| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss Widdecombe: The stupid Bill that the Government introduced. I should have thought that even the right hon. Gentleman could work that one out. If his position has moved no further since the general election, all that I have to say is that he has not studied his own Bill, which reverses the significant improvements that we made through our code--it gave access to information, which he will deny. That is the background to our opposition to the Bill.
To the shame of the Liberal Democrats, having made so much of their commitment to freedom of information, they have done a deal with their partner, the Labour party, to ensure that our amendments would not be agreed to in the other place. It is high time the right hon. Gentleman came clean. Arrogant and incompetent, the Government do not want freedom of information, and they do not even want freedom of debate.
5.52 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I find it extraordinary that we go through this performance whenever a guillotine is imposed. There are not many aspects of the political system in the United States that I admire, but we might emulate the arrangement under which, in the Senate, one can read into the record speeches that do not need to be heard by anyone else.
On every such occasion, the Secretary of State rises to his feet and, by contrast with the usual protestation--which involves saying that the previous Government were an awful, anti-democratic shower, that they treated the House with disdain, and that they were totally devoid of respect for the procedures and democratic opportunities in
the House--argues that the fact that the previous Government used so many guillotines a year gives the present Government a good excuse for doing so. That is ridiculous. Rather than having to come to the House to make such a speech, the right hon. Gentleman would find it much easier if he could simply read his speech into the record.Equally, the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)--the spokesman for the Conservatives, those repenting sinners--could be read into the record. That approach would also make life much easier for me: as I always argue on these occasions, would it not be better for the House to decide when and how it discussed such an issue, with an agreed programme motion so that we would give the proper moment--
Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: No; I shall be speedy, unlike the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
Such an approach would allow us to debate and vote on those issues that are important rather than having an all-embracing final vote and generating a lot of heat, but no light. That is precisely what the Conservative party wants--it does not want to vote on the individual issues. If it did so, the remarkable transfer of its allegiance to the freedom of information movement would become apparent.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) could read into the record his usual sermon and his Old Testament denunciation of all Governments who did anything to try to get business through the House, even via programme motions and with agreed timetabling, and despite all Members having had an opportunity to put their point of view on a specific issue.
Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The Government should respond to a specific issue: by using a timetable motion that is tied to an hour of the night, they have prevented us from having a proper debate. An indication was given to the House--I notice that Labour Members are nodding--that there would be sufficient time, through to midnight, for us to examine some of the issues. However, the fact that the format of the motion is tied to a specific time rather than to a number of minutes and hours means that we will not have the amount of time suggested. I understand that there is no technical reason whatever for denying us the appropriate time that we require--perhaps six and a half hours. If the debate lasted until midnight, there would be eight and a half hours--
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The Government are obliged to explain why they opted to use a guillotine motion that effectively takes the time used by the statements out of today's debate. It has already been pointed out that there are more than 120 amendments to discuss. If the Government's business
manager calculated last week that eight and a half hours were required to debate the amendments, why have we been restricted by the format of the motion to a particular time?There are also problems with the arrangements for tomorrow. The Government appear to have taken exactly the same view, and have decided that the guillotine will come down at 10 pm. We do not know, but we are told that it is highly likely that there will be a statement on the rural White Paper--that was pointed out in an intervention. If that is true, it would be much better if tomorrow's guillotine motion provided a specific length of time, and did not bring down the shutters at a particular hour.
I ask the Government, even at this stage, to consider whether it is possible to re-table tomorrow's timetable motion. After all, the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is as complicated as the Freedom of Information Bill. In addition, more than 280 amendments cover, as I believe the Home Secretary said, 16 different subjects and three specific policy areas--access, rights of way and conservation--which, in normal circumstances, could have been dealt with in three separate Bills. To compress that debate into an even shorter time than tonight's debate shows, I am afraid, that the Government have lost control of their business.
The motion is misguided in principle and even more misguided in practical detail. I hope that the Government will learn their lesson, not only about today's proceedings, but about what should happen tomorrow. They should re-table tomorrow's timetable motion and enable us to have a proper debate.
Such debates have become something of a ritual, and the House does not perform well when we go through the motions ritualistically. I hope that we shall promptly get on to the substance of the debate, but I very much regret that there is a comparatively short time in which to debate some extremely important issues.
5.58 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): I intend to speak for only about two minutes. I want to place on record what happened under the previous Government.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred to a ritual. Perhaps we need some text to which all hon. Members could refer when they condemn our Government for introducing guillotines. The record is as follows: the previous Conservative Government guillotined 65 Bills.
Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I want to complete my argument. I shall give way at the end.
The previous Conservative Government guillotined 44 proceedings in Standing Committee and 34 sittings of the House dealing with Lords amendments. They guillotined 58 debates on Report, all on separate Bills, and 58 Third Readings of different Bills, but the Conservatives have the hypocrisy to condemn a Labour Government for introducing guillotines. [Interruption.] I have not even finished my list. The Conservative Government even guillotined, on two separate occasions, business dealt with by a Committee of the whole House. On four occasions, they guillotined Second Readings.
This should be on the record, and the public should know about it. The hon. Member for North Cornwall was right to talk of ritual, but I want to put that in context and give the background. Under the last Conservative Government, 201 separate proceedings were guillotined in the House of Commons.
6 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Once again, we are being asked to consider a timetable motion. We considered one last week. It is the business of those who are concerned with good government to protest about this practice, because it is profoundly wrong.
I do not pretend that the fact that we are dealing with two Bills is exceptional, but it is at least unusual. We should remind ourselves that the two Bills that we are proposing to guillotine are by any stretch of the imagination important, and that many Lords amendments are attached to them. Nine groups of amendments-- 123 in all--have been tabled to the Freedom of Information Bill, but the debate will finish at midnight. We should also bear in mind the fact that when Members express their views by means of a Division, which they will from time to time, that Division will be included in the timetable.
Tomorrow we shall debate the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, to which 281 amendments have been tabled. I do not know how many groups of amendments there are, but I know, because it is in the timetable motion, that the debate will finish at 10 pm. It is very probable that a statement will be made on, for example, the rural White Paper, and that is bound to take some time because Mr. Speaker is bound to allow a decent period for discussion.
Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend need not speculate. The Order Paper tells us, does it not, that tomorrow will feature a ten-minute Bill, which may be controversial and on which the House may divide. In that event, the first half hour of business after 3.30 pm will inevitably be taken up with the ten-minute Bill, notwithstanding the possibility of a statement as well. So the time available is diminishing before our very eyes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |