| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: Indeed. Moreover, it would only take another crisis engineered by, for instance, the Deputy Prime Minister to trigger a private notice question, which would eat away at the time allowed for tomorrow's extremely important debate.
To make matters worse, there is another timetable motion on Wednesday, also applying to two Bills. That, no doubt, is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) described this as national guillotine week--a phrase that resonates especially strongly from her lips.
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on the information given by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)--for which the House is grateful--that the last Conservative Government guillotined an average of only three Bills per annum? This week we shall deal with three guillotines: that is three guillotines in one week, in one Session of Parliament.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I always enjoy listening to the speeches of the hon.
Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), but he will forgive me for observing that he, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, went in for double counting in a quite extraordinary manner--and, furthermore, took care that we were not reminded of the divider of 18. That was my right hon. Friend's point, and it brings us to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who reminded us that the guillotine had been applied to 40 separate measures since 1997. That puts the speech of the hon. Member for Workington in its proper context.I find it extraordinary that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was not prepared to give way; but the Liberal Democrats, of course, have become a sub-set of the Labour Government. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I would certainly be prepared to agree to consensual timetable motions on occasion if, and only if, we were also consulted on the volume of legislation to be announced in the Queen's Speech. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding. If there were an agreement entitling us to a decisive say on the volume of legislation and other business, there might--I put it no higher than that--be a case for a consensual timetable motion.
Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, for the elucidation of the public, that even if there were no votes tonight--which is an unlikely contingency--and even if every amendment were debated, an average of less than two minutes would be allowed for consideration of each amendment? Does that not demonstrate the Government's contempt for the House of Commons?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I shall come to the consequences of that in a moment, but I think that we need to remind ourselves of what the Home Secretary told us. I am sorry that he is not present now; he has left his two sidekicks to deal with the debate. He told us that a number of important amendments had been introduced in the other place, which, if we considered them at all, we would consider for the first time tonight.
Let us focus on what is bad about this process. For one thing, when we are dealing with nine groups of amendments--when we are dealing with 123 amendments, or 283--the inevitable consequence of a timetable motion is that a substantial number of them will not be discussed. It is no good the Home Secretary saying that some amendments moved in the other place were moved in pursuance of undertakings that he had given here. That may be true, but we are not in a position to scrutinise the language he has used, or to ask ourselves whether those amendments meet the undertakings he has given. Such an assurance constitutes no justification whatever.
As a result of these increasingly numerous timetable motions, elected representatives cannot scrutinise important legislation. That means that we cannot express our views on the amendments before us; it means that the interested parties who look to us to articulate their concerns will not have their concerns reflected in discussion; and it means that our constituents will not be able, through their elected Members, to express their views on legislation. All that is profoundly wrong.
With these timetable motions, we are stripping out part of the democratic process. If that were not bad enough, we are also stripping out part of the legislative process,
and our ability to improve legislation is being greatly diminished. There is yet a third offensive element, which I put to the Home Secretary. All the amendments originated in the House of Lords, and many will not be discussed here. That means that the unelected other place is making law. What possible justification can there be for that, in the 21st century?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Ask Daddy.
Mr. Hogg: That, I assume, is a reference to my right hon. and learned kinsman the former Lord Chancellor, who warned the country about an elective dictatorship. That is exactly the answer that he would give the hon. Gentleman. What he warned of is coming to pass: a tyrannical, dictatorial Government are using their Back Benchers to force through legislation. What is so bizarre is that the Government are using Labour Back Benchers to force through legislation emanating from the other place that has been voted on, or discussed only in the other place.
That is a scandal. Were it not happening now, we would not believe that it were possible. It reinforces strongly the case for an elected second Chamber. I believe--I make no bones about it--that we should have a wholly elected second Chamber. That at least would give some legitimacy to the process that we are seeing thrust upon us.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. First, we are not here to discuss the other place in any depth. Secondly, I am starting to hear arguments that I have heard more than once this evening.
Mr. Hogg: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have heard those arguments on other occasions, too. We are being told by Ministers to approve a timetable motion. Those of us who are against timetable motions come to this place whenever they are moved to debate them. Inevitably, the arguments are much the same; they go to democracy. It is an offence for us to be asked to approve such a timetable motion.
I have already this evening and on previous occasions described how such a motion undermines the legislative process, but worse than that, it undermines democracy. The country looks to the House of Commons to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised. It assumes that legislation is properly scrutinised. The fact that people are willing to acquiesce in a given law reflects their belief that their elected representatives can and do scrutinise the legislation.
Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a Minister in previous Administrations, was a guillotine ever used for legislation for which he or his Department was responsible?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: And did the right hon. and learned Gentleman vote for it?
Mr. Hogg: I am sure that I did: I make no bones about it. I was in government for 13 years and, as part of the process of collective responsibility, I supported many things publicly that I privately disagreed with. That is the
nature of collective responsibility. One of the joys of being with the Back Benchers is that I can say whatever I please without the slightest fear of committing either myself or those on the Front Bench.
Mr. Forth: Regrettably, I was in government for only nine years, so I cannot speak with quite the same authority as my right hon. and learned Friend. Will he concede, though, that what is radically different now is that we have not only an arrogant Government with a huge Commons majority, who have proved themselves capable of trampling over all our traditions and conventions and changing our rules, but a House of Lords that has been radically changed? The combination of the changes in the two Chambers of Parliament, the changes to Standing Orders and, now, national guillotine week, has removed all possibility of true accountability of Government to Parliament.
Mr. Hogg: I need to be careful about what I say about the other place, lest you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, call me to order, but my right hon. Friend has made an important point. The other place contains many fewer independent- minded people than it did. I have never tried to defend the hereditary composition of the other place. I have always favoured an elected one, but at least the hereditary composition provided for an independent number of Members, as opposed to the present nomination system, which, on the whole, does not. We have lost the independent Members.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, on the particular legislation on which the Government are putting forward their guillotine tonight, we have an extra lack of independence, in that there has been a squalid deal between Liberal Democrat peers and the Government, apparently to the enormous displeasure of the Liberal Democrat spokesman in this Chamber, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)--which is why he is not here? He is too embarrassed and has sent the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) to try to defend the indefensible.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |