HC Deb 03 April 1990 vol 170 cc1066-9

5.8 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the rearrangement of business for tomorrow.

I am proposing that the business already announced for Wednesday 4 April—consideration of Lords amendments to the Education (Student Loans) Bill—should now be preceded by a timetable motion on the same business.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)

That perfunctory statement means that, with their characteristic insensitivity, the Government are introducing another guillotine motion on a day when we are to hold a guillotined debate—necessarily delayed by the first statement—on the Social Security Bill.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman concede that, far from being exceptional motions used to deal with particularly complicated legislation, guillotines are now a normal method of conducting Government business? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman needs to bring in a guillotine motion on a Bill of only four clauses and five pages, guillotines will obviously become the order of the day for all Government legislation, which we would find wholly unacceptable. Why did the Leader of the House intend to bring in a guillotine on the Education (Student Loans) Bill in the middle of last week but then change his mind? Why has he chosen instead to bring it in at the last possible minute? This is not Government business management: it is crisis management.

Is not the real reason for the motion the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is scared of his own Back Benchers and of the strength of the Lords amendments—especially those on housing benefit—and scared of allowing all these matters a full debate in the House? This is government by shambles.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman has a total misconception of the position. Considering the nature of the business for tomorrow, it seems to be in the interests of both sides of the House—

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Only the Tories.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

It is sensible, as the Bill is to be considered for the last time, to have a reasonable amount of time allotted to consideration of the timetable motion and the amendments that the House will consider tomorrow afternoon. There should be ample time for that.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Leader of the House should have thought again before introducing a guillotine motion on this measure. There are 17 Lords amendments. A significant number were moved by his noble Friends in the other place. There are only three matters of controversy, on one of which the Government have made a substantial concession—students who are disabled. That leaves two matters of controversy. Are the Government so frightened of the democratic decisions of this Parliament and so unable to argue their case persuasively that they cannot in a whole day use the proper procedures to debate two important matters, on which, across the parties, the other House defeated the Government—and rightly so?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for so plainly making the case for the timetable motion that I propose. As he says, the overwhelming majority of the amendments are Government amendments produced in response to representations. He says that there are two matters of controversy. The timetable should allow ample time for their discussion.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the House of Lords spent three long days debating these matters at great length and with great knowledge? One wonders sometimes whether the Government believe in the House of Lords. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the Lords produced three amendments which are necessarily controversial. Surely they should be debated at considerable length. None of us wishes to delay the proceedings of the House. In organising the timetable motion, will my right hon. and learned Friend recollect that some of us care deeply about the future of higher education, and that he cannot guillotine that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend will understand that the intention of the legislation is to sustain higher education. For the reasons given by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), my hon. Friend will find that the time allotted for consideration will be quite sufficient for the matters of controversy.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Will the Leader of the House reflect that there might be a case for a statement tomorrow on a matter that bothered Mr. Speaker greatly today? It was the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—the position of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee in relation to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence?

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is a different matter. I am worried about lots of things.

Mr. Dalyell

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The leader of the House made a statement on guillotining the Bill tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman must find another opportunity to raise the other matter.

Mr. Dalyell

I am asking for a statement tomorrow on information from the Americans about the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence.

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a statement about the business tomorrow and the guillotine motion on the Students' Loan Bill. The hon. Gentleman must confine his questions to that.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

This is a business statement.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Grocott

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a statement about tomorrow's business. My hon. Friend was raising an issue connected with tomorrow's business.

Mr. Speaker

Was he? I thought that he was raising a completely different matter.

Mr. Dalyell

Tomorrow's business should be preceded by a factual statement from a senior Minister on what the United States defence authorities and the Pentagon had to say about the activities of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates)—they were raised today, so I do it as a matter of urgency—in the Pentagon in connection with public relations firms on whose behalf he has been acting. There is a wide understanding that the Americans have complained bitterly to our Ministry of Defence about the pressuring and lobbying activities of the Chairman of a Select Committee of the House. Before we leave for the Easter recess, the matter should be cleared up one way or the other. It is a matter of the honour of the House.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The timetable motion that I announced earlier will in no sense inhibit the time available for the discussion of other matters tomorrow. There was no reason for the hon. Gentleman to raise under cover of privilege the wide-ranging allegations that he has just made in his characteristic fashion.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)

In view of the widespread filibustering on Report, the guillotine will be widely welcomed. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, under the system of student loans, the level of student support in the United Kingdom will be more generous than that in any other country in the western world?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend can make that valuable point tomorrow.

Mr. Banks

Is not this guillotine motion further evidence of the authoritarian nature of the Government, starting at No. 10 Downing street and now pervading the Benches opposite? As the guillotine motion is about saving time—which I assume the Government want to do, as well as killing debate—why does the Leader of the House not consider postponing the Easter recess so that we can debate the matter properly? The Easter recess already seems to me over-generous.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The Easter recess was authorised by the House last week with some enthusiasm.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

When did we first start to guillotine Lords amendments? Is it not inappropriate to say to the second Chamber of a bicameral system that we do not want fully to list or understand the arguments adduced in the Lords' amendments?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am saying no such thing. The time available will suffice for the work in hand.

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)

Will the Leader of the House reconsider the statement that he made this afternoon? As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) has already said, this is a four-clause Bill with a fairly short schedule. In effect it simply says that a student loans scheme will be introduced. In Committee we did not cause any problems in dealing with the matter so I should have thought that it would be appropriate to allow full discussion of the Lords' amendments. There is no way that a full discussion can be allowed when, for example, on the housing benefit issue both my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and I have not had information about the number of students whose loss of housing benefit will be greater than the loan available to them under the scheme. It is pathetic that we have such a timetable for such a small Bill.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman also makes my case. As he says, it is a small Bill. It has been considered in both Houses for 86 hours so far. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, the time available tomorrow should suffice for the two or three outstanding issues.

Several Hon. Members

rose

Mr. Speaker

Order. May I remind the House that we have a guillotined Bill today? The first Division takes place at 7 pm. Questions must be confined to this matter, please.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, rather than have a filibuster on one amendment which could take the House perhaps six, seven or eight hours, we shall have a reasonable time for all the amendments to be debated? Surely that is what the House would wish.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

There has never been any problem with the Bill in the House. It went through Committee in an orderly fashion without a timetable. The same occurred on Report and Third Reading before the Bill went to another place. Now that it has returned with some amendments to be discussed—only two minor technical amendments came out of Committee and were adopted—and we have a chance to discuss the Bill reasonably, why is it to be cut short?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

There will be reasonable time for the amendments to be discussed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

In view of the business statement, will it release enough time for the Prime Minister to tell us what action she will take against those Tory Members and Ministers who are supporting the law-breaking Fayed brothers and inciting others to break the law in the City of London?

Mr. Speaker

That is a mile wide of the statement.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

May I, with great respect, ask the Leader of the House to remember his responsibilities to the House in general and not just his responsibilities to the Tory party? Notwithstanding the way in which he has organised business for tomorrow, as suggested by the timetable motion, why have we not had time before the Easter recess to have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland about capital offsets? We have been promised that statement again and again. With great respect, we have been extremely patient and peaceful in Scotland, although we are characterised as law-breakers. When will the Secretary of State for Scotland come here to make a statement to clear up the mess that the Government have got into?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.