| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Timetable
1.--(1) Remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
Questions to be put
2.--(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on either Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)--
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
Miscellaneous
3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.
4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on either Bill are taken or to recommit either Bill.
6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
7. If at today's sitting--
(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; but
(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then,
proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to either Bill.
Supplemental orders
9. The proceedings on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
10. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
I shall speak only briefly as the House has much important business before it this evening. The two Bills with which we are concerned are important in the Government's view, and there are particular reasons why we want to see them complete their stages of consideration as rapidly as possibly.
The Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill facilitates the granting of free television licences to the over-75s as from 1 April. The need for those new powers is pressing. The Government's announcement of free television licences for people aged 75 or over has been widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides and will help some of the most vulnerable members of the community. Without the Bill, elderly, and often frail, claimants could be put to considerable inconvenience in claiming their entitlement. The cost of administering the concession would also be far higher than under our proposals.
The second Bill is the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will deal with its further stages. It will be regarded by most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides as long overdue and uncontroversial. It deals with abuses and problems caused by unauthorised traders in the royal parks. It has the support of those on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): So what?
Janet Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman is in a minority. If, by his actions later this evening, he shows that he wants to consign tourists to London to eating dodgy hamburgers sold by dubious illegal traders in the royal parks, he will do the tourist industry a serious injustice. He will have plenty of time later to elaborate on his views.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Can the Minister tell us whether the Leader of the House has been informed of the displeasure expressed by Conservative Members about her failure to move the first allocation of time motion, despite her presence in the Palace of Westminster and the fact that she has voted? Can the Minister also tell us why the right hon. Lady failed to move this second motion?
Janet Anderson: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is always aware of what is going on in the Chamber. I am moving the motion because both Bills are the business of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that I am a Minister in that Department.
The need for new powers is pressing if we are to deal with the abuse of illegal trading in the royal parks. The health, safety and well-being of visitors must be protected, along with the rights and expectations of authorised
traders. The peaceful atmosphere of the royal parks must be maintained. The Bill will protect the interests of members of the public who visit the royal parks. I urge hon. Members to support the motion.8.57 pm
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): I make it clear that we support both the Bills mentioned in the guillotine motion. Like the Minister, I want the maximum opportunity for debate on the important issues that arise from the Bills and that are set down for discussion on Report.
Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) set out in some detail the Opposition view on the use of the guillotine. We shall reinforce that view in the Division Lobby at the end of this debate.
The previous debate was characterised by accusation and counter-accusation about who is to blame for the situation in which the Government find themselves. Our argument is not with the Bills, although some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will rightly wish to discuss some points of concern. However, this is the fifth or sixth Bill that I have dealt with in this Session as a Front-Bench spokesman on Home Affairs or Culture, Media and Sport. I must conclude that the Government's legislative programme is overloaded. During my 13 years as a Member, it has been unprecedented for the House to be asked to give Third Readings to no fewer than four Bills in one evening. If anyone thinks that blame attaches to any of my right hon. or hon. Friends for frustrating progress, that is not true.
The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill received its Second Reading in Committee, so this debate and our proceedings last Wednesday offer the only opportunities for hon. Members to discuss the measure. Although we have made our views abundantly clear from the Opposition Front Bench--as the Minister acknowledged--the Bill contains important issues of principle, such as the seizure and confiscation of assets and the question of penalties, which hon. Members obviously want to discuss.
Further important and fundamental issues are involved in the Government's proposals to implement their pledge to give all those aged over 74 a free television licence. As the Minister will know, during our extremely productive Committee proceedings, we managed to resolve--or make progress on--several matters of concern to right hon. and hon. Members. However, it is clear that there should be an opportunity to debate those points on Report, and for those Members who were not members of the Standing Committee to have the opportunity to put their threepenn'orth--as we would say in Yorkshire--into the debate on those important matters.
The Opposition formally do not approve the use of the guillotine. I hope that, during the next four to five hours, we shall be able to debate issues on both Bills that are of concern to hon. Members, even though we support the Bills. It is a sad occasion when measures that are formally supported by the Opposition nevertheless become the subject of a guillotine--not because hon. Members want to take time debating the issues, but because the Government have introduced too much legislation.
9.2 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): I have been a Member for about 17 years. During that time, there have been several timetable motions, but I have never spoken
on them--either at my own desire or at the behest of the Whips. I am moved to do so tonight and I make no apology for that.When the Minister opened the debate, she made my point for me. She seems to believe that because the Opposition support the Bills, that is the end of the matter--as we support the Bills, it would be quite inappropriate to detain the House by actually examining their content.
Earlier this evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out that he was a traditionalist. I join him in that. It was my impression that I came to the House to scrutinise legislation--that is why I draw my princely salary. However, if I thought that there was common ground between myself and Labour Members, I was quickly disabused of that idea shortly after the general election.
I recall the last appearance--for the time being--of my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box when we were considering the Bill to abolish the assisted places scheme. I cannot remember whether we were discussing a guillotine motion or whether we were asking the then Leader of the House, now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, for time properly to debate the issue. However, she used a phrase that I found absolutely chilling. As a Member of the House--as a traditionalist--I still find it chilling. She said that we did not need any more time to debate the measure because the people had spoken.
That phrase was used to advance a proposition on a Bill that would take from parents of modest means the ability to send their children to some of the best schools in the country--in breach of a specific assurance to the contrary given by a Labour shadow Front-Bench spokesman when Labour was in opposition. All that was cast to the wind.
As I recall it, that Bill's First Reading was on a Monday and it was proposed that its Second Reading and remaining stages in the Commons should take place the same week. However--I remember it as clearly as if it were yesterday--hon. Members came into the House, as they will later, tapping their watches and pointing at the clock in the extraordinary belief that for £48,000 a year all they had to do was come in and tap their watches at 10 o'clock at night, and they would then be entitled to go home. We pointed out to them that they were not going home then, any more than they will go home at 10 o'clock tonight. We have a duty in the House of Commons to scrutinise the legislation that is before us.
I remember that, on that occasion, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a speech of commendable brevity; it went on for no more than 90 minutes. He pointed out that the issues would have to be dealt with the following week when we had another two days to debate the Bill. I am reminded that the debate did not take place under a guillotine motion, but the principle holds true.
The view, "The people have spoken; no scrutiny is necessary; can we please be paid our salaries and go?" was expressed three years ago, and we would like to think that, in the intervening period, even this Government have begun to understand that we engage in a two-part process--they propose and we scrutinise. We have a vote and we come second, and that is the way it is for the time
being. However, they do not recognise that process, and they do not recognise how draconian a guillotine motion is. If someone wants to scrutinise a Bill even though they agree with it, the Government say, "Let's have a guillotine motion."It is worth remembering how draconian guillotine motions are. The 22nd edition of "Erskine May", the guide to parliamentary practice--I doubt whether practice has changed from that described in the previous 21 editions--states that guillotine motions
- may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |