---

2.5 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I shall be brief, as it is hypocritical to argue at great length for the more expeditious use of our time in the House.

I followed last night's debate as closely as I could without actually being in the Chamber throughout and I read Hansard very carefully this morning. I was interested to discover that such skilled debaters as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) seemed to speak at much greater length than usual. They are normally rather succinct--the sign of a good debater--but it may be significant that their skills seemed to fail them.

Why did we get into that difficulty last night? What were the effects? Discussion of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill was postponed, as was discussion of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill. The latter is an extremely important measure for those of us who represent fishing communities. It is concerned with various schemes of financial assistance. The explanatory notes state that it is designed to ensure that Ministers may

"make various schemes of financial assistance 'for the purposes of reorganising, developing or promoting the sea fish industry or of contributing to the expenses of those engaged in it.'"

That is extremely important.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: I said that I would be brief, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will get his chance.

20 Jan 2000 : Column 1006

The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is not present today. I know that there are not many fishermen in Bromley, but Conservative Members who represent fishing communities will have some answering to do. The Conservative party has caused to be postponed the approval of grants to fishing communities of something like £7 million. The availability of that sum could now be in doubt as a result of the delaying tactics last night.

However, it is the Government's business to get their business through. They cannot be allowed to escape scot free of responsibility for last night's extraordinary events. I was amazed when I was told in advance how the Government intended to handle last night's business. I assumed that a new spirit of compromise and consensus had broken out over the new year, and that something had been done to deal with the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst. I thought that the millennium spirit must have overtaken them.

I also assumed that the Conservative Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), had somehow managed to discipline what has become an undisciplined rabble on the Conservative Benches, but the Government must now know that that is not the case. The Conservative party has its own millennium bug, and it was visible on its Back Benches last night.

The Government must take very seriously the fact that Conservative Front-Bench Members are unable to control the party's maverick rebels. The evidence is clear in the Hansard report of last night's proceedings. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said:

"I . . . feel in no way bound by a colleague who, unbeknown to me, conspires with the Government in a working party to give this measure a spurious urgency that I do not understand and that has not yet been explained to me."--[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 876.]

That is a declaration of war--not of war with the Government or with the Liberal Democrat party, but of civil war. The Government must take careful note.

It was interesting that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for Buckingham seemed to be vying for the honour of making the longest contribution to the debate. Can that have anything to do with the fact that they are both on the award shortlist for the Opposition Member of the year competition? I understand that voting is taking place as I speak. Their contributions last night were electoral statements, and should have been declared as such.

I was interested that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who seemed to be a late entrant into the stakes, even managed to speak about junk mail and wine from Bordeaux Direct. Surely that is not relevant to the Bill.

The Conservative Chief Whip and the shadow Leader of the House were not even present when we were discussing the change in business last night. They have effectively disowned their Back Benchers.

Miss Widdecombe: Where were you?

Mr. Tyler: I was here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot have the right hon. Lady shouting across at the hon. Gentleman while he is speaking.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that the right hon. Lady is so keen on law and order that at least she listens to you, if not to me.

20 Jan 2000 : Column 1007

I believe that the Government should have foreseen the situation. They should recognise that the Conservative party is incapable of uniting behind its Front Bench. They should recognise that Conservative Back-Bench Members are in no way obliged to follow their Front-Bench leader, even when agreement has been reached. In those circumstances, it was, frankly, folly to table the business in an open-ended way and to cause so much trouble.

Miss Widdecombe: Lib-Lab pact.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: No, I am about to sit down.

Miss Widdecombe: He is scared.

Mr. Tyler: I have said on many occasions, both in the Chamber and in the Select Committee on Modernisation, that we believe that agreed programme motions are the way to proceed. I welcome the fact that that has become a regular practice. I do not understand why the Conservative Front Bench, having agreed to the necessity and importance of the Bill, did not then agree to a programme motion.

Miss Widdecombe: We wanted a debate.

Mr. Tyler: Could the Government, or a Conservative Member--or even the right hon. Lady, who seems incapable of keeping her mouth shut when in a sedentary position--explain?

Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: I shall now give way to the right hon. Lady.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The explanation is very simple. We believe in debate, and we believe in the importance of the Bill. When there is consensus on a Bill, that is precisely when it is most important that it is subject to the scrutiny of the whole House. That is why we wanted it taken on the Floor of the House in the first place, and the Government did not.

Mr. Tyler: It is evident that there is no longer consensus within the Conservative party. That is the problem. There is consensus on the importance of the legislation; there is consensus in the Modernisation Committee that a programme motion is appropriate for this sort of business, so that we can then have an orderly discussion of the issues. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has important points to make; he should be able to make them, not be squeezed out by the irrelevance of the contributions of some Conservative Members.

Earlier in the debate on the business of the House, reference was made to the shadow Leader of the Opposition. I think that it was a slip of the tongue; it was a reference not to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), but to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. May I suggest that, in future, the Government seek agreed

20 Jan 2000 : Column 1008

programme motions with those on the Conservative Front Bench? May I also suggest that they also need a third-party endorsement from the other party behind the Conservative Front Bench if they are to push it through?

2.14 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): I wish to avoid being a casualty in other people's battles. The last three groups of amendments stand in my name. The timetable motion is liable to affect my amendments so that they will fall unless there is Conservative co-operation.

If the Minister examines the record, he will see that last Thursday I moved two sets of amendments and I was brief in doing so because I was conscious of the time. We dealt with them rapidly. It would be my intention to deal similarly with these amendments. They refer to relatively minor but important matters in specific areas affecting electoral returning officers, such as their ability to correct clerical errors at the last minute before elections take place. We need an opportunity to debate those issues. I can only appeal to Opposition Members to move speedily through their amendments.

Paragraph 6 of the timetable motion states:

"No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith."

If there is a lack of progress today, and we do not reach some of the serious amendments at the end, there may be an opportunity for Ministers to take action to see that I am given the chance to debate my amendments.

---