| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): The right hon. Gentleman referred to the discipline of a complex Bill. Few Bills are more complex than the Finance Bill, which comes before us every year. We used frequently to sit throughout the night to discuss it. On Wednesday, we shall be discussing the consequences of the Pepper v. Hart ruling, which occurred at a very awkward time and which arose from the proceedings of the Finance Bill. Decisions were taken, and were subsequently considered. What is most important, however, is that if the pressure of time is there, Committees can meet more frequently. Will this proposal not stop them from meeting more frequently, and sticking to their timetables?
I am in favour of the motion, but I think that it should be used only in exceptional circumstances, rather than being taken into account just because a Committee is rather slow in making decisions and rather leisurely in carrying out its responsibilities.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose experience in the House is great and almost unparalleled, for pointing out that, if it were the will of the House to find mechanisms better to examine and to scrutinise Bills, it should be able to find them, rather than take the risks that are inherent in what it is doing. He is the second right hon. Member, following my righthon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), to say, "We will allow it in the case of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, but I hope that it will not happen too often." Both of them have been here long enough to know that that is a pious hope. Having opened the door, the Government are almost certain to want to walk through it ever more frequently. I would never use the word "naive" in the context of right hon. Gentlemen, but it is a triumph of hope over expectation.
Mr. Bercow:
Although I naturally endorse and support with enthusiasm the stance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), does my right hon. Friend agree that possibly the real motive behind the carry-over of the Bill is nothing to do with the public interest or the rights of the House, but is the pressing need for Ministers who are not professionally qualified in these important matters to get their minds round the 367 clauses and 228 pages of said Bill?
Mr. Forth:
That is entirely possible, but, having had the honour of serving on the Committee, I would hesitate to make that judgment. All I would say in the contextof the comments of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is that, if I may point it out to the House, I was largely instrumental in guiding a Bill of almost identical size through the House in the1992-93 Session. It had 350-something clauses and 21 or 22 schedules. We managed to do that. It was, of course, a magnificent Bill. It was virtually flawless. As a result of my guidance through the parliamentary process, it completed its passage on time and without the need of any chicanery of the sort that we are being asked to consider today.
My second reason for opposing the measure is simple: I still cling to that, sadly, apparently diminishing idea that it is the job of Her Majesty's Opposition to oppose, not to connive in the passage of Government legislation. That is why I am still mystified, despite the superb and elucidatory speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, about why the Conservative Opposition should find themselves conniving with this Government, of all Governments, in the passage of legislation. I cling to the view that Oppositions are here to oppose. I see no reason to overturn that excellent principle, even in the current case. I am not persuaded that it is an exception.
My other reason has been touched on by one or two hon. Members. One of the most undesirable principles in the House is of all-party, or consensually agreed, legislation. Over many years, some of the worst measures that have emanated from this place have been agreed by all parties and driven by consensus. I am sure that the list is familiar to right hon. and hon. Members, so I will not repeat it, but it makes me rather uneasy when I am told in emollient tones, "Do not worry, we have all agreed to the measure."
The Liberal Democrats apparently agreed to it, somewhat to my surprise. My right hon. and hon. Friends agreed to it and the Government want it. That would be bad enough, but another reason has been given to the House--it has been mentioned a couple of times: the City wants the Bill, so it must be rushed on its way.
Usually, if we are told that an outside interest group wants legislation, that makes us more than a little nervous and suspicious. In other circumstances and cases, I would be suspicious if I were told that a powerful interest group was anxious to have legislation. That would make my antennae tremble more than usual and I would want to know why. In this case, however, we are being told by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the City is very anxious to have the legislation--with the implication that the House should hurry its proceedings, to ensure that the City is pleased by having the legislation in place as soon as possible.
Mr. Tyrie:
I am very sympathetic to the argument being made by my right hon. Friend. However, on the point that he is now pursuing, I think that he is slightly off-beam. The City is very keen to have certainty--any type of certainty will do--rather than the uncertainty of being caught between two loads of legislation. The City is dead scared of the Bill--it thinks that it is a ghastly leviathan--and would rather it had never been introduced in the House. That strongly supports my right hon. Friend's argument that there should have been a much longer, more careful and thoughtful process before such comprehensive legislation was introduced to replace current regulations.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If he has accurately summarised the rationale behind the City's argument on the legislation, I am even less impressed with the City. If the City is saying, "This is a rotten piece of legislation and we fear it greatly, because we think it might damage us--but, please, may we have it quickly, because it is better than uncertainty", I am not very impressed with it.
