---

Mr. Paterson: There is a real danger that bad law will be passed, as we have seen with some of the other measures that the Government have guillotined. Severe criticisms were made of the Welsh and Scottish referendums, and that could have been because they were guillotined and debate was truncated. Very real criticisms have been made of the treaty of Amsterdam, which was enacted as the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1998, and that was guillotined. I live on the border with Wales and real criticisms have been made there of the Welsh Assembly. I suspect that is because the relevant legislation was crashed through the House without proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is the point--line by line scrutiny is important.

It is worth reminding the House of the wise words of John Biffen, who was a highly esteemed previous Leader of the House and greatly respected on both sides. He was also my predecessor and is now Lord Biffen. He wisely commented:

All Governments are tomorrow's possible Opposition.--[Official Report, 27 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1088.]

[Interruption.] I am delighted that the Minister has noted that point, but I wonder whether she will take it to heart. She made a brief, dismissive speech and I do not think that she really understands the importance of what we are discussing tonight.

Mr. Maclean: Before my hon. Friend criticises the Minister too much, I should point out that the guillotine motion is not her fault. She has been put up to do a job tonight as a departmental Minister when it should have been the Leader of the House. For the second time today, the right hon. Lady is skulking in her office instead of being at the Dispatch Box justifying the guillotine motions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Which Minister is before us has nothing to do with the motion. I do not want any debate on that issue. I do not like to say it, but the speech of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is becoming repetitive.

Mr. Paterson: Thank you for that helpful comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hayes: I am a little disappointed that my hon. Friend has not chosen to consider the issue of the Parks

22 May 2000 : Column 796

Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 in relation to the guillotine motion, so perhaps he will take the opportunity to consider the Parks Regulation Act 1872 in that context. The 1872 Act preceded the introduction of guillotines but had debate proceeded at inordinate length, the then Government might have been moved to introduce guillotines much earlier. Will my hon. Friend give some consideration to the length and nature of the debate in 1872?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want the hon. Gentleman to consider only the timetable motion.

Mr. Paterson: I shall not be tempted by the diversion my hon. Friend offers. There is too much legislation going through the House and the Government are not drafting legislation properly. The only solution is to allow more time for detailed consideration. It is not to try to crash through four Bills in one evening and to curtail debate in this disgraceful manner. I oppose the motion.

11.30 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): We have heard some reference to the fact that the Leader of the House has not been seen or heard this evening. Last Thursday, she stunned the House when she announced the business for tonight. She said:

The House is taking a great deal of time discussing legislation that is not contentious and that would not normally require much time in the House.

That was one of the right hon. Lady's main justifications for this evening's motions. She also stated:

No amendments were tabled in Committee to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which is an important and worthwhile measure to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons . . . the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was uncontentious and supported by Opposition Members, and the Standing Committee sat only once.

She complained that

seven new clauses, 31 amendments and two new schedules were tabled to take up debating time on the Floor of the House.--[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 459.]

"Erskine May" states that consideration of a Bill on Report gives the House an opportunity to consider the text of a Bill "afresh". Does not that statement sanctify the Report stage, and make it clear that it is an opportunity for the House as a whole to consider a Bill after it has been in Committee?

It has been noted already that the Committee stages of the two Bills under consideration were lamentably brief. The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was not debated on the Floor of the House. It was smuggled surreptitiously through a Second Reading Committee, which sat for only 43 minutes--hardly time to do it justice. Its Standing Committee sat for only 35 minutes, and that was all the consideration given to the Bill before it came to the Floor of the House on Report.

The Standing Committee considering the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill sat twice, for 31 minutes and for 92 minutes. Therefore, neither Bill has had the normal serious consideration in Committee. That would be bad enough, but the Leader of the House seemed to argue that the House should not bother with Report or Third Reading because no amendments had been tabled in Committee.

22 May 2000 : Column 797

That is outrageous. Given her vast experience, we look to the Leader of the House for inspiration and guidance. I have been a Member of Parliament for only 17 years and I was a Minister for nine of them. Hon. Members like me look to her for guidance about the conduct of business in the House, but she seems to believe that Bills that have skidded through Committee do not deserve further attention on Report.

Mr. Bercow: The Committee considering the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill sat for just over two hours, but six amendments and new clauses have been tabled for consideration tonight. In the light of what "Erskine May" has to say on the subject, does my right hon. Friend agree that that justifies much longer consideration of the Bill on Report than was given to it in Committee?

Mr. Forth: Any rational person would have thought so, but apparently not. All logic has been stood on its head to justify this vicious attack on the House of Commons by the Government--something that we have come to learn, sadly, is only too typical, but with which we have to deal as best we can on this occasion.

Scant attention in Committee, very brief sittings and no amendments tabled--something in which the Leader of the House seemed to take pride, rather peculiarly--were all bad enough. In addition, the Government insulted the House by scheduling other business before the Report stage of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, so we did not even start debating it until 4.38 pm. To make matters worse, the Government twisted the knife by putting on private business at 7 pm. The net result was that we had only a very little time in which to initiate the Report stage. Even in that short time, progress was made: two groups of amendments were properly dealt with, despite the fact that the Government had insulted the House of Commons by truncating the amount of time available.

Mr. Maclean: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that the Government deliberately curtailed the time available last week to discuss the amendments in an attempt to orchestrate a situation in which they could justify imposing a guillotine motion on it now?

Mr. Forth: That suggests a degree of subtlety and intelligence on the Government's part of which I doubt they are capable. I suspect that this was cock-up, not conspiracy.

I remind my right hon. Friend, who was in his place at the material time that, after the private business, we resumed our debate on the Bill at 9.10 pm and were making progress when the Government pulled the plug at 10 pm. To make this even more incredible, the Minister for the Arts said during the proceedings:

It is proper that we should debate the proposals in the spirit of satisfying Parliament that the legislation proposed by the Government is necessary, well framed, proportionate--that has been mentioned several times--and therefore fit to proceed speedily on to the statute book.

22 May 2000 : Column 798

The Minister acknowledged the role that the House of Commons and those of us present were playing in the Bill's consideration. He went on to say:


it is appropriate to proceed as we are this afternoon, and I shall address myself to the amendments.--[Official Report, 17 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 372.]

Mr. Bercow: I do not have the relevant copy of the Official Report in front of me, but would my right hon. Friend confirm my recollection that those sentiments were uttered by the hon. Gentleman at a very early stage in the debate? The inference that we must draw, and the rationale for the allocation of time motion tonight, is that while the hon. Gentleman apparently had infectious enthusiasm at the beginning of the proceedings, he was soon dissuaded by others.

Mr. Forth: What is so mysterious is that the Minister, having acknowledged the relevance and usefulness of the proceedings in which we were engaged at that time, then conspired with his fellow Ministers, and no doubt the Whips, to end the consideration of his own business at 10 o'clock, presumably to send the babes and others home to an early bed, and then forced the Government to come back with a guillotine motion that is forcing the babes to stay up until what I estimate will be 2 o'clock tomorrow morning. I hope that the Minister will be able to face the babes tomorrow, because when they realise that they could have had an early night and got the Bill over and done with, instead of having to sit here until an early hour of the morning because of this ill-thought-out guillotine motion, the Minister and his colleagues will be in real trouble.

---