| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Taylor: You said that you did earlier.
Mr. Paice: I did not. I have said quite clearly that I do not want the Bill to fail because it contains a number of measures that I support. Yes, there are aspects that I do not wish to see implemented, but I have accepted that they will become law. My sole intent is to make the legislation more practical and feasible for all those whom it affects.
Mr. Taylor: Nineteen minutes is an awfully long time, particularly when it contains a large amount of tedium. Will the hon. Gentleman remind us whether he said at the start of his speech that he and his party, broadly speaking, did not want to see the Bill hit the statute book?
Mr. Paice: If the hon. Gentleman had attended the earlier debates and listened to what I said, he would know that there has been no doubt in my mind--nor, I believe, in the minds of my colleagues--that we would rather not have had part I on the statute book. However, we have accepted that it will be law, and that simple bull-headed opposition will achieve nothing. We have thus concentrated all our efforts on trying to make part I more achievable, practicable, enforceable and understandable. Most of the arguments that we put forward earlier in the Bill's proceedings were rejected by the Government in Committee. They have subsequently seen the light, for which I rejoice, and have accepted many of those amendments in the other place.
It is the Government's fault that we are in this position. They had the opportunity to get the Bill through the House earlier, more effectively and more cleanly. They could have ended up with a piece of legislation that the House would in general support, although perhaps not in every aspect. As it is, we can be clear that whatever happens tomorrow night and however quickly my right hon. and hon. Friends and I move through the list of amendments, not all will get discussed. For that reason, I oppose the motion.
6.42 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) sighing, but he introduced a quite novel principle into the application of the guillotine. It was his submission, if I understood him correctly, that there should be no distinction in principle between the measure and the guillotine motion. He extended that principle to say that so long as the Conservative party was opposed to a measure, that was itself a proper reason for imposing a guillotine on it.
At least the hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to give way during his speech, which is more than can be said for the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. However, the hon. Gentleman had a very good reason for not giving way. I see the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) smiling; I am coming to him.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall said at the outset that he was in favour of a system whereby speeches could simply be read into the record without having to be delivered at all. As that option was not available to him, he nevertheless went for the next best thing by reading his speech into the record. It follows, therefore, that he could not take interventions, and, indeed, he refused to do so.
The hon. Member for Workington made a very mischievous speech.
Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is right to object to the way in which the Government propose to truncate the debate. He is also right to upbraid the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). [Interruption.] I am indeed addressing the Chair; I do not need lectures from a sedentary position from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell- Savours). Does my hon. Friend agree that the rather tribal attitude that the hon. Member for Walsall, North habitually displays might be one of the reasons why the late Lord Wilson famously described him as the silliest man in Parliament?
Mr. Swayne: I will give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North.
Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the rubbish of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) misinterpreted what I said. I said that if the Opposition oppose a measure, it is understandable that they would oppose a guillotine to hasten the progress of that measure, such as the one that we are debating today.
Mr. Swayne: I take the hon. Gentleman's correction. I entirely understand his desire to see a timetable motion used to get a Bill of which he approves on to the statute book. However, it has been our case all along that this would not have been necessary if the measure had been properly handled.
The hon. Member for Workington drew attention to what he described as 201 separate pieces of business on which the previous Government imposed a timetable motion. He sat down before he could be interrogated about whether that was a record that he admired--because he seemed to imply that it was--and whether it was his intention that the Government should attempt to emulate it. The hon. Gentleman gives every impression of being prepared to support the Government in this timetable motion.
Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has done the House a marvellous service tonight. He is man of honour and integrity, as well as being my next-door neighbour. He has confirmed--and I do not think that anyone in the House will challenge
his word--that during the 18 years of the previous Tory Government we averaged only three guillotines a year. Now we are running at four a week.
Mr. Swayne: It is clear that the hon. Member for Workington has done us a singular service.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Which school did my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), go to that taught that three times 18 equals 201?
Mr. Swayne: It is not for me to intrude on this private matter.
Mr. Swayne: I dislike being the go-between but I will give way to my right hon. Friend once more.
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps I should make it clear, so that there is no misunderstanding, that one was referring to the number of Bills guillotined by the previous Government, not all the individual motions which the hon. Member for Workington double counted. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] However, he has confirmed that the previous Government guillotined, on average, slightly more than three Bills per annum.
Mr. Swayne: The key principle is not how many, or by whom, but whether this brings us any further forward.
Mr. Swayne: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer my question: is that a record of which he approves and does he support his Government's guillotine because it is an attempt to emulate that record?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I think that the hon. Gentleman should have listened to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he said that in the last five years when Labour was in opposition, we decided that we would take a more co-operative approach on these matters. We decided we would co-operate with the then Government whenever possible and, indeed, we did so. The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue that.
I was asked another question, something to do with 201 by 3. I have forgotten it now, but I will remember in a minute.
Mr. Swayne: I will deal with that point shortly, but first I return to a phrase first used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she referred to this as national guillotine week. I thought that although that is a very useful way of describing this week, it does not take sufficient account of the fact that last week was also national guillotine week. Indeed, there will be similar weeks to come--every week will be national guillotine week.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State complained that there was an occasion when the previous Conservative Government had guillotined two Bills not at the end of the parliamentary Session but at the beginning of it,
in December. Has the Secretary of State recognised that from now on all Bills will be, in effect, guillotined as a consequence of the decisions that were taken 10 days or so ago?That prompts me to wonder why we have so many guillotines this week. We have had a couple of weeks of fairly light whipping, and from next week we face the prospect of all Bills being programmed--that is, guillotined. It would not have been too much to expect if Members had been required to sit up late two or three nights this week, given the importance of the Bills under consideration. Is it the case that the guillotines before us are for the convenience of Members? I suspect so, but also that matters go further than that.
If this evening's business is taken when we have only 27 minutes for each group of amendments, there will effectively be time only for the Front-Bench spokesmen to have their say. That will curtail any Back-Bench contribution, which is the purpose of programming. The hon. Member for Workington said that his party, when it was the Opposition, began to co-operate, which led to a diminution in the need for guillotines. He recommended that course to us, but co-operation--enforced co-operation will increasingly be the case under programme motions--will always be used to stifle dissent on the Back Benches.
Anyone who sat through our debates on the Scotland Act 1998--programmed from beginning to end--will be aware that the person most disadvantaged was the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Time and again, debates were arranged by the hon. Gentleman's own Front Benchers in such a way as to exclude the contributions that he wished to make on key elements that went through without being discussed at all. That is the problem with all timetable motions. They can be used to ensure that Front Benchers have their say, and that dissent, whether from the Government or Opposition Benches, is silenced.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |