| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Will my right hon. Friend consider the representations on the whole process of timetabling that I made to her and the Chief Whip? Does not tonight's ridiculous charade underline the arguments in favour of timetabling all business?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct in that--as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out and as, I am sure, Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen recognise--there are undoubtedly useful issues in the Bill which should be debated. The time made available for debate was not challenged until this evening; that time has been used not to discuss serious issues but to filibuster. That is an abuse of the House.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): I am sorry that the right hon. Lady has not yet told the House what her intentions are with regard to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill--[Hon. Members: "Ah."] That Bill raises matters of considerable importance, which touch on the liberty of the subject. I want the Bill to be properly debated, at the proper time, so that I can speak and vote against it. It was never a good idea to put a Bill of such importance on late at night. I hope that when she decides on when we shall debate that Bill, we shall do so early in the day and with sufficient time.
Mrs. Beckett: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have every intention of giving time for that matter to be debated and voted on. I note that this is the first admission from the Opposition that the need to debate the Representation of the People Bill has to do with the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill--the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made my point.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): Will my right hon. Friend tell the House and the hard-pressed fishing communities of Scarborough and Whitby what will happen to the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill? Is not the lack of seriousness with which the Opposition take such issues an indictment of the Opposition? When can we return to that important business which is vital to my constituents?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct. What is more, I suspect that he is probably speaking for some Opposition Members, although for reasons that we all understand, they are showing a certain amount of collegiate loyalty. Although, last Thursday, I was not pressed to find more time for the Bill that was debated this evening, I was pressed to find an opportunity to discuss fishing issues. My hon. Friend will know that one of the Bills that has been lost for today's business, as a result of the activities of Opposition Members, would have offered an opportunity to discuss fishing issues.
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): When the Labour Members who are shouting and bawling--almost none of
them bothered to attend today's debates--[Interruption.] When they read Hansard tomorrow morning, they will discover that, since 5 o'clock, we have held a constructive, good-humoured and well-ordered debate. Will the Leader of the House tell us why she has not bothered to come into the Chamber to see what has been going on? Will she tell the House why she is so terrified of debate, and of scrutiny by Opposition Members?
Mrs. Beckett: I am shaking in my shoes, naturally, as a result of that condemnation. I will simply say to the hon. Gentleman that, so far as I can see, he too is one of those who did not contribute to debates on any stage of the Bill until today. Of course it is perfectly legitimate for him to do so, but I simply say to him that his concern is perhaps a little late found.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): As the promoter of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill in the last Session, I assure my right hon. Friend that the Conservative Members--two of them in particular--who have been filibustering this afternoon have form in that respect. What does she think that the Conservative party has to say about animal welfare to all those groups who oppose cruelty? The vast majority of Members want fur farming banned. Can she assure us that she will bring the Bill back for its Second Reading as soon as possible?
Mrs. Beckett: Again, let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government have every intention of ensuring that the Bill whose original purpose she promoted reaches the statute book. As she will fully understand, I cannot at this second give her details of when and how that Bill will again be debated, but I can assure her that what has happened in the past has been what many Members across the House regard as an exploitation of the use of private Members' time, and we do not intend to see the same thing happen in Government time.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): I have not been taking part in these proceedings. Instead, I have been making profitable use of my time in the Library, preparing for the sitting of Standing Committee F tomorrow morning. What makes the right hon. Lady so reluctant to move the 10 o'clock motion, and what is it about Labour Members that they are unable to make use of their time at night when they are not taking part in the proceedings in the Chamber?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender at our debates. I am confident that, in his heart of hearts, he is well aware that to spend time in the House discussing the use of the words "temporary" and "verifiable" may not be the best use of the time that is available to us.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): I was referred to earlier. Yes, I participated in some of the earlier debate, but it took me merely six minutes to make two very simple points. It took Conservative Members 60 minutes to make the same points, very badly.
Mrs. Beckett: That is why my hon. Friend is so much more highly paid.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): My track record on animal welfare is reasonably well known in the House.
I am a passionate supporter of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill and I have waited patiently here tonight, with a view to coming into the Chamber to support it. However, as one who, wearing another hat, has on occasions had the duty to defend the rights of Back Benchers, I would not wish that Bill to be used to deny Back Benchers on both sides of the House the right to discuss issues on Report. I have yet to hear the right hon. Lady answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): why will she not move the 10 o'clock motion, so that we may complete the discussions on the Representation of the People Bill and move on to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has no more control over his hon. Friends than has anyone else, and there can be no assurance that we would complete the stages of the Representation of the People Bill if we moved the 10 o'clock motion and sat through the following day. He may be prepared to take the risk; I prefer to give him the proper time to debate the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill in reasonable hours and at whatever length is required.
Mr. Phil Hope (Corby): Is it not clear that the filibuster by the Conservatives is not just an abuse of the democratic procedures of the House but a denial of the democratic wishes of the people of this country to prohibit the outlandish practice of fur farming? Will my right hon. Friend now take it upon herself to introduce timetabling of parliamentary business so that a minority of Conservative extremists cannot obstruct the democratic will of the people?
Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) knows, I have always been reluctant to contemplate the use of the procedure that I have had to announce tonight. I am a strong believer in, and have always practised, the use of sensible programming so that issues of real importance on Bills may be debated and we do not spend time on issues of no real importance or of minor importance.
I wholly accept my hon. Friend's point that the programming of legislation is likely to lead to sensible and proper discussion.
Mr. Gale:
Who is the judge of that?
Mrs. Beckett:
The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Who is the judge of that?" Any Conservative Member who thought that inadequate time had been proposed for the Representation of the People Bill had the opportunity to say so at business questions. Not one of them opened their mouth.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton):
Can the right hon. Lady cite a precedent in the public business of the House in which two Second Reading debates were taken in succession on the same day and following the Report stage of a third Bill?
Mrs. Beckett:
The hon. Gentleman should have more sense. If he had been here longer, he would have known that the previous Government did everything.
Helen Jones (Warrington, North):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of our constituents would have
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |