| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): I will be brief.
I have much sympathy with what was said by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I hope that the Government will learn a lesson and realise that, even if various details are still a matter for consultation, it is in the interests of the House—including Members who do not represent the Northern Ireland political parties—to have access to the Government's legislative proposals, although they may be in draft form.
The Minister gave the game away to some extent when he spoke of pressure on parliamentary counsel. There is an object lesson there not just for Northern Ireland Ministers, but for the entire Government. The Government are legislating too much, when fewer laws better prepared, better drafted and better scrutinised would be in the national interest. The Minister might well recommend a different approach to his colleagues.
I acknowledge that the Northern Ireland local government elections on 5 May impose a deadline and that, following discussions in the past few days, the Government have produced a programme motion that is less restrictive than it might have been. They have imposed a 6 pm deadline, rather than trying to impose limits on the Bill's various stages.
24 Feb 2005 : Column 496
We do not propose to divide the House on the motion and I hope that we can proceed swiftly to debate the Bill itself.
1.31 pm
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): The Liberal Democrats also accept the Minister's allocation of time, but I have two thoughts. First, on 30 November, Ministers were saying in statements that there was a problem. It seems rather as if, notwithstanding the consultations that were necessary, everything has been left until the last minute. Secondly, as the Minister himself said, there is substantial pressure on various Departments, especially the Home Office, to push through a large amount of legislation.
What surprises me is the unseemly haste. We know that the general election could take place as late as June 2006. There is plenty of time for the Government to get the Bill through—unless, of course, they are implying that there will be a general election on 5 May.
Mr. Spellar: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that local council elections will take place in Northern Ireland in May.
Lembit Öpik: But the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which we discussed yesterday, has nothing to do with local elections in Northern Ireland. Surely this Bill, which must accord with the elections to which the Minister refers, is rather more pressing than some of the other Bills that are being discussed.
David Burnside (South Antrim) (UUP): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government announced the date of the general election by moving the date of the Northern Ireland local government elections to 5 May? I fail to understand why he even questions the Government on when the general election will take place.
Lembit Öpik: I do not want us to end up discussing the date of the general election rather than the allocation of time for the Bill. I merely say that this looks more than a little suspicious to those of us who believe that the Government had ulterior motives in moving the local elections to 5 May. I think that there is a pretty loud siren call from Northern Ireland to the rest of us to prepare for that date.
A characteristic of Northern Ireland policy making and legislation passing is that we always seem to do it in a rush. That is no way to run the Province. Along with Northern Ireland Members and Conservative Members, I have often expressed frustration at the fact that Ministers seem to play fast and loose with the small amount of time that we are given to debate important issues. Let me repeat a call that has come from all the Opposition parties: please will the Government be more considerate in regard to the amount of time that they allow for other legislation? However, in this particular instance, I think that we shall have more than enough time to do what the Government want to do.
1.34 pm
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP):
The motion is unusual in two respects. First, I understand that the Conservative party does not intend to press it to a
24 Feb 2005 : Column 497
Division. That is a departure for the Conservatives, who, I believe, operate a policy of always dividing on timetable motions. Members may also notice that, on this occasion, we are not graced, as we normally are during debates on programme motions, by the presence of some of the ornaments of the Conservative party. Consequently, we will not enjoy the entertainment to which the House has been accustomed on such occasions. I hasten to add that I have no intention of trying to emulate the persons to whom I have referred.
The second respect in which the motion is unusual is that this time the Government have not imposed a guillotine for each stage of the Bill, but allowed us to debate all its stages until 6 pm. Indeed, if I have read the Order Paper correctly and if the business motion is moved at 6 pm, it could be debated until even later. In any event, we have been allowed to do what comes naturally in debating Second Reading and the Committee stage. I want to record my appreciation of this slightly more liberal guillotine and my thanks to the Government Whips.
That brings me to my main point, which is that the programme motion is wholly unnecessary. This is a very short Bill with only two clauses of substance; the other clauses relate to minor matters. I may be proved wrong, but I do not think that there is any great controversy over the central measure. Concern will be expressed about what it may portend, and whether it portends a change in Government policy. There will be concern about how it will operate practically and a desire for safeguards, but I do not think that Members in any part of the House wish to frustrate a move that will include in the electoral register people who would otherwise not be entitled to vote.
I am not trying to anticipate our later debate, but I see little likelihood of opposition to the Bill or of filibuster throughout the day. That is why I think the motion is unnecessary. The fact that it is there, albeit in a slightly more liberal form than usual, reflects the Government's highly illiberal attitude to legislation. Although I was not present for the business statement because I was in my office upstairs, I watched it on the monitor, and heard the Leader of the House once again attempt to defend the Government's practice of programming by claiming that it resulted in proper consideration of legislation. That, of course, is utter and arrant nonsense. Programme motions have not improved the quality of
24 Feb 2005 : Column 498
consideration of Bills, and, like nearly all the changes introduced by the Government, they have not improved the work of the House.
Last night, I sat listening to some Labour Members bemoaning the poor quality of this Parliament and the one preceding it, in terms of their ineffectiveness and inability to hold the Government properly to account. Labour Members do not realise that that is largely due to the changes that they, in their naivety, allowed the Government to make. Nearly all those changes have made life easier for Government and made it more difficult for Members to perform one of their basic functions. I just wanted to put that on record. I have not taken the same opportunities that other Members have taken to express my view on the changes in, and deterioration in quality of, the House during the last two Parliaments. We can hope for better in the future.
1.39 pm
Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), in that the way in which today's business is being conducted is symptomatic of how Northern Ireland Office legislation and matters affecting Northern Ireland tend to be dealt with in this House. I recall a number of occasions when legislation—some of it controversial, or of major significance—was brought before the House to be dealt with in a single day's proceedings. Although this Bill is not as controversial as some others, it is unfortunate and regrettable that that procedure tends to be adopted for legislation affecting Northern Ireland.
I find it odd that, whereas two days were provided for consideration of the Bill in another place, we are dealing with all stages in one day—and on a Thursday afternoon at that—when there is another pressure in play in Members' desire to return to their homes and constituencies, especially given the current weather, which we discussed earlier. Those factors will doubtless impinge on the length of Members' contributions this afternoon. Having said that, I think that we will be able to deal with the Bill, which is generally welcomed, fairly speedily. However, those points need to be put on the record, and I hope that we will have fewer instances of such procedure being used for controversial legislation, about which I will not say very much, given that we are discussing the allocation of time motion. For example, future legislation on parades will be dealt with upstairs in Committee in one and a half hours, which is frankly inadequate.
Question put and agreed to.
24 Feb 2005 : Column 497
24 Feb 2005 : Column 499
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |