the harsh light of scrutiny being thrown on Bills.
Are we playing a game in the House, in which the Government say their piece, we say ours, and they get their business through with some cosy arrangement agreed through the usual channels; or is this a living and vibrant place in which people feel passionately and use the power available to Back Benchers to talk and talk and subject the Executive to scrutiny, perhaps thereby making the Government slip up? That is what we are paid to do. It is a noble and important role for Oppositions.
Mr. Swayne:
When programme motion after programme motion was agreed between Government and Opposition Front Benchers during the passage of the Scotland Bill--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to give me the history of the Scotland Bill. I was sitting here at the time. We do not want to get into that.
Mr. Leigh:
This is not the Scotland Bill; it is not a matter of huge controversy. In the 1970s, we took weeks and weeks to discuss devolution legislation. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was there day after day--as were the late Mr. Enoch Powell, and Mr. Michael Foot--holding the Government to account. What is wrong with that?
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
The problem when a programme motion is agreed between Government and Opposition Front Benchers is that, in the ordinary course of debate, issues are discovered that require further elucidation by the Minister or, indeed, by Back Benchers. The timetable motion, agreed in advance, simply cannot take account of that. That is why such motions should be avoided if at all possible.
The motion is entirely avoidable. It may be that we will not come across issues that could have detained us long, but it remains a possibility. That is why it is pointless to have a programme motion when one is clearly not needed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order of the House of 24th March 1999 be supplemented as follows:
26 Jul 1999 : Column 67
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
2. (1) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall--
(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended.
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment followed by the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,
(c) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment, and
(d) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(2) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall--
(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair,
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message, and
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
6. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
26 Jul 1999 : Column 68
7. A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
8. This paragraph applies to--
(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments,
(b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords, and
(c) proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 6.
9. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.
10. Proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
26 Jul 1999 : Column 67
11. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
12. Where proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24, commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.
13. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
26 Jul 1999 : Column 69
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |