| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has gone way outside the terms of this narrow motion, and I advise his hon. Friend not to respond.
Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend is a man of creative ingenuity, and the Minister should definitely take his
words on board. He makes a lot of sense when he talks about the House proceeding with sensible scrutiny. However, I shall return to the narrow wording of the motion.I shall not labour the points that I want to make; I simply say to the Minister that he is asking the House to place itself in a state of permanent standby. Perhaps the House would be prepared to do that if we had any confidence that at the end of the day we would have a proper opportunity to debate serious business when it became available. The reality of the past two weeks has been other. Yesterday highlighted a woeful deficiency in the legislative process, and everything suggests that in the coming week we will be subjected to a similar situation. The country deserves better.
7.22 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): When I see such a motion, I rise to speak with some apprehension. I suspect that it is a device for getting business hastily through the House instead of proceeding in the orderly way that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested. I would be much more willing to support the business motion if the Government were to give an undertaking that messages received from the other place to be discussed in this House would be the subject of proper and full discussion, rather than being timetabled.
If the Government were to give us an undertaking to that effect, I would be a great deal more sympathetic to what the deputy Leader of the House proposes. A number of important Bills are being dealt with in the other place, and they will no doubt be the subject of messages. One is the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, and another may be the Disqualifications Bill--I mention just two. It is likely that the House will want to discuss fully and properly the many scores, if not hundreds, of amendments that will appear from the other place.
As I understand it, this procedure will enable the Government to rush through discussion of that legislation. As this will be the first time that this House collectively has had an opportunity to discuss the amendments that will the subject of the messages, we need to have proper time for reflection. If hon. Members agree with me on that point--being true democrats, Conservative Members will do so--they should have no truck with this business motion.
Mr. Forth: Given the amount of hard work that their Lordships are doing, can my right hon. and learned Friend envisage circumstances in which a message may come from the other place very late in the evening and be placed on the Order Paper under this dubious procedure? How would Members of this House be able to table amendments to those messages in those circumstances? Is there not an element of subterfuge?
Mr. Hogg: That is exactly what I was worried about. If a message comes late one night and the Government have it in mind that we should debate the matter the following day, there will be no opportunity to consult, or be consulted by, the relevant interest groups. Consequently, the amendments that may have been appropriate will not be tabled. That is the inevitable
consequence of accepting this business motion, whereas if we do not accept it, we will gain a day or two and have proper time for reflection.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): My point was similar to that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I would go further and say that a message may be received from the Lords very late on Wednesday night as they work into Thursday morning. As this House meets at 11.30 on a Thursday morning, there would be even less time for hon. Members to consider business received from the Lords at 3 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I do not want to attribute an evil motive to those on the Government Front Bench, but if I were in the Government Whips Office--thank God I shall never be a Government Whip again--I would at least reflect on the possibility of so arranging the timing of a message that it achieved the consequence, and had the effect, that my right hon. Friend describes.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the problem of a potential shortage of time is especially acute in the context of the Freedom of Information Bill? I feel sure that it was only an error of omission that prevented him from mentioning that legislation in his list of dubious and ill-fated Bills.
Mr. Hogg: It was actually because I do not like trying your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I know that your patience is easily tried. My hon. Friend is wholly correct. The Freedom of Information Bill may well be one of the beneficiaries--from the Government's perspective--of this business motion.
We want to make it absolutely plain to the House that the purpose of the business motion, or at least its consequence, is to enable the Government to push through business rapidly, without hon. Members having a proper opportunity to consult the interest groups that may be affected, or even to discuss among ourselves what our policy and attitudes should be. On that basis, it is objectionable.
I think that the motion is objectionable and that is the end of the matter--but one or two things could make it marginally less objectionable. One of them I have already alluded to briefly, and that is an undertaking from the Government. They should undertake to the House to allow us to sit late the succeeding day--the day of the substantive debate--until 2 o'clock in the morning, for example, which was perfectly usual when I first came to the House, and did not cause undue inconvenience. One merely went away if one did not want to be here: we were independent Members in those days. That would be one way of addressing the matter.
The other way would be to give a formal undertaking to the House that there will not be any timetabling, and that we will be able to debate matters fully. Speaking for myself, if the Government gave an undertaking to that effect, I would be more minded to accept the business motion than I would otherwise be.
Mr. David Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am persuaded by my right hon. and learned
Friend's arguments--with one exception. I do not think that the House should be put in the position of having to take the Minister's word on a matter of such serious consequence and interest. We have had no opportunity to amend this motion because of the timing of it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a point of argument.
Mr. Hogg: I was suggesting that we could get an undertaking from the Government. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) is a perfectly respectable Minister. I would take an undertaking from him, and would regard it as copper-bottomed, so I am looking forward to receiving such an undertaking.
The Minister could also make the proposal more agreeable to us in another way--by filling those empty hours. We on the Conservative Benches are a hard- working lot. Considering our relatively small number, it is noteworthy how the Conservative Benches have been more densely populated than the Labour Benches this evening--except, of course, when the Division comes, when, not having listened to the debate, all these characters come out of all the crannies of this place and do what their Whips tell them. That is one of the reasons why the House is held in such low esteem in the country. However, if we were able to fill the idle hours contemplated by Ministers with useful discussion, we might be more willing to pass the business motion.
I have taken a little advice on the matter because I do not like to talk absolute tommy-rot on these occasions. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) laughs. I assure him that that is true. It would be possible for the Leader of the House, tomorrow, say, to indicate a willingness to table a business motion to enable us to discuss on the Floor of the House substantive issues on a timed basis--say an hour, an hour and a half or whatever--to fill the time when the House would otherwise stand suspended.
I suppose that it would have to be a term of the business motion that we would resume the substantive business within a stated time of receiving a message, but speaking for myself, I am willing to help the Leader of the House with the drafting. I wish to be constructive, and I know that she does not think very constructively. A little help from Conservative Members might be of value.
I suggest to the deputy Leader of the House, who is just about to go to sleep--I would not dare wake him up--that there are a number of subjects on which he could give an undertaking. I saw him in Westminster Hall yesterday; it was the first time that I had ever been into Westminster Hall for the purpose of making a speech. It was an interesting occasion. We discussed sugar. I saw that he was deeply concerned about the sugar regime, and the fact that the everything but arms initiative, which is supported by the Government, will ruin sugar producers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |