| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
23 Jan 2003 : Column 469—continued
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Might that not be why so much time was spent discussing the word "but"?
Mr. Streeter: I agree. I certainly think that there has been no time wasting or filibustering.
Mr. Hammond: Is not the Minister's point disingenuous? I acknowledge that the Committee did not use all the time available to it. We did not take advantage of the opportunity for a 10th sitting, because
we had been able to complete the part of the business that was due to be dealt with in Standing Committee. The problem related to the part that was to be taken on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right. I was about to make the same point. I thought that the Committee proceedings were measured, sensible and focused; but there was not enough time for debate on the issues that had to be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House. I had prepared two speeches that could not be delivered. I feel that the country has been cheated of a significant amount of wisdom.
Jim Knight (South Dorset): Is there not something bizarre about our wasting time on this debate when we could be debating the Bill, and talking about the word "but" yet again?
Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely you can confirm that if there was ever any question of time being wasted you would be the first to point that out to the House, and return it to order.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The hon. Gentleman is right, but I also ensure that Members have the opportunity to put their points of view. When it comes to wasting time, I will certainly make the necessary decision.
Mr. Streeter: The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) was entirely wrong. As I said at the outset, I did not intend to speak in this debate, and I realise that my speech is eating into time that could be spent on the amendments; but sometimes a point of principle must be put on record. I feel that I am well placed to make this point, for, unlike some of my colleagues, I do not oppose timetabling in principle—
Mr. Streeter: My right hon. Friend disagrees with me. I understand that: I disagree with him. I think that a Government are entitled to their business. I remember from my days in the Whips Office under that great, successful Government of 1992 to 1997 that there were times when the Whips tried to find speakers for debates on the Floor of the House. I felt that that was wrong then and I feel that it is wrong today. I am not against timetabling in principle but there is surely an implied contract which says that a timetable motion that is laid before the House should give sufficient time for hon. Members on both sides of the House—Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike—to discuss in detail the legislation that is before us. The length of time involved will be determined by the weight and substance of the legislation being considered. In this case, we are talking about a constitutional matter that is so important that we had to discuss the first two clauses on the Floor of the House, yet today we have three hours to deal with seven groups of amendments. Not only is it an important matter, as we heard in Committee and when the Bill was discussed on the Floor of the House, but there are
profound reservations about the legislation on both sides of the House, including among Labour Members. That is why it is important that these matters get a fair hearing.At the moment we are rightly discussing the future of the other place and House of Lords reform. It is my strong belief that we have not yet gone far enough in reforming this House but the key issue on which this House fails time and again is proper scrutiny of legislation. One of the key—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the programme motion refers to a particular piece of legislation. Perhaps he could address his remarks to that programme motion.
Mr. Streeter: I was getting carried away with my own incredible eloquence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise.
We need time to study every piece of legislation—in particular this Bill, which deals with weighty constitutional matters on which hon. Members on both sides of the House have profound disagreements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made the point during business questions that there should be protected time for legislation. I strongly agree. I ask the Minister to take that back to his colleagues. What has happened this afternoon is totally unacceptable and unnecessary, and the Government need to think again.
2.22 pm
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I am unhappy on two counts. First, I am unhappy about some of the remarks made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) about the debate that has already taken place in Committee. Secondly, I am unhappy about the very fact of the tabling of the programme motion. I shall deal first with the first point.
I take the gravest possible exception to the casual and gratuitous abuse that has been showered by the Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on three serious, committed and diligent parliamentarians, my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). In performance of their parliamentary duties on behalf of their constituents, they have sought in Committee and elsewhere properly and in detail to consider the legitimate policy proposals that have been unveiled by the Government. To suggest that three such serious and earnest Members would be guilty of evasion, procrastination or attempted filibustering is not only untrue but unworthy of the right hon. and hon. Members concerned. These are serious issues and they need to be debated.
Secondly, I am unhappy—I make no apology for the fact—about the tabling of the programme motion. In fulfilment of our responsibilities to our constituents, it is extremely important that we in this place are not inward-looking—that we do not gaze at our own navels—and that we provide a proper context for the consideration of our business, including programme motions.
I know that we do not refer to people in this place other than Members of Parliament but we are aware that, even though there is diminishing public interest in politics, and growing and pervasive cynicism about politics and politicians—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion under discussion is the programme motion to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. Perhaps he would address his remarks to that motion.
Mr. Bercow: I was turning to precisely that point. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for getting me to do so.
Matthew Green (Ludlow): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In six minutes' time, the first ever youth question session will take place in Westminster Hall. If Conservative Members force a vote by speaking for so long, they will disrupt the first ever youth question session. Can we have a ruling on that?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Important though that may be, it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to you for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. Even by long-established Liberal Democrats standards, that intervention was particularly asinine.
On the subject of the programme motion to which you rightly direct me, Madam Deputy Speaker, let us provide the context for members of the public listening to our proceedings and observing them to make a judgment on whether it is the Government or the Opposition Members objecting who are right on this important matter. Let us be clear what we have in mind. In this context, I go back to what was stated from the Opposition Front Bench, if the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton feels able readily to contain himself for a limited period to allow proper attention to be paid to the important debate that needs to take place.
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman at the moment.
I want to address the point that was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. He referred to the number of amendments and new clauses that we have to consider. The point that I want to put on record is this. The Government want us to consider between now and 6 o'clock proposed new clauses and amendments to crucial legislation, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill—I do not think we would disagree about that—on the subjects of provision for further referendums; the preconditions for holding referendums and definition of regions; the local government review; the commencement of the legislation; referendum questions and statement; order
for combination of polls; and directions to the Electoral Commission. None of those matters is trivial. All are important.
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): Does my hon. Friend agree that he should emphasise in that list the regional boundaries, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House may wish to refer?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |