The First Deputy ChairmanThe first amendment is amendment No. 15, with which it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 18 and 22.
§ Mr. MaclennanNot moved.
The First Deputy ChairmanIn that case, we come to amendment No. 19, with which it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 20 and 26 to 30.
§ Mr. MaclennanNot moved.
§ Mr. BeithI put it to you, Mr. Lofthouse, that, given that some 15 seconds ago you argued that you could not use your discretion to accept from me a motion to report progress, it would be unacceptable if you now accepted such a motion from the Government Front Bench.
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. Before I deal with that, may I remind the House that amendment No. 23 is an Opposition amendment? Is it not moved?
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. Hold it. I am the Chairman running this show at present. Hold it.
Let me clarify this matter. Amendment No. 23 stood in the name of the official Opposition. Has it been moved?
§ Mr. Greg KnightOn a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Before that amendment was reached, I sought to catch your eye.
I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
The First Deputy ChairmanThe question is, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. The motion is debatable. Hon. Members who wish to do so will have the opportunity to debate it.
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. The motion is that I report progress. As many of that opinion say "Aye"—
§ Mr. BeithI wish to oppose the motion, because I do not understand the situation. I moved a motion to report progress about a minute or so ago. At that point, you said that, in your discretion, you did not think that it was reasonable to take such a motion at that stage. A matter of seconds later, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), sought to move an identical motion, despite my having shown my concern by way of a point of order.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I point out that, since the right hon. Gentleman moved the motion, a number of clauses have been passed, mainly on the nod.
§ Mr. William Powell (Corby)On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it not the case that you put the motion that we report progress? There was a voice vote and the Ayes shouted, "Aye" and the Noes shouted, "No."
§ Mr. BeithThe hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) seems to be unaware of what happened in those few seconds: no clauses were passed, no amendments were passed, no amendments were withdrawn and no amendments were moved. No amendments were before the Committee during that period.
That further underlines my point that, in the space of seconds after my moving a motion to report progress, nothing happened at all. Nothing happened to change the circumstances in which you, Mr. Lofthouse, should consider whether to accept a motion to report progress. Yet seconds later, your discretion was somehow influenced by the fact that—I am trying to find the right phrase. The circumstances in which you exercised your discretion seemed to you to have changed, even though procedurally nothing whatever had happened in the intervening period. It seems to us that what is at stake—you may be unaware of what has gone on—is a cosy deal between the Labour party and the Conservative party.
§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to question your judgment, because that is exactly what he is doing? [Interruption.]
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. The House will settle down. I am listening carefully to what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is saying. I do not take it that he is questioning my authority at all.
§ Mr. BeithI sought in some way to separate my questions of advice about the circumstances in which the Chairman of the Committee can and cannot accept a motion to report progress by dealing with them by way of a point of order.
I am now coming to my speech against the motion. In passing, it would be helpful if Back-Bench Members could be given a clearer understanding of what transpired in the seconds between my moving the motion and the Government Whip moving the motion which turned the situation—obviously the situation was turned, and I do not question that—from one in which it would have been wrong for you to accept the motion to one in which it was right for you to accept it. Obviously, you are well aware of the circumstances and you were being advised in some detail by the Clerk of the Committee as to what the change signified. Undoubtedly, he has given you extensive reasons for it.
It would be helpful for the future if at some stage, you could respond by giving us some guidance on that point. However, that is not the substance of what I want to say in opposition to the motion.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that we should oppose the Government's motion to report progress. It is extremely fortunate that the Labour party did not move its amendment, because virtually no Opposition Members are here to speak to it.
268 Did the right hon. Member note the extraordinary exchange of desperate glances between those on the two Front Benches as they panicked and started to realise that their cosy arrangement was starting to go awry? Should our proceedings be dominated by such secret backstage deals between the Tory and Labour parties?
§ Mr. BeithThe hon. Gentleman is right. I, too, saw those exchange of glances. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) looked distinctly concerned about what was going on. You know nothing of this, Mr. Lofthouse. I am bringing to your attention matters with which you do not concern yourself.
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that I know nothing of any deals.
§ Mr. BeithI am seeking to underline that point. All the more reason, Mr. Lofthouse, why the House should understand what has happened. The Government have offered us no reason for their decision to move a motion that they would have resisted had my attempt to move the same motion a few seconds earlier been accepted. What a place this is. I sought to move a motion and a minute later, the Government, who would have voted against my motion if it had been put to the vote, moved the exact same motion themselves. I know why they did that.
§ Mr. WallaceI was just finishing my meal when I saw various details appear on the Annunciator. Can my right hon. Friend explain how the Chairman could refuse to accept his motion to report progress and, within one minute, accept from the Government the motion to report progress?
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. I might be able to assist the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the decision to accept a motion is a matter for the Chairman's discretion. Things altered somewhat between the moving of the motions. Two sets of amendments that were expected to be put were not moved. That is what changed between when the first and second motions to report progress were moved. The person in charge of the proceedings also has the right to move the motion, which he did. The other amendments were not moved, so I accepted that motion. I hope that that is helpful to the right hon. Gentleman and means that he will not have to speak for as long as he had anticipated.
§ Mr. KirkwoodOn a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I am anxious to get this absolutely clear in my mind, because important precedents could be established concerning Committee Chairmen being under pressure from different parts of a Committee, at different stages of a Bill. It seems to me that you have just set a precedent, Mr. Lofthouse, because, after no time at all in terms of procedural progress made, you were prepared to accept a motion from the Government, when you were not willing to accept a motion—
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowmanrose—
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanOn a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Am I not owed an apology from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), because the point that I raised with him was precisely the one that you have given as your reason for granting the second request that the House should report progress? He told me that I did not know what was going on.
§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. I ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to speak to the motion before the Committee.
§ Mr. BeithYou were helping my argument, Mr. Lofthouse, when you set out what you understood to be the circumstances that had changed, procedurally. I say that to help the hon. Member for Lancaster. Procedurally, nothing had happened. Nothing had been passed, nothing had been withdrawn.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanYes, it had.
§ Mr. BeithNothing had been withdrawn. Some amendments were not moved, and, therefore, they were of no procedural consequence to the affairs of the Committee. In that sense, nothing had happened.
Your explanation, Mr. Lofthouse, helps me to explain to the House why the Government moved the motion. They found that they could not honour their deal with the Labour party without putting a motion to move progress. The nature of the deal was confirmed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who said, "Well done" in a loud voice when the Government moved the motion.
The deal was that all amendments would be disposed of tonight, up to the amendment which you, Mr. Lofthouse, invited the Labour Front Bench to move. The basis of that deal was how nice it would be for the Labour party to move their amendment early in the afternoon rather than late at night. Such are the understandings between the Conservative and Labour parties that motions are made for personal convenience and the timing of amendments, which is why we are being asked to make no further progress on the Bill tonight.
You, Mr. Lofthouse, saw what happened. In exercising your role as Chairman with as much care as you could muster, you sought to remind Opposition Front-Bench Members that if they did not move their amendment quickly it would fall. The only thing that saved it from collapsing was the fact that the Government moved a motion to report progress. That is why I am so critical of the motion and it explains the difference in the attitude to the motion that I sought to put and that put by the Minister.
§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Liberal Democrats did not move their two groups of amendments?
§ Mr. BeithYes, there are two reasons. First, we are not party to that deal. We see no reason why we should organise the affairs of the House to suit the Con-Lab pact 270 that runs this place. To fit in with their deal, they wanted us to speak on those amendments to ensure that the Committee would not start debating Labour's amendment when you, Mr. Lofthouse, invited the Labour Front Bench to move it. That was contrary to the plan agreed by the two parties.
§ Mr. RiddickWill the right hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. BeithNo, I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question.
When we did not move our amendment, Conservative and Labour Members were at sixes and sevens and did not know what to do.
I now come to the crucial point. If you, Mr. Lofthouse, had accepted my motion to report progress and we had debated and then disposed of that motion, you might have had difficulty in inviting the Committee to accept another identical motion a few moments later, reversing the effect of the decision that you had already taken. That would not
I see that the Government Whip is fidgeting on the corner of his seat again. Perhaps he should take the tablets so often recommended by his right hon. Friends. He clearly wants to move a closure motion before I have even started my speech, most of which has been taken up dealing with interventions and points of order raised by Conservative Members. He has already stopped me speaking in the first debate this evening after someone said that my constituency should be included in the amendments to clause 1 because, in his view, it formed part of Scotland. He then prevented me from dealing with that argument in the debate on clause stand part.
A point that I wished to make on clause stand part concerned an issue on which I wanted to seek wider consultation. There was a case for saying that an understanding could have been reached enabling a seat to be created on both sides of the border around Berwick. However, that would have required an amendment in another place, so I could not develop that argument. I thought that it would be appropriate at that stage to seek leave to report progress to enable me to consult on the matter.
However, I then discovered that behind all that was a deal to cover the whole matter up. It is a mini-deal within a maxi-deal. The maxi-deal is that Labour delivers the Bill for the Government. You, Mr. Lofthouse, have much experience of Committee proceedings on the Maastricht treaty Bill and served many long hours in the Chair during those debates. Labour Members were constantly trying to explain during those proceedings how vigorously they were opposing the Government on motions such as this.
§ Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is an honourable man who always preaches the truth. Will he now admit that the truth about the shenanigans this evening has more to do with the vacant seat at Christchurch than with the additional seats in Europe? He may talk of deals, but I suggest that he casts his mind back only a couple of months to the time when, on eight occasions, the Liberals voted with the Government and got the Maastricht Bill through.
§ Mr. BeithYou would probably rule me out of order, Mr. Lofthouse, if I started talking about the Christchurch by-election.
§ Mr. BeithI am doing that. Having asked me a question, the hon. Gentleman might have the decency to listen to the answer. In any event, he must have missed many of our proceedings—
§ Mr. BeithThe hon. Gentleman pressed me to give him a truthful answer. I am seeking to do that. Will he just listen while I answer him? He put it to me that this is all about the Christchurch by-election, yet, throughout the earlier proceedings, we were accused—and the Minister made the same accusation—of debating matters—[Interruption.] We are concerned that the Government are using an unfair system of election to the European Parliament.
We plead guilty to the accusation of wanting to change the system. But that is not what the motion is about. I am seeking to answer an intervention from as prominent a source as a Labour Front-Bench spokesman. It was a significant intervention, because I was at the time drawing a comparison between this motion and arguments against it in relation to this Bill and the way in which similar motions were dealt with when we debated the Maastricht Bill.
The hon. Member for Jarrow said that we had voted with the Government. Yes, but we were in favour of getting the Maastricht Bill through. It was our policy to do that, which is why we voted for it. We voted for motions which ensured that it would get through. Apart from the hon. Member for Jarrow and those sitting below the Gangway, Labour Members were in favour of that Bill getting through, so they said, even though they were not prepared to support, or vote for, any procedural motions. It is clear that the mask, the disguise, has slipped. The hon. Member for Jarrow is a closet opponent of Maastricht on the Labour Front Bench.
But that is not the issue before us tonight. The issue is whether the Government should be allowed to use a motion to report progress to stitch up a deal with the Labour party about the handling of the measure. Should hon. Members vote for the motion in the knowledge that that is so? I am explaining that it is so because I fear that there are hon. Members in many parts of the Committee who do not know what lies behind the motion.
§ Mr. SalmondIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the risk of creating two separate types of hon. Members? There are those who, when they have amendments down in their names, must turn up in time to move them. There are others, such as those on the Labour Front Bench, who, if they are not here to move their amendments, can depend on the occupants of the Government Front Bench to come to their rescue and get them out of difficulty.
§ Mr. BeithThe hon. Gentleman raises a significant point—[Interruption.] I gather that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is now ready to move the amendment. I hope that the Committee is aware of that because, Mr. Lofthouse, when you looked around for him some time ago, he was not prepared to move the amendment. The Government are inviting us to vote for the motion because they want to rescue the Labour party. They want to get Labour Members off the hook of their embarrassment.
§ Mr. WallaceOn a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is now 272 willing to move the amendment, do you think that the sitting should be suspended, as often happens with Committees, so that the two Front Benches can get together and concoct another deal?
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. I am having difficulty hearing the right hon. Gentleman. Will hon. Members please give the right hon. Gentleman a fair hearing?
§ Mr. BeithThere is such zeal on both sides of the Committee and many little private discussions are taking place, like the one taking place between the Minister and the Clerk inside the Chamber. The Minister has taken the Clerk's seat—I think that the Minister wants to be the Clerk.
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. I am in the Chair, and I am running the debate, not Ministers or Clerks. I make the decisions and I have responsibility for the Chair.
§ Mr. BeithOf course, Mr. Lofthouse. I think that, in response to that very proper assurance of your authority, the Minister has left the Clerk's chair and has ceased to give the impression that he was trying to influence your decision. I know that he could not do so. You act strictly within the rules of procedure. You act simply to implement rules which, in some ways, give many advantages to Ministers and, when used by Ministers, can advantage the Labour party. There is not a lot that you can do about that.
We in the minority parties and Back Benchers often ask you to use your discretion to give a fair hearing, but you have to implement the rules of the House, which you do. Who am I to question that?
My task is different. It is to persuade hon. Members that they should vote against the motion because it is wrong—
§ Mr. Riddickrose—
§ Mr. BeithI shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I quite like giving way, but, unfortunately, hon. Members keep diverting me to speak on subjects of which you. Mr. Lofthouse, would disapprove, as they go wider than the terms of the motion.
§ Mr. Riddickrose—
§ Mr. RiddickI am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that the reason the Liberal Democrats are so opposed to deals—as he puts it—is because the last time the Liberals made a deal, in the form of the Lib-Lab pact, it was a total disaster for them? Will he answer an earlier question? Why did the Liberals table amendments which they were not prepared to move?
§ Mr. BeithThe hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. He has drawn me into speaking about the Lib-Lab pact, with which he compares the Con-Lab pact before us tonight. He told us that there is a deal between the other 273 two parties, which should be compared to the Lib-Lab pact. He approves of today's deal, but disapproved of the Lib-Lab pact. I should not start discussing that subject.
Tonight, we must consider whether it is sensible for hon. Members to vote for a motion to report progress on the basis that would stitch up a deal. Another of my fears is that, every time I give way to another hon. Member, I strengthen the argument that might be used by the Minister—who keeps scurrying around the Government Whip—to move the closure motion in the middle of my speech, as he did in the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Such a procedure is not conducive to sensible debate in the House.
§ Mr. AllenIt may be that some hon. Members in the Chamber are trying to teach the Chair a lesson on not calling amendments on proportional representation. The Chair may wish to take into account in future the fact that such behaviour may be replicated. I hope that the Chair does not bend to such pressure. It is clear that some hon. Members are happy to disturb the debate purely because their amendments have not been selected.
§ Mr. BeithI gave way to the hon. Gentleman, but should not have done so. I think that he is after your job, Mr. Lofthouse. I think that he is trying to argue the Chairman's case, when he has already stitched up a deal with the Government.
There is another important aspect to discuss. A rumour was circulating earlier today that the Government did not want to reach clause 2 tonight because they had an amendment which they would have to table today and which would have been starred tomorrow.
§ Mr. BeithThe hon. Gentleman, who knows all about what the Government are doing, says that it was not a rumour. He must know that it is the truth—now I have the evidence. What better source could I have than an hon. Member who is clearly very close to all this?
The Government plan to move an amendment that they could not have moved if we had made too much progress tonight. They resiled from the plan, leaving it open for them to move the motion to report progress. It occurred to them that if the amendment were carried, we should have a Report stage, at which other aspects of the Bill would be open to question and debate.
I assume that what we are to learn from this is that the Bill is defective and that any Government amendment will be made in another place. So far, we have not been told so, though we ought to have been. If we are to consider procedural motions, we ought to know the Government's intentions.
The broad deal that this motion is intended to implement is, first, that the Labour party will not impede progress on the Bill and, secondly, the continued use of the present electoral system for the extra seats, so long as the Government have their amendments considered at times of day that suit.
That being the case, the Government could not let you, Mr. Lofthouse, invite the Opposition Front Bench to move the amendment. When you started to do so, they were very worried. When you began to issue this helpful 274 invitation to Labour Front Benchers, the Minister started to jump up and down in an effort to move a motion that he would not have accepted when I moved it.
The overall deal is that Labour will deliver the goods. What is the concession? What is the basis on which Labour Members are being asked to vote for this motion? What is the basis on which the hon. Member for Bradford, South is being told that he must troop through the Lobby with the Tories and on which the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—
§ Mr. CryerWhatever circumstances the hon. Gentleman is conjecturing, I shall make up my own mind. I hope to have an opportunity to speak on the motion, in which case I shall express my view that we ought to vote against it. I shall certainly vote in that way.
§ Mr. BeithIn my heart of hearts, I knew that it was so. I knew that the hon. Gentleman would not be pushed around by the Whips. And I should be surprised if the hon. Members for Worsley and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were prepared to be treated in that way.
§ Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as always, I shall be in the Lobby in defence of democracy in this place. Before he goes too far along this route, let me tell him that it is not long since I watched him and his colleagues do very similar deals. The Labour Members on the Front Bench below the Gangway can say, hand on heart, that they do deals with nobody.
§ Mr. BeithThe hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point, and I did not seek to suggest otherwise. We did not have deals; we simply voted for what we believed to be right, as the hon. Gentleman is contemplating doing in respect of this motion. I am very pleased that he is prepared to oppose the motion, on the basis of some of the arguments that I have advanced. It is decent and honourable that there are still Members of Parliament—people with whom I may disagree fundamentally with regard to the issue in the Bill—who care about fair procedures, about how we conduct our business. On such issues, we can make common cause.
§ Mr. WallaceMy hon. Friend will have noted the indication from the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) that Labour accepts that there has been a deal, just as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)—a Conservative—did a few moments ago. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is always talking about open government. Why is he not honest enough to accept that there has been a deal between the two Front Benches?
§ Mr. BeithNobody is now denying it. You, Mr. Lofthouse, might have been the last to be told about the deal, but you have now heard, from various corners of the Committee, plenty of evidence of it. The question is whether the deal, in the form of the motion to report progress, should be accepted.
I have been seeking to address the argument that Labour Members should support the deal, which is: "Chaps, comrades"—I cannot find any comrades—"we shall get our amendment on at 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon if we let the Government have this Bill." That is a pretty shabby basis for voting for any motion, even one to report progress. It is certainly a shabby basis for 275 supporting every dot and tittle of the Bill, with all the faults that some Labour Members—conspicuous by their absence—know full well.
There are quite a few Labour Members who would make common cause with us. Indeed, later in the year they may find that their party conference decides in favour of a different electoral system for the European elections.
Perhaps there is another reason for the Government moving the motion to report progress. Is it possible that it is to give the Labour party time to consult its party conference before tomorrow? I cannot see how it can do that, but perhaps it wants to consult its national executive on whether Labour Members should vote for any of the amendments or for the schedule, an issue which we shall deal with tomorrow. Of course, we could have dealt with it tonight. My hon. Friends conspicuously co-operated in making it possible to reach Labour's amendment, clause 2 stand part and the schedule. We could still achieve that if we do not agree to the motion to report progress.
Throughout the proceedings on the Maastricht Bill, the Government constantly came to us and said, "We must make progress on the Bill." Some nights we said, "No, there are important issues still to be considered so we will not vote for the 10 o'clock motion. Why should we sit after 10 o'clock, night after night, on a Bill that we could consider in a more orderly fashion?" Now, the Government Whip—who has recently been promoted up the hierarchy—says that we must report progress on this Bill, not to suit the Government, but to keep the Labour party happy.
Conservative Members will shortly be invited to go through the Lobby in favour of a motion to report progress. We should remember all those occasions on the Maastricht Bill when considerable pressure was put on Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—my colleague on the Treasury Select Committee—to vote for very different sorts of motions.
§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)There will be a great deal of distaste throughout the Committee for the contempt that the right hon. Gentleman shows for the Government and Opposition Front Benches. One of the most conspicuous features of the past six months has been the courageous way in which the two Front Benches together fought the remainder of the House to get the Maastricht Bill through its stages.
All of us who so dislike the adversarial element in politics and admire the consensus and conformism that have been the most outstanding tribute to the two Front Benches very much resent the vulgar contempt that he shows for those hon. Members who have so stalwartly stood against public opinion, denied the nation a referendum and, above all, have tried to make themselves respectable and agreeable, especially to the London chattering classes.
I am sure that those who supported all that was responsible and respectable in the old Liberal party regard the right hon. Gentleman's rather impertinent remarks with nothing more than contempt.
§ Mr. BeithAs Ministers so often say, "The hon. Gentleman makes his own point in his own way." He is right in one aspect, if not all, of what he says, which is that that was exactly the case on the referendum—
§ Mr. TylerOn a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The Government Whip and the Opposition Whip have left the Chamber to consult. I wonder whether—
§ Mr. BeithOh, Mr. Lofthouse, how difficult my task becomes when extraneous activities flourish, when toings and froings—[Interruption.] The Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Jarrow has returned to the Chamber bursting with some new truth that he wants to impart—not to me; not to you, Mr. Lofthouse; not to the Committee; but to the Clerks. Perhaps he is offering to do the Minister's difficult job and move the closure—
§ Mr. BeithI always believed that, from the moment that he became a Whip, the hon. Member for Jarrow had no intentions at all. It is clear to me from everything that he does in his activities as a Whip—I am sure that some of his hon. Friends, if they were here, would support me—that he has no intentions at all; he just has duties. He has the duty of compelling people to come into the House; the duty of keeping them out of the House, as now, when they are not wanted. He has no intentions; merely obligations.
§ Mr. DixonThe right hon. Gentleman asked me if I was going to move the closure. I said that I had no intention at all of moving the closure. That is fairly simple, and I should have thought that even he could understand that.
§ Mr. BeithI did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he chose not to complete his sentence. Had he done so, I would have understood. That felicitous phrase, which seemed to me to describe so vividly the characteristics that make him such a well-known and recognised individual, summed it all up. But, of course, he meant to say something else—that he was not going to move the closure —and I accept that. He was distracting me, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is also trying to do, from what I was seeking to argue.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North is now apologising. He says that he is, sorry that he got the Committee into this mess; he is sorry that he did a deal with the Government under which Labour would deliver the Bill so long as they got the procedural motion and could get his amendment on at 4 o'clock tomorrow.
§ Mr. AllenIn case there is any misunderstanding, I was making it clear that I was sorry for the right hon. Gentleman, rather than for anything that had happened.
§ Mr. BeithI can do without the sympathy of the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it would do me a lot of good.
§ Mr. BeithI do not know whether I should give way to so many interventions, because it might count against me at some later stage, and I am seeking to develop an argument. But I will give way this time.
§ Mr. HealdDid the right hon. Gentleman forget to move the amendment? Is that the reason why we are being treated now to this lengthy speech? If that is the case, is it right that he has lost his party six hours of debate?
§ Mr. BeithI do not think that we would have got six hours of debate. On the last clause stand part, we got only one hour. Of course we did not forget. The hon. Member could not have been in the Chamber at the time, or he would have seen my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rise and say, "Not moved." That was the appropriate step to take when we did not wish the matter to come before the Committee. We thought that it would be a good idea to get on to Labour's amendment. Then we suddenly discovered that Labour did not want to get on to their own amendment.
But all this is distracting me from the structure and order of my remarks, and from coming on to the arguments which are directed at Conservative Members as they are invited to vote for this motion. They are being told that this has to be done to keep the Labour party happy.
So when hon. Members go back to their Conservative dinners, their buffet suppers and their women's committee lunches, they will be able to say that they did their bit for the Prime Minister and the Government. They will be asked what they did for their nation and their party, and they will reply that they looked after the Labour party, which was what they were sent here for. They will be asked why that was necessary.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who is one of the most candid Members, will tell his ladies committee that he will explain it to them, although it will be difficult to understand because the proceedings of the House are sometimes strange. He will say that his friends the Whips, with whom he always seeks to work closely because they give such stalwart support to the Prime Minister, agreed with the Labour party that it would be expedient for their amendment to come on at 4 o'clock on Wednesday.
The ladies committee will ask why it was important, and the hon. Gentleman will reply that he does not know, but the Whips told him that it was. Then the ladies will ask why it is that something that is important to the Labour party's organisation of its day-to-day business matters so much to the Prime Minister and other Front-Bench Ministers.
§ Mr. BudgenI hope that the right hon. Gentleman will stop this impertinence. It must be clear to the whole Committee that Opposition Front Benchers have been the most loyal supporters of the Conservative Administration over the Maastricht treaty. It really is most impertinent of the right hon. Gentleman to be rude about it. A very small obligation is being paid now for loyal support over a long period.
§ Mr. BeithI am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's explanation would pass the auditors. I think he has got the balance sheet confused, which is unusual for him, because he is a member of our Treasury Select Committee.
278 The hon. Gentleman is fundamentally right—a small obligation is being repaid—but I think that the obligation arises in relation to this Bill, and that is why he and his hon. Friends are being asked to vote for this motion. He thinks it is an obligation in respect of the Maastricht Bill—that is the nub of the disagreement between us—but that should not affect the attitude he should take to this motion.
The arguments are the same either way. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about Maastricht; I do not think that the Labour party was very good at getting the Maastricht Bill through. Labour Members were very good at defeating the referendum proposal and ensuring that the British people did not have a vote on the issue, but they were not so good on procedural motions. They are relying on that rather than on this motion. The reason I raise it for comparison is that they blocked all the procedural motions but did not vote for the Labour amendments. They did not vote on most of their amendments.
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. It would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would get back to the motion and leave Maastricht out of it.
§ Mr. BeithLet us agree about this motion. It is the repayment of a debt of obligation. The Government Whips are obligated to the Labour party for their great kindness. I believe that it is a kindness in getting the European Parliamentary Elections Bill through the House; the hon. Gentleman believes it is a kindness over the Maastricht Bill. Either way, the Government are obligated.
Conservative Members will now have to go to their ladies committees, luncheon clubs and supper clubs, and, heaven forfend, possibly their Conservative clubs, where the argument may be even more robust than in the ladies' committee, and be expressed in more uncouth terms on occasion. They will have to say, as they gather around the bar of the Conservative club, "It is all right, fellow club members, we have been in there helping the Labour party out by moving a motion that the House do report progress."
The Conservative club will not be like the ladies' committee; they will not say, "Oh, Mr. Budgen, why did you do it?" They will say, "Come off it." They may use expressions that I would not use at all, let alone in the Chamber. They will say, "Are you telling me that we subscribe in our club to put money into local Conservative funds, to send you to Westminster to prop up the Labour party? You are not telling us that, are you?" But that is what Conservative Members will have to tell them; they will have to explain that that is how the whole show is run. The hon. Gentleman can call it consensus, but that is how the whole place is run.
"Explain it to us," they will say. They may use more robust language, but they will demand to he told by the luckless, hapless Conservative Members—who should think about that before they go through the Lobby. They will have to stand in the bar of the Conservative club and say, "John Major and the Government Whips told me it was absolutely vital that Labour's amendment came on at 4 o'clock on a Wednesday. For that I will do anything; I will vote for any motion that the Government put before me." That will not be accepted for one moment. I think that Conservative Members will have to refrain from going through the Lobby in support of the motion.
279 Let me give Conservative Members another reason. If I had moved the motion, and had advanced arguments very different from those that the Government would have advanced had they dared, the same Government Whip would have told Conservative Members to vote the other way. I am putting that on the record because, when they go to the Conservative ladies' luncheon, they will also have to explain that. They will ask, "Is it true, Mr. Budgen? Is it really true that, when you voted for this motion to help the Labour party, you voted the opposite way from the way in which you would have voted if it had been moved 30 seconds earlier?"
The hon. Gentleman will have to say, "Yes, my dear ladies, I am afraid that it is true, because that is the way in which the politics of our country is run. We in the Conservative party have a debt of gratitude to the Labour party, and although we prefer to leave you in the mindset of constant anti-socialism, because that is how we keep the party going, you must recognise that in the real world of Westminster our obligations to the Labour party run deeper than some of our opposition to it." The Conservative ladies will find that hard to take; there may be tears in their eyes when they are confronted with the harsh truth.
§ Mr. William Powellrose—
§ Mr. PowellIs the right hon. Gentleman not suffering from tunnel vision? Surely, when our constituents ask us about such things, we are much more likely to hear the comment, "That Mr. Beith is a nice man. Why on earth was he talking all that nonsense?" The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument for the most corrupt bargain possible. We have been denied the opportunity of debating the amendments that the Liberal Democrats did not move, and which we wished them to move, so that we could expose the falsity and preposterous nature of the politics that they wish to advance. Our constituents are not impressed by what the right hon. Gentleman says, because it is all nonsense.
§ Mr. BeithI do not think that the hon. Gentleman believes much of that; he certainly did not make it sound convincing. We are party to no bargain at all. We did not move a couple of our amendments, but the Minister had already made it abundantly clear beyond doubt that in no circumstances would he accept them. He was determined to ensure that our amendments were defeated, because he knows the form in which he wants the Bill to be enacted, and he has known it for ages, since before the Maastricht Bill even started. Honestly and candidly, he made that clear earlier this evening.
The idea that our amendments would have been uplifted in the arms of Conservative Members who had suddenly come into the fold with us is absurd. Even Conservative Members who agree with our amendments are being a little cautious, although I acquit the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) of that charge. He intervened helpfully and purposefully to ask the Minister when the House would be given the opportunity to decide 280 what would be an appropriate election system for the European Parliament. The Minister's answer, basically, was, "Not on this Bill."
Some day the House may be invited to decide, but what is before us now is a grubby deal to support the Labour party. Conservative Members now have the task of setting out from this place at the weekend and explaining to loyal Conservatives all over the country that they are here in order to help out the Labour party. That seems a wholly inappropriate reason for voting, and a wholly inappropriate way of treating the various resources and help that those loyal Conservatives have given.
Perhaps I am presuming too much about the sense of loyalty of Conservatives all over the country. It may be much less prevalent than it used to be; they may be much more restive. The knowledge that there is a Con-Lab pact, which is the basis of the motion, will not help, and that knowledge will spread further and further.
On top of some people's feeling that an even more unfair system for elections to the European Parliament is being foisted upon them, comes the discovery that the Labour party is conniving with the Conservatives to get the motion through, and that the Conservative Whips are asking their Members to support a motion in order to keep that deal going. It is a pretty shady way of proceeding, but it is the way that things have gone here tonight.
§ Mr. CryerI should like to say a word or two about the motion to move progress. I imagine that the Whips have it in mind not to move the 10 o'clock motion. The curious thing is that the Whips have foolishly moved closures tonight. The Whip earlier moved the closure when a short speech was coming to an end, and when one other Member was to speak.
The Government want to turn this legislature into some sort of sausage machine for subordinating Parliament to their wishes. That is why their motion to report progress is being debated. It has taken far longer than it would have if the Whips had sat on their hands and done nothing. The debate on the motion to report progress has taken longer than it would have taken to debate all the items before the Committee of the House tonight.
§ Mr. WallaceOn a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I feel embarrassed about cutting across the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). However, once again in a speech of his, one must move, That the Question be now put. We have spent longer on the debate on the motion to report progress than we spent on clause I stand part. The Government did not advance any arguments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has spoken at great length and the hon. Member for Bradford, South has spoken briefly and concisely. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
§ Mr. KirkwoodOn a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I spy strangers.
§ It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and asked leave to sit again.
§ Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.
281§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)Order. If hon. Gentlemen will listen to what I have to say, instead of all jumping up and down at once, which makes it impossible for me to decide who genuinely wants to catch my eye, I will listen to them.
§ Mr. BeithOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard the Government Whip move the motion to report progress. I voted against the motion with my voice seeking a Division.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The Whip was simply reporting to the House what had happened in Committee.
§ Mr. WallaceFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand, although I will certainly stand corrected if I am wrong, that the Whip also sought leave to sit again. Will you perhaps tell us precisely what the terms were? If he sought leave to sit again, is it possible for the House to vote against the motion?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is a normal procedure at 10 o'clock.
§ Mr. KirkwoodFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I have ruled on that point of order.
§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
§ Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 253.
283| Division No. 321] | [10.2 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Salmond, Alex |
| Beith, Rt Hon A. J. | Simpson, Alan |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Steel, Rt Hon Sir David |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret | Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd) |
| Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Wallace, James |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Welsh, Andrew |
| Maclennan, Robert | |
| Maginnis, Ken | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute) | Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Don Foster. |
| Molyneaux, Rt Hon James | |
| Rendel, David |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Bellingham, Henry |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Beresford, Sir Paul |
| Alexander, Richard | Biffen, Rt Hon John |
| Allen, Graham | Blackburn, Dr John G. |
| Alton, David | Bonsor, Sir Nicholas |
| Amess, David | Booth, Hartley |
| Arbuthnot, James | Boswell, Tim |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) | Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) |
| Ashby, David | Bowden, Andrew |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Bowis, John |
| Atkins, Robert | Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Brandreth, Gyles |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Brazier, Julian |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) | Bright, Graham |
| Baldry, Tony | Brooke, Rt Hon Peter |
| Barnes, Harry | Browning, Mrs. Angela |
| Bates, Michael | Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) |
| Beggs, Roy | Budgen, Nicholas |
| Burns, Simon | Hendry, Charles |
| Burt, Alistair | Hicks, Robert |
| Butcher, John | Hill, James (Southampton Test) |
| Butler, Peter | Home Robertson, John |
| Carlisle, John (Luton North) | Horam, John |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Carrington, Matthew | Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A) |
| Carttiss, Michael | Howell, Sir Ralph (North |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Norfolk) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Clappison, James | Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Jack, Michael |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Coe, Sebastian | Jessel, Toby |
| Colvin, Michael | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Congdon, David | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Conway, Derek | Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr) |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S) |
| Couchman, James | Key, Robert |
| Cran, James | Kilfedder, Sir James |
| Cryer, Bob | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) | Knapman, Roger |
| Davies, Quentin (Stamford) | Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Knight, Greg (Derby N) |
| Day, Stephen | Knox, Sir David |
| Devlin, Tim | Kynoch, George (Kincardine) |
| Dixon, Don | Lait, Mrs Jacqui |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lang, Rt Hon Ian |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Lawrence, Sir Ivan |
| Dover, Den | Legg, Barry |
| Duncan, Alan | Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) |
| Duncan-Smith, Iain | Lewis, Terry |
| Dunn, Bob | Lidington, David |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Lightbown, David |
| Eggar, Tim | Lilley, Rt Hon Peter |
| Elletson, Harold | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) | Loyden, Eddie |
| Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) | Luff, Peter |
| Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) | MacKay, Andrew |
| Evans, Roger (Monmouth) | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Evennett, David | Maclean, David |
| Faber, David | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Fabricant, Michael | McMaster, Gordon |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | Madden, Max |
| Forman, Nigel | Madel, David |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Mahon, Alice |
| Forth, Eric | Maitland, Lady Olga |
| Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) | Malone, Gerald |
| Freeman, Rt Hon Roger | Mans, Keith |
| French, Douglas | Marland, Paul |
| Gale, Roger | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Gallie, Phil | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Gardiner, Sir George | Merchant, Piers |
| Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan | Milligan, Stephen |
| Garnier, Edward | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Gerrard, Neil | Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW) |
| Gill, Christopher | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Gillan, Cheryl | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Moss, Malcolm |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Neubert, Sir Michael |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Gorst, John | Norris, Steve |
| Graham, Thomas | Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley |
| Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW) | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Page, Richard |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) | Paice, James |
| Grylls, Sir Michael | Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Hague, William | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom) | Pickles, Eric |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Hargreaves, Andrew | Rathbone, Tim |
| Harris, David | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Harvey, Nick | Renton, Rt Hon Tim |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Richards, Rod |
| Hayes, Jerry | Riddick, Graham |
| Heald, Oliver | Robathan, Andrew |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn |
| Robertson, George (Hamilton) | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) | Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E) |
| Robinson, Mark (Somerton) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Roche, Mrs. Barbara | Thomason, Roy |
| Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) | Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) |
| Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela | Thornton, Sir Malcolm |
| Ryder, Rt Hon Richard | Thurnham, Peter |
| Sackville, Tom | Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim | Trend, Michael |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Trotter, Neville |
| Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Shersby, Michael | Walden, George |
| Sims, Roger | Waller, Gary |
| Skinner, Dennis | Ward, John |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Soames, Nicholas | Waterson, Nigel |
| Spearing, Nigel | Watts, John |
| Spencer, Sir Derek | Wells, Bowen |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Whittingdale, John |
| Spink, Dr Robert | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Spring, Richard | Wiggin, Sir Jerry |
| Sproat, Iain | Willetts, David |
| Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John | Wilshire, David |
| Steen, Anthony | Wood, Timothy |
| Stephen, Michael | Yeo, Tim |
| Stewart, Allan | |
| Streeter, Gary | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Sweeney, Walter | Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Michael Brown. |
| Sykes, John |
§ Question accordingly negatived.