I think that probably all hon. Members have today received a document appealingly headed "Justice in Financial Services". It was sent to us by a man--whom I
do not know personally--named J. R. S. Egerton. He makes some interesting assertions in his letter, dated 21 October. He states:
The letter goes on to say that the Bill's
I have only briefly quoted the two-page letter from the Justice in Financial Services organisation. I do not know that body or its provenance, but am simply trying to make the point that there are different points of view on the matter--rather than the cosy apparent unanimity that was in danger of emerging before I managed to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
It simply is not good enough for us to be told that we should pass an exceptional motion to give the Bill a second wind and further consideration, overturning all the House's previous tradition, because the Bill is large and complex and was introduced too late in the Session. Such a move makes me uneasy. I am not persuaded that the Bill is an exception--I do not think that there should be any exceptions.
Nevertheless, let us not use the motion as a first example of what I fear will become much more normal than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne have said. I should perhaps defer to them, as they have been Members longer than I have, but do not share their confidence--if that is the right word--that such motions will be a rare exception or one-off.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester):
There are two issues relating to the suspension motion that need to be considered: the points of constitutional principle and parliamentary procedure to which my right hon. Friend
I am sympathetic to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on constitutional principle and was almost completely persuaded by them. A carry-over sounds nice in theory, but it hands a good deal of further power to the Executive. The power of delay is almost all that the Opposition have and I was flabbergasted to hear the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who will undoubtedly be in opposition all his life, saying that its use should be further curtailed.
The relationship between the delaying power of the House of Lords and the carry-over provisions has not been mentioned so far. In certain circumstances, there is a risk that its power of delay could be eroded. That is set out clearly in a note prepared by the Clerks in the third report of the Modernisation Committee. The crucial two sentences say:
In their desire to assist the Modernisation Committee with their support for the idea, the Clerks suggest some possible safeguards to deal with that further erosion of Lords power. Those safeguards are not well thought out and I should like the Government to come forward at the earliest opportunity with their proposals on how the House of Lords power of delay can be thoroughly safeguarded if, as the Minister said a moment ago, carry-over provisions are to become more common.
My second point relates to the Bill. We are not debating the general issue of whether carry-over provisions should be permitted. We are considering the specific issue of whether the Financial Services and Markets Bill should be subject to the provisions. That depends on two points. First, it was understood between the usual channels that there should be general agreement across the House for the Bill being carried over. Secondly, the circumstances of the Bill and the progress made on it should be relevant to the decision.
The Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny from a Joint Committee to enable a consensus to be developed. However, I am not convinced that the Government have stuck to their side of the bargain in delivering responsiveness and flexibility to proposals that have been made. They have not responded favourably to the proposals of the Burns Committee, and they have not shown much flexibility towards Opposition proposals in Committee. In fact we have had a mixed reaction to the Burns Committee proposals, to which I shall refer in a moment.
"The Financial Services and Markets Bill has been condemned by the City editor of the Evening Standard as the greatest threat to individual liberty and the rule of law for a generation."
I am not familiar with the views of the Evening Standard's City editor on the Bill, but can assume only that the letter gives a reasonably accurate interpretation of them.
"excesses have been denounced by the Times and the Telegraph and received unfavourable notice in the Financial Times."
I am not suggesting that we should be driven in our legislative deliberations by the press any more than by the City, but if those press experts are making those types of arguments, it seems to be a factor that should be taken into consideration and give us pause before finding ways of hurrying the Bill's passage. As has already been alluded to in the debate, the deliberations of the famous Joint Committee--which has been hailed as such an advance in the legislative process--on the Bill were less than complete.
"But if such a Bill were sent to the Lords late in the Session, with the intention of its being carried over, the Lords would have inadequate time to give it proper consideration. Nonetheless, the Parliament Act provisions could, legally, be applied by the Commons in the ensuing Session."
In other words, in those circumstances the key power of delay--perhaps the only major power left in the hands of the Lords after the Parliament Act 1911--would be greatly eroded.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |