Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend's point is extremely important and it is reinforced by the fact that

25 Jul 2000 : Column 951

there are no Government amendments, so the Government could have tabled the matter for debate at any time after it left Committee.

Mr. Garnier: Of course they could, and the Home Secretary knows that, but he has not yet provided us with a reason for failing to do so.

Mr. Leigh: He was negotiating with his hon. Friends.

Mr. Garnier: That may be so.

The real reason is that the Government feared that those Government Members who had principled objections to the Bill would cause trouble. There is no evidence of that, nor is there any evidence that any Opposition Member would cause trouble, yet last night, out of sheer terror and complete chaos, the Government tabled this motion to curtail time. Had the Government had even the slightest self-confidence in their arguments on the Bill, they would have advanced their case for it irrespective of the Opposition's arguments, either within the Government party or outside it. Even without that confidence, they might have had the decency to allow the Leader of the House at business questions last Thursday to alert us to the fact that time would be curtailed.

Although the measure is not a manifesto Bill, we know that the Government have the votes, if not the arguments, to get it through tonight. However, their guillotining of the Bill without prior reference to the need for a guillotine, let alone reference last week by the Leader of the House to Government anxieties about its likely progress, demonstrates a lack of confidence in its merits, and the fact that the Government care little for Parliament or the democratic process and even less for our constituents.

The second report of the Select Committee on Modernisation was published in July. Paragraph 5 on page v states:

If the Government are as good as their word, why do not they accept that that could happen without a timetable motion? Despite the contents of the report, the Government have presented a half-baked and late timetable motion.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and I wrote to The Times at the weekend. Little did we know that the anxieties that we expressed in that letter, which was published today, would be so quickly realised. [Interruption.] I am sure that the noisy little fellow at the back will have read the letter. It stated:

25 Jul 2000 : Column 952

The Home Secretary tried to persuade us that the timetable motion was sad but inevitable. It is not. The Government have tabled numerous timetable motions to curtail debate. There have been 12 already this year, including four in July. The measures guillotined in July are: the Local Government (Lords) Bill, the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, the Football (Disorder) Bill and the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. The Government guillotined those Bills because they cannot organise themselves properly to provide a timetable that fulfils the needs of the democratic process.

Mr. Straw: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman make the same criticism of successive Conservative Administrations, which guillotined as many Bills in some years?

Mr. Garnier: If the Home Secretary wants to check the figures, he might care to look at page xxvii of the Modernisation Committee report. Annex C shows that the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) tabled 17 timetable motions between 1991 and 1997. The Government have tabled 12 this year.

I suggest that we face a timetable motion today partly because of the allegations against the Home Secretary in The Guardian this morning. They relate to the questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a moment ago. The article states:

The article continues:

The article goes on:

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am listening carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that he will now relate his remarks to the allocation of time.

Mr. Garnier: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The article said that the letter claimed that Lord Bingham continued to support the change,

This morning, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and I received a letter from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon.

25 Jul 2000 : Column 953

Member for Norwich, South. It is dated 25 July. The letter is addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend and copied to me. The second page states:

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would relate his remarks to the allocation of time. I should be grateful if he would do it fairly quickly.

Mr. Garnier: Unfortunately, you were not here during the early part of the discussions, Mr. Deputy Speaker--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not challenge the Chair, however moderately. I have heard sufficient while I have been in the Chair to advise him. I should be grateful if he would now relate his remarks to the allocation of time motion.

Mr. Garnier: Not all arguments can be compressed. The Home Secretary is keen for the amount of time during which we can debate the Bill to be curtailed to prevent the hon. and learned Member for Medway and the 18 or 19 of his supporters of the Third Reading amendment from having sufficient time to discuss the Bill. We are all here to argue against limiting to five hours discussion, not only on Report but on Third Reading, of a Bill of huge constitutional importance. If the Government cannot recognise a huge constitutional matter when it stares them in the face, we are in trouble. On behalf of our constituents, Members of Parliament, regardless of party, have a duty to complain about an overweening, arrogant and overreaching Government.

It will not do for the Government, through the Home Secretary or the Minister, to claim the support of the former Lord Chief Justice in speeches in the House or in correspondence when we know that such support is qualified. The final passage of the paragraph that I quoted from the Minister's letter brings home to us all the slippery ground on which the Home Secretary bases his case. It states:

That goes to the heart of the amendment that the hon. and learned Member for Medway has tabled. The Government do not want that amendment to be debated because they

25 Jul 2000 : Column 954

know that they do not have the support of the former Lord Chief Justice or of most right-thinking people in this country for the Bill.

Next Section

IndexHome Page