| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
SOCIAL SECURITY (PENSIONS)
Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.--[Mr. Rooker.]
7 Feb 2000 : Column 83
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill (Procedure)
7.34 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move,
- That, if the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill be read a second time, no Order shall be made for the committal of the Bill and it shall be ordered to be read a third time upon a future day; and upon a Motion being made for Third Reading the Question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury): As I understand the motion, it is to provide a special and accelerated procedure for our proceedings on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill later this week, and the intention is to comply with the provision of the Parliament Acts that the Bill, when it leaves the Commons, must be identical in virtually every respect to the Bill previously enacted here.
The precedents for the motion are somewhat scarce. Unusually, my researches unearthed precedents set by Liberal Governments, which suggests that we are trespassing on what might mark the political boundary between history and archaeology.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
Has my hon. Friend found any precedent for such a motion on a matter of conscience that goes to the heart of people's behaviour?
Mr. Lidington:
That is a good point. It is true that such a motion has been used previously to enact measures of intense party controversy and that it was employed on the War Crimes Bill in 1991--a measure that, although the subject of fierce controversy, was given a free vote in both Houses of Parliament--but I do not believe that there is a precedent for a Bill to be dealt with under the Parliament Acts that deals with a matter of personal moral and religious beliefs.
I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in a little more detail than he has yet been willing to do what the Government's motives are for using the Parliament Acts and not at least trying out the opinion of the newly reformed other place, and why they are employing this precise motion to give effect to those Parliament Act procedures.
I was surprised that the Government, having told the House that the removal of the hereditary peers was essential to get rid of what they regarded as a tremendous injustice, should now apparently have so little confidence in their reformed Chamber that they are unwilling to put the Bill to the test of a vote in it.
I question the need for the motion. The precedents are limited. In 1913 and 1914, Parliament Act motions of this kind were introduced for the Government of Ireland Bill, the Established Church (Wales) Bill and the Plural Voting Bill. It is perhaps worth noting that the incumbent Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, moved those motions; those were days when Prime Ministers were rather more keen on appearances at the Dispatch Box.
The motion provides that, after Second Reading, there will be no Committee stage and that, although there may be a motion for Third Reading--and my understanding is that it could be voted on--there will be no debate on that motion.
Miss McIntosh:
I have just been to the Public Bill Office to try to table an amendment to the Bill, and I was told that, if the motion is approved this evening, no hon. Member will be permitted to table one. That is deeply regrettable. The House will not be allowed the opportunity to consider an amendment to equalise the age of consent at 18, which would be entirely in keeping with European law.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. The hon. Lady should not attempt to make a speech in an intervention.
Mr. Lidington:
Questions arise over the removal of the Committee stage and the possibility of debate on Third Reading. The Government's argument is that, in order to comply with the procedures laid down in the Parliament Acts, we cannot have a Committee stage. However, I find it strange that a Government with a majority of about 180 should be so nervous of the normal Committee procedure.
The Government have plenty of weapons available. They have a comfortable majority and, although such Bills have always been decided--and will be decided this Thursday--on a free vote, there is a big majority in the House as now constituted for the principle behind the Bill. The Government also have available the normal procedures to manage business, including closure motions and guillotines.
Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South):
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's constitutional arguments. If we were to have a Committee stage during which--heaven forfend--Conservative Members attempted to filibuster and the Government had to move a closure motion, may I take it from what he has just said that the Conservatives would not then jump up and down and scream and shout about the curtailment of democracy?
Mr. Lidington:
On all proceedings in previous Sessions on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, the Conservative party has operated a free vote, without the application of party Whips. That applies to the motion tonight and would apply to any vote held on the substance of the Bill or any other procedural motions relating to it. In free votes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, my Front-Bench colleagues take different views, depending on their personal opinions. That is how it should be with a Bill of this nature and that is how we will continue to operate.
The Government's argument, as I have said, is that to comply with the Parliament Acts, it is necessary to have no Committee stage. Those arguments were made by the Liberal Government in 1913 and 1914, by the Labour Government in 1948 and by the Conservative Government in 1991. However, there is an alternative available to the Government that has not previously--as far as I am aware--been mentioned and that is explicitly provided for in section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911. That Act,
while it states clearly that the Bill sent from the House of Commons must be the same as that which was passed in the previous Session, also states that
The precedents show that no less a figure than Winston Churchill, at the time a Cabinet Minister in a Liberal Government, said:
Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster):
Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that the House has not already had sufficient time for debate on the Bill in the previous Session?
Mr. Lidington:
One thing that I have learned in my relatively brief time here is that almost every piece of legislation introduced by any Government benefits from debate and amendment. Too often, I have seen Governments introduce legislation, curtail debate by procedural devices and then, a couple of years later, discover that it is far from perfect. The courts have to try to sort it out or it has to be amended through further legislation.
The motions that were debated in 1913 and 1949 said that suggestions should be made in the form of a motion on the Order Paper tabled between Second Reading and Third Reading. If we are not to have a Committee stage, it would still be possible for the House to follow the procedures laid down in the Parliament Acts, provided that there was a gap between Second and Third Readings. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain whether the Government intend to proceed to Third Reading on Thursday immediately after Second Reading or whether they will set a further day for the formal motion of Third Reading. If the suggested procedure is to be followed, who is to decide whether a particular motion is selected for the debate? Will it be the Government, will it be Madam Speaker, or will there be a discussion through the usual channels?
"the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on the passage of such a Bill through the House . . . suggest any further amendments without inserting the amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and if agreed to by that House, shall be treated as amendments made by the House of Lords, and agreed to by the House of Commons; but the exercise of this power by the House of Commons shall not affect the operation of this section in the event of the Bill being rejected by the House of Lords."
The provision was designed to retain for the House of Commons the right to consider possible amendments to a Bill being brought forward under the Parliament Acts, without that compromising its ultimate rights to overrule the House of Lords and insist that the will of the Commons should prevail. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will tell us whether the Government will provide for what is sometimes termed the suggestions procedure to operate in respect of the Bill.
"The Suggestion stage is . . . to enable either small points which are oversights to be set right by general agreement or to enable suggestions of compromise to be put forward and debated. The root principle of the Parliament Act is that every Amendment which makes for agreement, and for a change in a Bill which tends to lessen disagreement, can be incorporated in the Bill without depriving it of the advantages of the . . . Parliament Act."--[Official Report, 23 June 1913; Vol. LIV, c. 843.]
We should ponder carefully before we agree to a procedural motion that would considerably curtail the rights of every Back Bencher to debate the Bill and to suggest ways in which it could be improved. Of course, once Second Reading had taken place, any amendments would have to comply with the overall purpose of the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |