| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Stunell: I started by saying yes to that question, and I will say it again--yes. To have two guillotine motions in respect of four Bills in one day is a sign of a Government who have lost their nerve and are responding immaturely to provocation. I do not know whether I can make myself any plainer than that. That is our view.
There is a better organised and more formal approach. The business of the House should be planned in a much better way, and we have definite proposals that would enable that to be done. Sadly, they are not on the Order Paper.
I strongly urge the Government and the official Opposition to take notice of the public's views of the way in which the House conducts itself. I want them both to take account of the true quality of the outputs of the House. I think that Members on both sides of the House share the view, and the frustration, that it is not effective at holding the Government to account. It does not pass high-quality legislation and it does not allow the best form of representation of the people who elected its Members. That is a greater cause for concern than the motion.
The proposed guillotine does not have the support of Liberal Democrats. I hope that we shall reject it and proceed to consider other business.
4.39 pm
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): I apologise in advance for having to leave this debate. I am a member of a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation and, if I do not attend it at some point, I shall doubtless be guillotined by my Whips. [Interruption.] Yes, no doubt the Opposition would greatly miss me.
A charge of arrogance has been made against the Government. I have the same respect for the House of Commons as I had when I first entered the House many years ago. The House is a place for debate, and even, sometimes, for delaying matters. I accept the rights of the Opposition. I spent 18 years on the Opposition Benches, and often heard Government spokesmen introducing guillotines by saying that they were absolutely necessary. This is no unique occasion on which a wicked Government are moving a guillotine. Successive Governments have reached the view that guillotines are necessary.
As I look across the House, the only Conservative Member whom I can see who, under the previous Government, and to his credit, opposed all--at least, almost all; he certainly gave the impression that he did--guillotine motions is the hon. Member for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I cannot recall any other Conservative Member present being so strenuously opposed to guillotines when he sat on the Government Benches.
Minorities--even a minority within a minority--have rights and privileges. I do not say that it would be wrong to prevent such Members from prolonging proceedings. It is part of the House of Commons that they should be able to do so, and I have never argued otherwise. However, the time must come--as it has now--when the rights of the majority must also be considered. If that is not so, one or two Members on the Opposition Benches may prolong proceedings by speaking endlessly on a certain measure--within the rules of order, no doubt, and sometimes with the help of colleagues who rise to say, "Does my hon. Friend agree with me?"
All that may be perfectly in order, but the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)--who does not take part in such proceedings--cannot really be telling the House that the Government of the day should never respond by bringing in a timetable motion. Should it be that one or two Members--half a dozen at the most--can delay proceedings hour after hour, well into the night, leaving a large majority of Members powerless to act? I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone the history of guillotine motions. They resulted from events in the 19th century, when Irish Members--for good reasons, I believe--delayed the House, and there was no machinery with which the House could respond. Thus was the first guillotine motion introduced, but they have since been used on many occasions by successive Governments.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was not here in the 1880s. He knows full well that I was arguing that the Government are going in for overkill and distorting the balance of parliamentary priorities. They have so submerged Parliament in legislation that we have reached the pass that we have come to. If he casts his
mind back, the hon. Gentleman should know that I have opposed guillotines irrespective of which party has been in Government.
Mr. Winnick: I have been here for many years, but cannot claim to have been here in the 19th century. I do not want to wish to claim longer membership than the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). If the hon. Member for South Staffordshire opposed guillotine motions from his own side, I am glad to hear that he joined the hon. Member for Aldridge- Brownhills in doing so.
In a previous Parliament, the Jopling Committee looked into the hours of the House. It was chaired by a former Tory Minister and Chief Whip, and among its recommendations about our hours it argued that we should, in the main, not sit beyond 10 o'clock. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), argue that we must not change our ways and that it would be quite wrong to do so; why then were the conclusions of the Jopling Committee accepted almost unanimously? Despite that, during this Parliament, we have sat after 10 o'clock more often than previously.
I hear the point made by some hon. Members that we are not really in a working place, but I disagree.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winnick: No, because I shall keep my remarks brief.
This is a working place and it changes--as it has done over centuries. There is no reason why, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) should be forced to conclude that it is impossible for her to combine her domestic responsibilities with her parliamentary duties. Although it is unlikely that we shall sit from 9 to 5 o'clock--for all sorts of reasons--and I have never advocated anything of the kind, we must realise that there are people who could make a contribution to the House of Commons, but who have domestic responsibilities. They have a private life--and why not? Surely we are not saying that we cannot adjust--that we are so inflexible that it is not possible for us to change our ways at all.
Mr. Winnick: I shall not give way, because I want to conclude.
I am willing to sit through the night on important issues. We can all decide for ourselves what is important--I gave the national minimum wage as one illustration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned, I was in the Chamber when Michael Foot and Enoch Powell--for differing reasons--opposed changes to the House of Lords. Those were fundamental issues--of the greatest importance. I do not remember that Labour Members were complaining in the Tea Room then, because they understood what was involved.
However, why should we stay here hour after hour to discuss relatively non-controversial issues? We know that such matters are not of the greatest importance--although
I do not want to minimise their importance. Why should we stay here through the night, simply because one or two Opposition Members believe that they are making a contribution for their party? As I said, they have a perfect right to try to do so, but surely we too have a right to say that enough is enough, and that we want to conclude the debate and move on to other business.People outside--our constituents--find it impossible to understand why we sit here all night. They say, in effect, "Are you not too tired? Can you really pass important Bills that affect the lives of ordinary people by debating at 2, 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning? Why don't you have more sensible hours?" That is the view of the country. Although it may be a simplistic approach--
Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The guillotine motion is perfectly justified. We have a right to proceed with our business. I see no reason why we should not do so tonight.
4.48 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): For many Members of the House the matter is not merely one of administrative convenience, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) seems to suggest. It is one of principle--as was reflected in the speech made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
The matter touches on the very purposes and functions of the House. Given the long parliamentary career of the hon. Member for Walsall, North, he will recall the processes whereby guillotines were introduced. During the 1945-51 Labour Government, there were only five guillotines. If the two motions are passed today, about 40 Bills will have been guillotined in less than three years.
Mr. Tipping: Perhaps I could correct the hon. Gentleman--as his hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) tried to do earlier. If the guillotine motions are passed, the number will be 19--not 40.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |