| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
Church Repairs (VAT)
27. Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): What recent discussions the Commissioners have had with the Government on revision of the sixth VAT directive. [113823]
Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): As the hon. Lady knows, we have made a detailed
submission via the Churches Main Committee to the European Commission and we have had briefings with interested MPs, MEPs and EU officials.
Miss McIntosh : Could the hon. Gentleman possibly move things along a little further, because, as yet, we have had no decision? As he has explained, the churches are being put off by the mountain of bureaucratic paperwork involved in applying for the grants relating to this measure. Will he please press the Chancellor to act quickly to reduce VAT on church repairs?
Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's tenacity. All I can say is that, if the European Commission had such tenacity, we would be further along the road than we are now.
Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, parliamentary awaydays are all the rage at the moment. Could you possibly organise an awayday for Cabinet Ministers, so that they can learn how to be a bit more succinct in their responses to questions in the House? In that way, more Back-Bench Members could contribute to Question Time, which might also improve the turnout in the House.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps when the Ministers have an awayday, they will invite the Speaker along. I can tell them that we are not getting through the questions fast enough. May I say that they are far too long-winded? Sometimes the questioners can also be too long-winded. We have to get down the Order Paper; it is only fair to those who have bothered to put their names into the ballot and who appear on the Order Paper that they should be called. I hope that the awayday takes place in the not too distant future.
Criminal Justice Bill (Programme) (No. 5)
3.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Paul Goggins): I beg to move,
- That, in accordance with the Resolution of the Programming Committee of 14th May, the Order of the House of 2nd April 2003 (Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill) be amended by omitting the entries in the Table for the second and third day and inserting the following:
| Day | Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
| Second day | New Clauses relating to Part 1, Clause No. 7, Clauses Nos. 9 and 10. | One and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. |
| New Clauses relating to Part 2, Clauses Nos. 11 to 17, New Clauses relating to Part 5, Clauses Nos. 27 to 34, New Clauses relating to Part 9, Clauses Nos. 50 to 62. | Two hours after the commencement of those proceedings. | |
| New Clauses relating to Part 7, Clauses Nos. 36 to 43. | Four and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings. | |
| Clause No. 63, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 64 to 81, New Clauses relating to Part 10. | Six and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings. | |
| Third day | New Clauses Nos. 30 to 39 and 46 to 51. | Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill. |
| Remaining New Clauses relating to Part 12, Clauses Nos. 127 to 163, Schedule No. 7, Clause No. 164, Schedule No. 8, Clauses Nos. 165 to 171, Schedule No. 9, Clauses Nos. 172 to 176, Schedule No. 10, Clauses Nos. 177 to 201, Schedule No. 11, Clauses Nos. 202 to 206, Schedule No. 12, Clauses Nos. 207 to 211, Schedules Nos. 13 and 14, Clause No. 212, Schedule No. 15, Clauses Nos. 213, to 221, Schedule No. 16, Clauses Nos. 222 to 246, Schedule No. 17, Clause No. 247, Schedule No. 18, Clause No. 248, Schedules Nos. 19 and 20, Clauses Nos. 249 to 251, Schedule No. 21, Clause No. 252, Schedule No. 22, Clauses Nos. 253 and 254, Schedule No. 23, Clauses Nos. 255 to 258, Schedule No. 24, Clause No. 259, New Clauses relating to Part 6, Clause No. 35, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 260 to 265, Schedule No. 25, Clauses Nos. 266 to 268, Schedule No. 26, Clauses Nos. 269 to 273, Schedule No. 27, Clause No. 274, Schedule No. 28, Clause No. 275, Schedule No. 29, Clauses Nos. 276 to 280. | Four hours after the commencement of those proceedings. | |
| Remaining New Clauses, New Schedules, any remaining proceedings on the Bill. | Five and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings. |
I am reliably informed that few Bills have had as many days as this on the Floor of the House on Report. It is important, therefore, that we should use the time wisely to debate the substance of the Bill, rather than lingering on procedure. The Government have tabled several new amendments and policy provisions. In some cases, the timing was unavoidable—for example, the murder sentencing provisions respond to a court ruling at the turn of the year. In others, the amendments respond to the valuable and constructive points raised on both sides of the Standing Committee. I am thinking here, for example, of measures relating to the Sentencing Guidelines Council and to retrial for serious offences.
I believe that the programme motion strikes the right balance, and I commend it to the House.
3.34 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): First, I welcome the Minister to his appointment and congratulate him on it. If he can conduct his relations with the opposition parties in the manner of his predecessor, amicable relations in all parts of the House will be maintained.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) will be missed very much. We certainly appreciated his approach to consideration of the Bill and the conciliatory way in which he dealt with timetables and matters in Committee. With a certain note of sorrow, therefore, I have to say to the Minister that, despite fully accepting that the Government have sought to co-operate with the Opposition in allowing time for proper scrutiny, so many more proposals have been tabled by the Government that, perhaps inevitably, the allocation of three days for consideration on Report, which was a generous offer when it was made, is, I am afraid, insufficient.
After considering the number of amendments before us and the number that we have to debate tomorrow, I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that, in
reality, we have a grossly overloaded timetable. I might say that that is no fault of the Government Whip, who has done his very best throughout to squeeze the quart into the pint pot, but the truth is that the quart will not go into the pint pot. There is insufficient time to do justice to the legislation.In particular, one has only to consider the diversity of the amendments to realise that tomorrow, as will be the case today, we face a situation in which very different proposals are grouped, which will inevitably result in a lack of focus during the debate. I regret that because there are important matters to discuss. Therefore, although we have sought to co-operate with the Government in managing the Bill's timetable, this is an occasion on which we part company with them. I do not want to take up much of the House's time as I want to get on with the debate, but we shall oppose the timetable motion.
3.37 pm
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in his welcome for the Minister and his comments on the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), who did an excellent job in Committee. I wish him well in his new responsibilities.
Having said that, I entirely accord with the view that the programme motion is an admission of defeat by the Government in that it is clear that this important measure—what we are told is the flagship criminal justice Bill of this Parliament—will not receive the scrutiny it requires. It was already a substantial Bill of 280 clauses and 29 schedules, so it was always going to be difficult to give these important matters proper scrutiny, even in the three days originally allotted. Since then, the Government have come back to the House, with the result that there are nearly 500 amendments before us, and 28 Government new clauses.
These are not lightweight matters of detail. They include fingerprint and DNA samples, sentencing for murder, gun crime, increases in the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving, membership of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, abolition of committal proceedings, reporting restrictions, jury service, outraging public decency, the Criminal Records Bureau and extending powers of detention without charge. Those are matters of life and liberty. They deserve the House's proper attention, which is precisely what they will not receive under the programme motion.
Like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, I do not want to take up valuable debating time, but the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) was absolutely right last Monday when she referred to
- "increasingly poor policy initiatives being rammed through Parliament".—[Official Report, 12 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 38.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |