| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether you have had any indication from the Secretary of State for Health that he intends to come and tell the House that, in the wake of the decision by the House of Lords not to insist on its amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Wait for it. Does the Secretary of State intend to tell us about the fact that, none the less, he or his Department, acting on his behalf, had sent to potential foundation trusts a draft press release saying that, even if he were to lose on the legislation, he has powers—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman. I must be able to hear him.
Mr. Lansley: The press release said that the Secretary of State had powers that he could give to trusts to provide them with local control and that he had summoned them to a meeting in London next Tuesday. If he has powers that he can give to hospitals for local control without the legislation that this House has just passed, perhaps he should come to the House and tell us in the wake of our debates yesterday what those powers are and when he will provide them.
Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not had an approach from the Secretary of State for Health. Perhaps that is because I have been busy in the Chamber, so I have been too busy to deal with any other matters.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, we are likely to get back detailed proposals on the Criminal Justice Bill. They will deal with two matters, namely jury trials and bad character. Last night, the selection list was so ordered that we were able to deal with jury trials but we could make no reference at all to bad character because of the guillotine. Would it be possible for you to reorder the selection list so that, in any event, we could deal first with bad character and then go on to jury trials; otherwise bad character would not have been discussed today or yesterday?
Mr. Speaker: I have no power to change the order of consideration. Grouping is a matter for the Member in charge of the Bill. Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks will have been heard.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may press you a little further. Would it possible for a Member such as myself to table an amendment to the order of consideration so that we could reorder the consideration of amendments?
Mr. Speaker: I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would not be appropriate to do so at this time. In order to help him, perhaps he should seek advice from the Clerk, who will be able to assist him on procedural matters.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling, of course, but will you bear it in mind that there have been successive points of order to ask for the Chair's help to defend the rights of Back Benchers to discuss parts of Bills—that has become regular? I understand that in this specific case, you have acted entirely as your powers allow. However, it is possible for the Speaker to give the impression to those in charge of the business of the House that there is growing unhappiness among perfectly reasonable people about their inability to discuss large sections of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: I believe that the House agreed to a programme motion on Tuesday, and I am bound by that.
4.33 pm
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [10 November].
6 pm
Mr. Heald : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Government have now caved in and agreed to the position adopted by Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members. How long does it take the Government to come to the House, say sorry and produce the amendments that we need to conclude our business?
Mr. Hain: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is utter rubbish. The truth is that on all the key clauses we have held our ground. We stood our ground in this elected House of Commons against the unelected second Chamber, and the will of the Commons has triumphed. We have stopped jury nobbling; we have a common-sense approach on fraud—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We do not want to embark on a whole new debate. Those are hardly points of order for me.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is in a quandary—we do not know what is happening. Rather than the Leader of the House making rather partisan points in a most extraordinary manner, may we be told precisely what is happening, how long we will be here and what the outcome will be?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help. We will deal with the business motion, which we must now do. After that, the House will suspend in the way that we have recently been doing. Before we meet again, which, all being well, will be in about an hour, the papers will be available and all will be made clear.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?
Mr. McLoughlin: Yes. On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Bearing in mind what the Leader of the House has just told us—that everything is going swimmingly and the Government have everything right—why are we facing this delay?
Mr. Tyler : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely for the good order of the House, for
which we can only look to the Chair, you can give us a clear indication of the precise position. Many hon. Members are anxious to sort this matter out. We are delighted that the Government have given way, and I hope that Ministers will be a little more gracious later this evening than the Leader of the House was just now, but it would be helpful if you gave us some indication of what is to happen, and when.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can help the House. I was delighted to see the shadow Home Secretary on television a few moments ago saying exactly what had happened. Should the House not be informed, as well as all the television viewers? I knew what had happened, and I supposed that everyone else did—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with those points of order. The House is asking me to be helpful and I shall endeavour to do so. When the House suspends in a few moments' time, papers will be made available in the Vote Office that will explain what we will do when the House resumes. The House will resume in approximately one hour—an hour at the most—and by that time papers will be available to all Members that will explain what we are trying to do.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I think that I have dealt sufficiently with points of order. We must move on.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
- That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr Peter Hain and the consideration of any Lords Messages and Amendments that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Derek Twigg.]
6.3 pm
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [10 November].
6.35 pm
Criminal Justice Bill
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to acquaint the House with the fact that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows: the Lords insist on certain of their amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill and disagree to certain Commons amendments, for which insistence on disagreement they assign their reasons. They propose certain further amendments; they agree to certain Commons amendments; they did not insist on certain of their amendments. Under the order of the House of 18 November, any message from the Lords relating to the Criminal Justice Bill will be considered forthwith, without any question being put.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its disagreement to the Lords amendment.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will convenient to take the following: Lords amendments Nos. 32E to 32L; Lords amendment No.33, Government motion to insist on their disagreement thereto, Government amendments (a) to (j) to words restored and Government consequential amendment (a); Lords amendment No. 34J; Lords amendment No.121, Government motion to insist on their disagreement thereto and Government amendment (a) to the words restored; Lords amendments Nos. 126 and 131H and Government motions relating thereto and Government amendment (a) to the words restored.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |