| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): While listening to my right hon. Friend's honeyed words, I briefly consulted the list of Lords amendments. Is he aware that there are no fewer than 35 groups of amendments and that, even if we were to work on the dubious assumption that the House would not divide on any of them, that would mean an allocation of approximately 12 minutes debating time to each group?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is an assiduous parliamentarian, and he has already done some work showing the outrageous nature of this allocation of time motion. He will know that many of these groups of amendments concern very sensitive and contentious issues indeed, such as whether the whole issue of competition has been given adequate prominence in the Bill. There is also the fact that people and market makers can be convicted of market abuse even if they did not intend to commit the offence. That someone can be convicted of something that they did not intend to do is a new and most unwelcome departure in British law.
Opposition Members have tried in this place, and my noble Friends have tried in another place, to correct and improve those parts of the Bill. Now, however, the debate will be compressed into the space of a few hours.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine): I should like to clarify one point: is the right hon. Gentleman planning on forcing a Division on the Bill?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Bill has already received its Second Reading. It is pretty extraordinary that the Liberal Democrat spokesman apparently thinks that we are debating its Second Reading. May I refer him to the Order Paper, which shows that we are debating a guillotine motion? It is that guillotine motion that we shall be opposing.
The motion is an abuse of the House. The Government should take the Bill away for a proper and full debate on all the outstanding issues, and come back with a properly prepared Bill that the House can consider.
3.51 pm
Sir Robert Smith: I should start by correcting my intervention, which was on the allocation of time motion. I simply wanted to clarify whether the official Opposition planned on dividing on that. If they do force a Division on it, at this stage in the debate Liberal Democrat Members would be quite happy to join them in the Lobby, to make it quite clear that allocation of time motions--[Interruption.] Who knows who will join me when the Division Bell goes?
We are now three years into a Government who were elected after claiming that they wanted to modernise our democracy and the way in which the House does things, such as scrutinising legislation. I do not, however, recognise what is so modern or fundamentally different about this allocation of time motion.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the motion's modern feature is the fact that the Minister made no case for it whatsoever? She did not address at all why there is a need for a guillotine motion to curtail free speech. That is what was modern about it.
Sir Robert Smith: That feature has been quite common in this place. The situation in previous Parliaments may have been different from the situation in this one, but, based on my experience of the past few years, that feature has been quite common in this Parliament.
I am extremely disappointed and concerned that the Government, with such a large majority, are so frightened of debate. If they use their Whips efficiently and effectively, there is not a chance of overturning legislation. Debate is the only instrument available to us to persuade them to reconsider legislation. If legislation is properly scrutinised, there is a chance that Ministers will recognise that it is flawed and requires amendment. Debate also provides an opportunity to those who are outside the House not only to recognise the parts of the legislation that are causing us concern, but to see their concerns expressed in this place.
A vast number of amendments were made in the other place.
Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman agrees with Conservative Members that the procedures under which the Bill is being examined are pretty disgraceful and
certainly substandard, why have Liberal Democrat Members done a deal with the Government on a crucial clause? We would have had a chance on that clause if they had not sold out. Why have they sold out to the Government on an issue as fundamental as that of market abuse and the takeover panel?
Sir Robert Smith: That is a matter for the debate on the Bill. We are currently debating the procedure to consider the Bill and the importance of time being properly and effectively allocated to it in the House.
The Minister claimed that many of the amendments were minor and consequential. It is open to Ministers to explain all the amendments that they consider to be minor and consequential and let the House make a judgment. An allocation of time motion means that that is highly unlikely.
The Minister said that we were having an extended sitting. It has been extended from the normal 10 o'clock deadline until 11 o'clock, but the Government have subtracted 45 minutes for the debate on the allocation of time motion, so in reality the sitting has been extended by 15 minutes, which could be taken up by a Division on this motion. We might have only two or three extra minutes over a normal sitting day to consider all these Lords amendments.
Mr. Bercow: For the House to judge whether there is adequate time for debate, we need to have some idea of the level of contributions that we can expect. Will the hon. Gentleman advise the House--as he has not so far been able to do--whether we shall have contributions from the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)?
Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman will have to sit in his place, watch the debates and see who takes part. I do not understand why he needs to know in advance who wishes to take part in the debate. Anyway, it is up to you, Madam Speaker, to decide who takes part in the debate. It is not for any of us to choose. That is probably enough interventions for now.
The Government also prayed in aid the record of the previous Government, which is a tedious and boring argument. It can place some things in context, but if their aspiration is always just to replicate the record of the previous Government, there was not much point in the electorate turning out at the last election and removing the previous Government from office.
Time is running out if the Government really want to modernise the House. They cannot do so just by guillotining debates, ignoring arguments and allowing them to go away. They have to look carefully at the procedure of legislative scrutiny. They cannot avoid problems just by tinkering with one or two aspects of the House. That way lies a great danger that, in the frustration of occasionally having to stay up late at night, they will decide to curtail debate without finding other avenues for scrutiny of legislation. If they do not find other avenues, they should be willing to stay up late and accept scrutiny that way.
The Government should also think about their management of legislation. This is a major Bill that has been heavily amended in the other place. They should ask
whether they have too much legislation in the pipeline for this year and whether they have managed their priorities right. They talk about wanting to reduce waiting times and end queues in the health service. If they apply the skills that they use in managing legislation here to the health service, I am not optimistic.
Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford): The hon. Gentleman is making great play of the adequacy of the scrutiny. Why, in Committee, did a Liberal Member attend on only two occasions?
Sir Robert Smith: Presumably there were reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Cable) could not be there. The whole House is entitled to scrutinise legislation at this stage. We are not in Committee. The whole House must consider what the other House has done to the Bill. It is up to this House to decide how much time we want to spend on it. The Government should have the confidence to let the House scrutinise the Bill, range freely over it and expose its flaws in debate, rather than trying to rush through it without debate or proper scrutiny. I urge the House to recognise that when we come to vote.
3.59 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): This is an example of the Government somehow managing to combine incompetence and arrogance. That might be considered quite an achievement, but we have become rather used to it from them.
I wanted to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, so I went through the Government's amendments and tried to spot the trivial ones that she claimed were none of our business and which we should not be so impatient as to want to deliberate. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt and without being an expert on the Bill, in my cursory reading I calculated 80 substantial amendments at the minimum. If that is the case--I suspect that there are more than that--the Government believe that we can deal with them in just over five minutes each.
That would be bad enough in itself, but I have had a look at the amendments. Amendment No. 61, for example, is one of those to which the Government presumably believe the House should give but five minutes attention. It involves a new clause entitled "Exercise of own-initiative power: procedure" and contains 12 subsections. Amendment No. 82 contains two subsections and nine paragraphs, amendment No. 87 contains 14 subsections, and amendment No. 90 contains 7 subsections. Amendment No. 107, which also caught my eye, seeks to add a new clause entitled "Appointment by competent authority of persons to carry out investigations." That contains considerable detail.
It is one thing for the Minister to claim in a glib and superficial fashion that we do not need to waste our time on the 675 items of trivia placed by the Government on today's Order Paper, but, even granting her that--which I would be very reluctant to do--she is really saying that this House of Commons should accept a new principle. She is suggesting that we allow ourselves, or that the Government give us, five minutes to consider large and often controversial new measures in a Bill. That is the extent of the Government's arrogance and of their wish to ignore the traditional proceedings of this House and the other place.
It is a measure of the Government's sheer incompetence that we are faced with the absurd situation that, in this sitting--which can last only until 11 o'clock--we are expected to give the most cursory consideration to law that could affect the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people. These are the depths to which the Government have sunk and this is the extent to which they are seeking to minimise or eliminate the role of this House in the legislative process. It is totally unacceptable.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |