| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. George Howarth: If I have in any way misrepresented the position that the right hon. Gentleman's party took on this matter, of course I apologise. I will need to check the record, but my recollection is that there were, subsequent to the events that he describes, further meetings at which a different
point of view made on behalf of his party was put. If I am wrong about that, and I cannot locate the notes quickly to verify my version of events, I will of course put the record straight.
Mr. Trimble: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has behaved honourably in this matter. If anything said subsequent to the publication of the Government White Paper indicated a willingness to treat Northern Ireland separately, that does not represent my views, because they are absolutely clear and have been expressed in our discussions with the Government.
We shall be happy to read the record on the matter, however. I am grateful to have had the opportunity of setting out the matter more fully so soon after statements were made that I consider misleading. I do not want to detain the House longer at this point.
6.30 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): I regret both that this is the second timetable motion before the House this week and that it is the second time that I have spoken on such a motion. We should not be doing this. We are guillotining four major Bills this week. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and Disqualifications Bill are measures of real substance.
We are being asked to consider the deletion of new clause 1 of the Disqualifications Bill. That provision is at the heart of the Bill, and to try to deal with the matter in three hours is plain wrong. On the PPER Bill, there are 666 amendments--as has been constantly pointed out. I gather from the Home Secretary that 665 of those amendments were either tabled by the Government or had their approval. The Government are presenting the House with 665 Government-inspired or supported amendments that we shall have to consider for the very first time in between only three or four hours. That is absurd.
Labour Members have argued that many of those amendments are non-controversial or have been tabled in respect of undertakings. That may well be true; I do not challenge the bona fides of hon. Members. However, we need to bear in mind two points: when one considers an amendment, one examines its inherent merits and also the language in which it is encapsulated. Hon. Members may say that an amendment is not controversial, but that does not resolve the problem. The policy content of the amendment may not be controversial, but what about its language? We are in the business of--where we can--trying to improve legislation and trying to avoid nonsense. It is thus extremely important--even in respect of uncontroversial measures--that the House should have an opportunity to scrutinise statutory language.
Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as at least 500 Members of the House are not part of the Government, it would be difficult to state with certainty whether any measure--big or small--is a priori non-controversial? We are all politicians and we all hold different points of view. Is it not at least likely that someone--somewhere--may regard something as controversial, and that to prejudge that issue is a denial of the parliamentary process?
Mr. Hogg: I agree with my right hon. Friend and in a moment I shall touch briefly on the point he makes.
I was saying that, even if an amendment is genuinely uncontroversial as to its content, we are still in the business of trying to improve statutory language so that we do not send out legislation that is rubbish or imperfect.
I point out to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the former shadow Leader of the House, that I am not wholly opposed to programme motions; I understand the force of them. However, there are certain conditions. First, we should have some agreement as to the overall volume of legislation with which we shall be dealing in any one Session. Secondly, we must ensure that, within the programme, there is sufficient time to address the relevant Bill.
To amplify the point that I made earlier to my right hon. Friend and to the hon. Gentleman, let me say that an agreement between Front-Bench Members as to the key parts of a Bill does not necessarily reflect the views of, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) or indeed myself.
Mr. Tyler: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hogg: I will give way when I have finished my point.
The danger of consensual agreements between the Front Benches is that the programming will not take into account the views of heavily engaged Back Benchers, who may take a wholly different view of what is important. That is why such a motion has to be amendable, so that people such as my right hon. Friend can argue that we need more time for discussion of one group of amendments and less for another, and we can then divide on the matter. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I know that he is especially punctilious about the names of constituencies--with good reason--I point out that my constituency is North Cornwall.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a valid point. I agree that a programme motion may not always meet the case and accept the points he makes on Back-Bench opinion. That is especially true for the PPER Bill; we may not all be experts on agriculture or foreign affairs, but we are all experts on the political process, so the views of Back Benchers have a unique relevance in discussion of the Bill. I agree that a programme motion might have been difficult to construct and that it may well have been necessary to make it amendable, but it would still have been a much better option than a guillotine motion.
Mr. Hogg: I see the merit in what the hon. Gentleman says; I have nothing to add to my remarks on that point. However, I have one or two further points on the guillotine motion.
I acknowledge that I have already spoken on the matter this week. Hon. Members may ask rhetorically--or may even ask me--why I am making the speech again. The reason is that, if this motion is bad in principle, we should not acquiesce in it. If that means repeating oneself, so that
one is not seen to acquiesce, then so be it. The principle is bad and I shall explain why, but I think that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) wants to intervene.
Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton) indicated dissent.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman does not want to intervene; I apologise.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will think extremely carefully about his response to my question. In his 20 years in this place, has he ever voted for a guillotine motion on Lords amendments when there were more than 500 amendments?
Mr. Hogg: I cannot answer the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question: I do not know offhand. However, when I was a Minister--and indeed, when I was not a Minister, but we were in government--I supported many timetable motions. As a Minister, I was bound by collective responsibility. That is not a laughing matter--one does not resign over silly matters. I trust that one resigns only over major matters. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, a guillotine motion does not fall into the spectrum of matters on which one resigns--they need to be more substantial than that.
Mr. Salmond : Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider resignation over the many serious matters that he was involved in mucking up?
Mr. Hogg: There certainly were times when I considered resignation--and indeed on serious matters. I went a long way down that road. I should certainly have resigned had I not been asked to stay on.
Mr. Hogg: I shall not continue this dialogue because it will be out of order. However, I was never someone--for example, when I was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food--to hold on needlessly.
The point that I was making in response to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is that, when one is a member of a Government, one accepts collective responsibility. Yes, I certainly voted for timetable motions--and may even have moved them from time to time. When I was a Government Whip, I certainly bullied my colleagues to support such motions. Incidentally, I had no greater respect for them when they agreed to be bullied than I would otherwise have had, because I want independent-minded people in this place. I shall return to that point, but I hope that I have fully and adequately dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers specifically to timetable motions. I was talking about timetable motions that involve hundreds--indeed 500 or more--of Lords amendments.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |