| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: I answered the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered me. If he is opposed in principle, he would say that it had never happened at all.
Mr. Hogg: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question, which was a perfectly fair one to ask. I simply do not remember; how am I supposed to remember whether I supported a particular timetable motion during 18 years? I have not a clue, but were it on the agenda and were I in the House, I am sure that I would have done so, for the reasons that I have given. However, that does not mean that it is right to agree to such a motion, and I shall explain the reasons why I think it wrong to do so.
The first reason, which is important, is that democracy is a fairly fragile institution; we are calling on people to accept law and policy with which they may well not agree. An essential element of the bargain that people make in a political commonwealth is that policy and legislation is scrutinised and considered by their elected representatives. If we strip out the essential process of scrutiny, discussion and consideration, we also strip out the foundation on which the acceptance of law rests, and the electorate will begin to realise that the policies and laws imposed on them are but the will of one party. That cannot be right.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Is it correct to say that the essence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that, if we impose guillotine measures in circumstances in which there is no fundamental consensus, we substitute elective despotism for democracy?
Mr. Hogg: I would indeed say that. I ventured to make that point on Monday in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Workington. In fact, that phrase was used by my right hon. and noble father, who gave a long lecture on the subject in the latter part of the 1970s.
The first point is that we undermine people's respect for democracy. I have alluded to the second point already in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The volume of legislation is very great and we often get the statutory language wrong, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) knows full well from his time in the courts. If we strip out the process of scrutiny, possible defects in statutory language will simply slip through, and we should not allow that to happen.
My next point is that we are in a truly bizarre situation. There are about 181 pages of amendments; there are certainly 666 amendments, most of them made in the other place. As has been willingly conceded on both sides of the House, most of the amendments will not be discussed tonight. In fact, most of them have come not from this House but exclusively from that House--although often in response to undertakings given by Ministers, it is true.
It is truly bizarre that an unelected Chamber should be the source of primary legislation. It is even more bizarre that the unelected House, for which I have great respect, should be the source of primary legislation on political parties and referendums, with which, by definition, they are not so well acquainted as we are. That is an absolute absurdity.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is leaving the Chamber, but we have more in line for him.
Mr. Hogg: I am always glad to see the hon. Gentleman, whether he is coming or going, so let us not try to detain him.
The remedy is to have elected Members in the other Chamber. We should then be less aggrieved. I would advocate such a policy to the House, but I do not think that I would carry the majority tonight.
I should like to make another point. Debates on amendments are, in the end, often the hook on which hon. Members articulate the views of their electors, with regard either to the amendment or to the circumstances that have given rise to the legislation. If debate is stripped out by timetabling everything or by using the guillotine--a point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall has already made--elected Members are prevented from expressing their constituents' views, either with regard to constituency matters or to the anxieties that they may have about particular amendments. That cannot be right. The effect is to prevent Members of Parliament from articulating their constituents' views or those of interest groups, which seek to influence Parliament through its Members.
Shortly before this debate, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) introduced a ten-minute Bill, which was persuasively argued against by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). One of the questions asked, both explicitly and implicitly, was: why is politics held in such low esteem? Why do not people vote more often? There are many answers--you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I tried to trawl through them--but one of them is a sense that Parliament is not performing its function of scrutinising legislation. The lack of independence among Members is a great problem. I am asking not for more independent Members--
Mr. Hogg: I shall not get into that argument. I am asking not for more independent Members, but for more independence among Members--a very different matter. It seems wholly plain that if we allow important legislation to slip through without debate or scrutiny, we shall diminish the country's respect for the statutory, legislative and political process.
Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course I will, but then I shall come slowly to my conclusion.
Mr. Bercow: Cannot Parliament's problem be succinctly encapsulated? By truncating and minimising the consideration of important Bills, are we not demonstrating that we have sacrificed our self-respect? If so, how on earth can we expect anyone else to respect us?
Mr. Hogg: I agree. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I repeatedly hear hon. Members bewailing the difficulties that they face with working practices or
whatever, but the truth is that we are the authors of our own misfortune. The solution is within our grasp. Hon. Members should become more independent and tell their Front Benchers and Whips, "We won't put up with this. We do not like the timetable or the policy." I am here to articulate my views and those of my constituents, not those of anyone else. I did not become a Member of Parliament to echo Front Benchers. I want hon. Members to have more independence. If we achieve that, we shall rise in the esteem of the electorate.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Is not the problem that the right hon. and learned Gentleman adumbrates the result of a party system and professional politicians who are determined to maintain their position on the greasy ladder, which involves not behaving independently, but toeing the Whips' line?
Mr. Hogg: The answer is yes. I have been a career politician. I was pleased and privileged to serve in government for 13 years, and I enjoyed doing so very much, but a great vice of this country's political process is that the Executive is part of the legislature and, moreover, parliamentarians are but the creatures of their parties for the most part. Consequently, we talk about parliamentary sovereignty, but that is rubbish; we are really talking about the concluded opinion of the majority party, provided that the majority of Back Benchers support their Whips. That is not parliamentary democracy as it should be. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Down; he goes to the root of the matter.
I shall conclude by reflecting on the fact that we are up against a timetable: the Queen's Speech on 6 December. However, that is an arbitrary timetable and it could be shifted if necessary. That is not really the answer to the question. The answer is that we should not overload the programme--that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire pointed out--which is what happened in this Session. If the programme is overloaded, inevitably, we will end up in the deplorable state in which we have found ourselves this week. That is wrong, and hon. Members who value the parliamentary process and believe in democracy must in our hearts know that that it is wrong.
I will not embarrass Labour Members by mentioning the empty Labour Benches and saying that they should vote with us tonight. I know that they will not and, in any case, they are not here. People who care about democracy need to watch what is happening. Parliament is falling into disrepute and this sort of measure contributes towards that.
6.50 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): I have two reasons for voting against the guillotine. One is slightly frivolous and one is very serious.
What would happen if the guillotine motion failed? Given the proximity to the end of the Session, I imagine that the Bill would be lost. Would that be an enormous disaster? I do not think so--indeed, I can see one reason why it might be useful. Given the Home Secretary's conduct in the past few days, the extra time would give him a chance to recover some sense of balance and perspective. I am referring not to the fact that this is the second guillotine motion that he has introduced this week
but to his remarkable speech last night when he proposed the abolition of the Scotland football team and its merger into a United Kingdom squad. Some people say that the timing was more than coincidental, with Scotland sitting proudly at the top of group 6 while England is propping up group 9. As the wags say in Scotland, England must be the strongest team in the World cup--it is holding up all the other sides.One thing that is certain is that a Home Secretary who thinks that this is the right time for that spectacular own goal in politics does not seem to be the Home Secretary we should trust to guide through controversial legislation. Earlier today, I was on television with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)--the former Sports Minister--who informed me that when he made such a suggestion--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |