| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.49 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Earlier, I had the privilege of hearing the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) speak about what Parliament is all about. This Parliament is all about the scrutinising and preparation of legislation. It is not a nine-to-five job.
Let me take the House back with an image from history. Imagine that it is the year 850. Dank mists lie over the water and all that can be heard is the regular swish-swash of oars from a longboat as it enters a misty inlet, which, in future, will be known by the Icelandic words for misty inlet--Reykjavik. Within 50 years, a Parliament was formed, called the Althing--the forerunner of our Parliament.
In 900 to 950, Norsemen, who later came via Scandinavia to colonise our country, as they had earlier, stood opposite a cliff and would debate not in a Parliament contained by a roof, but in a Parliament contained by the heavens. The acoustics were such that they used to shout at each other, aiming their voices at a cliff. Debates sometimes lasted two, three or four weeks. Chieftains would come from throughout the island of Iceland to speak at the Althing--a collection of individuals who debated the law. There was no written record--
Mr. Fabricant: More to the point, as my right hon. Friend says, there was no guillotine.
The point is that this Parliament follows in the tradition of the Althing--or it should. However, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has said, the Government have got themselves into a mess. They are over-legislating. As I said earlier, I remember being advised by--I hesitate to use the word--my mentor, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who was my pair in the days when we were allowed to have pairs. When the Conservative
Government were not doing so well, he said that they should stop legislating and stand still. My advice to the Government, who are not doing well, is not to legislate--or at least not to over-legislate. That is what has got them into this mess.Why have we got a guillotine motion? Is it because we have discussed the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill or the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill at length? No. The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was discussed for just 35 minutes in Standing Committee and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill was considered in two sittings for just two hours and three minutes.
Some might say that they are unimportant Bills, but we know that they are not. The Minister has told us that they are important Bills. So why are they being guillotined? Is it because the Government think that we would not otherwise complete all the stages this evening? I am convinced that if there were no guillotine and the Government were to agree to discuss the Bills through the night if need be, both Bills would receive Third Reading long before the sun rose over the horizon.
As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, we have a guillotine because Labour Members believe that being a Member of Parliament is a salaried job. But as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) so eloquently said earlier, this is not a place where one can do a nine-to-five job.
I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), who has just had twins. I appreciate that some people have other lives apart from the House of Commons. However, even in a nine-to-five job, one is expected to do the job. One cannot say to an employer, "I am now going to take a four-month leave of absence, but you must keep the job open for me. In the meantime, I want you to adapt your own practices, so that everything slows down because of me." It would be immoral to ask that of an employer. It is even more immoral to ask that of the state which pays our wages.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): I am interested in the description "nine-to-five job", which none of us wants. Was the hon. Gentleman against the Jopling recommendations? I cannot remember Conservative opposition in the last Parliament to the recommendations, particularly the recommendation that the amount of time spent in the House after 10 o'clock should be limited. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe that what we are advocating is all wrong, why was there not such opposition to Jopling at the time?
Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. When I came into the House in 1992, I was bewildered by this place. I had come from industry, and I was not a Blair babe. I was a Major man, and I tended to vote with the Government. Rarely did I question the Government. I have to say that I am enjoying myself a darn sight more now that I am able to think for myself in opposition. I had my doubts about Jopling because I thought that it was conceivable that we might be in opposition some day. However, I voted with the
Government because I was a Major man. I did not feel happy with the provisions of the Maastricht treaty but, like a good victim of the Whips, I voted for that, too.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): Does my hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster)--a former Labour Chief Whip--made it clear that he had doubts about Jopling at the time? He has said explicitly that he only dropped those doubts--and that Labour only became prepared to accept Jopling--when the Labour party was convinced that it was going to win the election. There was no high principle involved; it was pure politics.
Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend has made his point clearly. Of course it is a question of politics, organisation and trying to run this House like a legislation factory. However, that is wrong. Legislation is never perfect. There is a strange argument that if legislation is not contentious, we should not spend time over it. However, just because we might agree with the broad thrust of a Bill does not mean that its provisions may not be contentious or imperfect.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
- That, at this day's sitting, the Motions on Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] and Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill (Allocation of Time) and Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. Clelland.]
Mr. Fabricant: Labour Members have tried to argue that Conservative Governments had guillotine motions, too, but there are two points to make in reply. First, two wrongs do not make a right. Secondly, if we accept that sometimes guillotine motions are not wrong, because matters can be debated at length on the Floor of the House and in Committee, it is worth examining how often different Governments have used them. My near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has made a detailed analysis. He said that during the Thatcher and Major years, the Conservative Government had 60 guillotine motions, but the Labour Government have had 50 in the past three years. It appears that the opinion of many journalists and parliamentarians that this Government are becoming more and more presidential, and less and less interested in what happens in the House, is borne out by their lack of compunction in using guillotine motions.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who sadly is no longer in her place, was right to point out that the people who dislike the way in which Parliament works should perhaps not have come here in the first place. Some people believe that when they are in Rome, they should do as the Romans do, but some hon. Members seem to believe that they should make the Romans do as they do. That is the fallacious argument that has been made by many Labour Back Benchers today.
It is interesting that those who argue for guillotine motions and a factory of legislation were not elected in 1992 or before. They were all new Members of Parliament in 1997, who are as bewildered as I was during the 1992-
97 Parliament. I can appreciate how they feel, because I too have had to sit on the Back Benches and vote with the Government because of the force of the Whips and my sense of duty to my party.The hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who is no longer in his place, spoke at some length in this debate and in the earlier timetable debate about what he would do, if in government, to try to ensure that legislation went through steadily. He said that the Government's legislation is going through boom and bust, but I think that it is going through bust and bust--just as I fear the economy soon will.
When I asked the hon. Member for Hazel Grove what he would do to prevent guillotines being imposed, he had no answer. However, the answer is obvious: if need be, we must be prepared to debate through the night. If the Government Whips had not pulled stumps at 10 o'clock last Wednesday, we could have finished business by 2 or 3 o'clock the next morning, at the latest.
Mr. Fabricant: Or before, as my hon. Friend rightly says.
This Bill must be debated fully. Parliament is a place where people scrutinise legislation and speak--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |