| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brooke: Will the Home Secretary tell the House whether there was a guillotine on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981?
Mr. Straw: I suspect that there was not, but I can easily find out and shall look it up for the right hon. Gentleman. Between 1980 and 1981, there was not a guillotine, but I shall not detain the House by reading from a long list.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Those are interesting years to pick. In just two years, between 1980 and 1982, the previous Conservative Government introduced a string of about 11 Bills, all of which they guillotined.
Mr. Straw: Those years were light on legislation.
Finally, much has been made of the statement on climate change made today by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I understand that that statement was made in response to a request from the official Opposition, who cannot have it both ways, although they always seek to.
5.41 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): Here we are at the beginning of national guillotine week. The Government have imposed a guillotine, first because they are incompetent, and secondly, because they are arrogant. They are incompetent in hopelessly overloading the parliamentary timetable, which is why the forthcoming Queen's Speech is the latest in the year since the one in 1928. The Government have tried to pack far too much into little time, and as a result, they have to
choose between losing Bills altogether or brutally and cynically cutting parliamentary debate to achieve their timetable. That is the position to which the Government have brought themselves.It is not surprising that there is a Home Office Bill in the list of those be guillotined. The Home Secretary is almost historically incompetent. For the first time in our history, the Chair rejected a reasoned Government amendment because the right hon. Gentleman tabled it to the wrong Opposition motion. He has already lost one Bill--the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial)(No.2) Bill--in the House of Lords. Indeed, that is the second time a mode of trial measure has been lost. Another Bill has been reduced to such complete nonsense that it makes no sense. That is the state of affairs to which the Government have brought their legislative timetable.
This guillotine is an affront to democracy. In the summer of 1996, the Prime Minister said:
- It is time to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy which hang over far too much government activity. If trust in the people means anything . . . there can be no argument against a Freedom of Information Act.
The guillotine means that there will be 27 minutes in which to debate each of the nine groups of amendments--[Interruption.] Labour Members may find that amusing, but that time does not even allow for Divisions. If there are Divisions, there will be even less time to debate serious amendments to a major Bill. [Interruption.] Labour Members think that funny. Of course they do, because they have used their enormous majority throughout the current Parliament simply to push through whatever measures they want, regardless of due process. They regard that as funny, but I do not think they will find it so funny when they have to justify their stewardship to the electorate.
The guillotine does not come as a great surprise. The Government have a history of forcing their ill-thought-out legislation through Parliament. So far during the current Parliament--I remind the right hon. Gentleman, in case he needs reminding, that it has lasted only three and a half years--the Government have guillotined more than 18 Bills. That compares with the 17 Bills that were guillotined in twice the period, between 1991 and 1997.
Mr. Straw: We were a good Opposition.
Miss Widdecombe: The Opposition were obviously so utterly ineffective that they did not find much to set against us.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady makes my point for me. There were so few guillotines because we co-operated
with the Government--[Interruption.] It is true. After some years of experience of being a poor Opposition-- I promise that the Conservative party will enjoy a similar experience--we decided to make ourselves a decent Opposition and to concentrate on the things that mattered. If the right hon. Lady thinks that it was all so bad, she must explain why we were such a good Opposition that we won the general election in May 1997 with a huge majority.
Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman says that he co-operated. The opposite of co-operation is frustration and delay. Will he now assert that the Opposition have improperly delayed this important Bill at any stage of debate on it? I give way to him.
Miss Widdecombe: Come on, come on. I thought the Home Secretary was going to speak, but he has changed his mind. His silence speaks for itself. Of course, we can assume that silence may now be interpreted as having a guilty motivation.
Mr. Shepherd: I think that my right hon. Friend is understating the case, if that is possible. Including the Bills that we will discuss this evening, 40 Bills have been guillotined during the current Parliament. There has never been anything like that cascade of guillotines. I regret that Opposition Front Benchers agreed to 18 of them, but we are still left with an extraordinary record of the Labour Government imposing their will on the Chamber.
Miss Widdecombe: This must be the first time I have ever understated a case, but I yield to the considerable expertise of my hon. Friend. However, neither he nor the Government will argue about the fact that more than 453 amendments were tabled to the Freedom of Information Bill in the other place. At Committee stage in the other place, 368 amendments were tabled. More than 150 of those amendments were tabled by the Government. They cannot say that the Bill is in such good order because of previous stages of its passage that we need not spend long discussing it, when they have seen fit at every single stage to table a raft of amendments to improve the Bill and to tidy it up.
That is proof positive that we need as thorough a discussion during this stage of the Bill's passage as during previous stages. The other place agreed to 118 amendments. We want to consider them today. Within the available time, it is utterly impossible to do justice to so many amendments, even if they are grouped, as the Home Secretary pointed out rather unnecessarily. After all, the Government removed an entire clause and introduced a new one after clause 1. That is a significant change to the Bill's structure and alters its mechanism for ensuring that information is released. If something so central and significant has occurred, it is only right that the House should have the opportunity for a full and thorough discussion.
There is another matter that we have not had a chance to debate: the deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Government. We all remember what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said during earlier stages of the Bill's passage. He argued that it was wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory and said that
the Liberal Democrats would alter it and stand up and be counted for true freedom of information. Then, lo and behold, in the other place, they meekly trotted along to the Government and did a deal to frustrate Opposition amendments that might have had a significant impact. Indeed, Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information said:
- we find it incomprehensible that, in return for these modest concessions, the Liberal Democrats are proposing to abandon their support for essential amendments which would have given the public greater rights to safety information and denied ministers the right to veto decisions of the independent Information Commissioner.
The Government also plan to guillotine the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, despite the fact that they have tabled nearly 300 amendments and introduced a entirely new section on--
Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The right hon. Gentleman has obviously found his place in his brief.
Mr. Straw: I am prompted to intervene by the right hon. Lady's late adoption of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. At the general election, the Conservative party campaign guide said:
- The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a Freedom of Information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |