| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
We have been standing up for important principles. On jury trial, we have said that the Government should not erode that important liberty of the subject unless there is an overriding reason to do so. What reason have the Government put forward? They say that in long and complicated fraud trials, there should be trial by judge alone, yet 92 per cent. of fraud cases result in a conviction. So what is their reason for this change?
Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, Cathcart): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you once again
confirm the ruling that was made earlier, which was that this debate is on a motion on the sitting hours of the House, and is not an opportunity to go back— [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
Mr. Tom Harris: Can you confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this debate is not intended to be an opportunity to revisit the arguments on either the Criminal Justice Bill or the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, and that it is an opportunity to discuss the motion on the Order Paper, which the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is not addressing?
Mr. Bacon: Further to that point of order and my earlier point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire was doing no more than the Leader of the House was doing, and that the Chair has already confirmed that that was perfectly in order?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already said, and I repeat it for the benefit of all hon. Members, that we are not at this moment discussing the merits of any particular piece of legislation that may subsequently come before the House.
Mr. Heald: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall wait for that opportunity.
Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. Is he not concerned that the Lords' unprecedented move of pulling up stumps last night when this House was prepared to continue to debate the merits of Government legislation that had already been voted on by this elected House cocked a snook at the House of Commons, and that the electorate will not understand why their views are being overlooked by the other place?
Mr. Heald: Labour Members call that modernisation when it suits them.
We have spent a good deal of time having constructive discussions with the Government and a great deal has been achieved: they have accepted 90 amendments. As we speak, further discussions are going on. It is right that, if necessary, we should take extra time to discuss these issues, as the motion suggests.
Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The Leader of the House used to write eloquently about the rule of law and the need for justice and liberty. The day before yesterday, a former Labour shadow Attorney-General and Attorney-General, Lord Morris of Aberavon, whom the Leader of the House knows well, made the point that to erode jury trial was a very serious step. We are arguing that, if it is to be done for the sake of 50 cases a year, it is a step too far. We have support for that argument right across the House. Will
the Leader of the House intervene in this matter, even at this late stage, in the interests of justice and the rule of law? Can he not bring some common sense to bear on all those who are digging in? As Lord Healey has rightly said, those who are dug in should not keep digging. That is something that the Leader of the House could do for us.
Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that when we were in a similar position over the Railway Act 1993, when the Conservative party was in government, the House of Lords adjourned while this House was in disagreement with it, but when it met the following morning, it accepted—as it did on every occasion during the 18 years of Conservative rule—that when there were disagreements, the legitimacy lay within the elected House and not the other place?
Mr. Heald: There are always constructive discussions to be had, as there should be.
The offer that has been made is a fair one. It is to accept 393 clauses. Cannot the Government just go that small step in the interests of justice and the rule of law, and refrain from eroding the right to a jury trial? Can they not do that small thing, bearing in mind that it will affect only 50 cases a year—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the merits or otherwise of the Bill are not for discussion at this moment.
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It might have been before you assumed the Chair—when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair—that we all listened politely, if incredulously, to the Leader of the House listing many elements of the Bills under discussion. I raised this issue with Mr. Speaker in a gentle way, and he said that he was prepared, at that stage, to allow at least elements of the Bill to be brought in when they were relevant to the debate. As I said, that might have been before you assumed the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, but your perusal of Hansard tomorrow will show that the Leader of the House spent a large part of his time enumerating elements of the Bills.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of the House, will be able to distinguish the difference between listing the contents of a piece of legislation and debating its merits.
Mr. Heald: I do not think that I should go down the route of listing all 393 clauses.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather appalling that aspersions should be cast on the other place in this debate? I have been reading carefully yesterday's debate on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill in the other place, in which our noble Friend, Lord Cope of Berkeley said:
- "More seriously, as far as I can detect, the various parties seem to have moved close to one another on the Bill on the various outstanding issues. We should, as a House, attempt to facilitate the ability of the Government, Opposition and other parties to come to an agreement about the future and settle it on a Bill about which there has been much controversy."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2003; Vol. 654, c. 2035.]—
Mrs. Gillan: I was simply trying to make the point to my hon. Friend that this was responsible parliamentary behaviour—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware of what the hon. Lady is saying. I call Mr. Oliver Heald.
Mr. Heald: We were looking for a cooling-off period—a time for reflection—and I do not think that it is too much to ask that the Government should reflect on issues of this seriousness.
David Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The offer that has been made on foundation hospitals would allow the whole Bill—the GP contract and all the other measures that I could list—to go through. What we do not want is a two-tier system in our country—a half-baked solution that simply will not work. We are entitled to negotiate and discuss. The other place was giving us that opportunity. [Interruption.] It may be, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we are to have those clauses listed.
David Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
It would be bad news for this place if we were left to wait for Lords messages with the Government digging in and nothing else to be done. We should reflect on the reason for us getting into this mess: the Government's appalling management of the business.
David Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
How could it happen that the Criminal Justice Bill, which had been in Committee in this place in January, arrived for final, serious consideration in the Lords only last night? In fact, the printers were kept up all night to get the papers ready for this place. That is incompetence. To add to it, we now have intransigence. That is not good enough.
David Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given the burgeoning alliance between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in another place, does it not alarm him that he has been abandoned by all but one of his allies in this place? Does it not speak
volumes of the Liberal Democrats that while their peers are queueing round the block to defeat the Government in another place, only one of their MPs can be bothered to turn up to this Chamber to debate the supremacy of this House?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |