Business of the House

HC Deb 01 November 1993 vol 231 cc120-5

10 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.

The business for tomorrow will now be a timetable motion on the Railways Bill followed by conclusion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Railways Bill.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South)

That is a constitutional outrage. The House was told by the Leader of the House last week that we would have two full days to debate this business. By agreement with the Government, there were to be 28 debates on the important issues—such as pensions and travelcards—in which members of the British public are most particularly interested. However, the Government, who have brought to the House a Bill with nearly 500 amendments from another place, guillotine the debate on them after only part of a day's debate. It is an outrage, and the Lord President and his colleagues all know it is. They are a gutless bunch. They know that there is no support for the Bill in the country or the House. They have run away from it.

Mr. Newton

I do not accept what the right hon. Lady has said. When I made my business statement last Thursday, she did not even suggest that she thought that the time to debate the Railways Bill was inadequate. We have had a normal full parliamentary day. I accept that there was a statement at the beginning, but that is not unusual.

We have spent five hours debating two groups of amendments of relatively modest import. On that basis, I calculate that it would take 75 hours of parliamentary time, or four parliamentary weeks, to dispose of the business. That would be without allowing for proper debate on the two most significant amendments that occur in the list. If there is a constitutional outrage, it is the Opposition making such a meal of progress on the Bill.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have often told the House that you are the protector of the rights of Back Benchers, and we respect that. A great many Back Benchers are taking a close interest in the Railways Bill because it affects our constituencies directly. Can it be satisfactory to you, Madam Speaker, that the House of Lords should be seen to be a more democratic debating Chamber than the House of Commons on this Bill?

Madam Speaker

Those are matters that might be debated when we consider the guillotine motion.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Speaker

Just a moment. Many hon. Members want to raise points of order. I am trying to answer the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Those are matters that might appropriately be raised at another time.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

The Government told us that there would be about 28 debates. The amendments were tabled last Thursday, and the list of debates was given to us on Sunday. We have dealt with four groups of amendments, Which involved some 100 amendments and a number of clauses. I can think of no other example of a closure or a move towards a business motion for the guillotine in such a short time—

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton)

The hon. Gentleman was never in the Committee.

Mr. Prescott

In Committee, we never had a guillotine. We have co-operated in the debates. Our debates never went on for a long time. The Minister and the Secretary of State will agree. What we have is an outrage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said, it is a constitutional outrage that the Leader of the House has made that statement, when he is supposed to be defending the rights of Members of the House against the Government.

We cannot accept that, and we shall do all we can to oppose it.

Mr. McAllion

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker

There is no need for points of order. Hon. Members may ask questions arising out of the business statement.

Mr. McAllion

I am sorry; I did not realise that that was the case.

The Leader of the House said that the Opposition were deliberately filibustering to prevent progress on the Bill. I say to him through you, Madam Speaker, that I have been in the Chamber since the debate started at half-past 4, and he has scarcely shown his face here in that time. There has not been one complaint from Ministers or Tory Back Benchers about filibustering.

Hon. Members have been seriously debating the Government amendments. The House should be given the opportunity to continue to do that. It is a disgrace that the Government will make us go away for two weeks' holiday, but are imposing a guillotine on an important measure that will affect constituencies throughout the country. It is time that the Government realised that they cannot use their majority to trample over the rights of the British people.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order. There has been a business statement and questions should be raised on that.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Can the Leader of the House tell us why he chose to arrange that the 10 o'clock business motion should not be moved when there are several hours of debate before us, there is no justification for his statement and he has not demonstrated that the House has used the full extent of the time available to it? He has arranged for the deliberate curtailment of debate to make the business statement at 10 o'clock, and will then curtail the debate again by moving the guillotine motion. Does not even he think that extremely unfair, when the Bill is so vital and when the Lords amendments and the Government amendments are so extensive?

Mr. Newton

As I understand it, we are operating on points of order rather than on my responding to questions, but I should appreciate your guidance on that, Madam Speaker. Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we tabled the 10 o'clock motion so as to allow for the extension of debate, on the assumption that debate was proceeding in a reasonable fashion. It manifestly was not doing so.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order. The Leader of the House rose, on a point of order, to make a business statement. Therefore, hon. Members may now ask questions arising from that statement.

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes)

I hate to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the lack of advance in the debate but, according to Mr. Deputy Speaker, all the speeches made today were in order. Some of them went on to an untoward length, and we could have done with shorter speeches, but none of them could be ruled as just holding up the business of the House.

In the light of my right hon. Friend's statement, I ask him for a reassurance that the guillotine motion will be certain to allow a long enough time to debate two subjects of concern to many of our constituents. They are the right of British Rail to bid for franchises—the so-called Peyton amendment—and pensions. If we could not have proper debates on those matters, the Government would stand the risk of losing a considerable amount of good will.

Mr. Newton

It is certainly our aim—it was one of the reasons that led me to propose this course, because the way things were going it seemed that a lot of time would be spent on matters other than the debates on the principal issues to which my hon. Friend referred—to allow time for proper debates. Our intention and expectation is that the motion will provide for proper time in which to debate those matters.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

At what time did the Leader of the House take the disgraceful decision to guillotine the Bill, bearing in mind the fact that, at one stage during the debate, the only Conservative Back Bencher in the Chamber was the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and the only Minister was the Under-Secretary?

For those of us who care about the future of the railway industry, there is something deeply sickening about the fact that most of the Government Back Benchers can flock in at 10 o'clock to support the disgraceful guillotine, yet none could be here to take part in the debate. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Opposition are not filibustering, but that the shower on the Government benches are neglecting their duties?

Mr. Newton

The decision to table the timetable motion was taken as we saw the progress of debates and as we recognised the statistics. As I told the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), if this rate of progress continued, the House would still be debating the Bill in December.

Mr. Duncan

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who sat on the Committee can confirm that the Bill has been examined line by line, clause by clause—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker

Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members who want to be called must let the House hear what everyone has to say.

Mr. Duncan

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East rarely turned up to the Committee, and that he slouched in and slouched out? Is not his stunt tonight no more than another stunt to try to become the deputy leader of the Labour party?

Mr. Newton

I did not have the privilege of being a member of the Committee and I cannot testify to the hon. Gentleman's attendance record. However, the Bill has had 183 hours of debate here and in another place. That figure includes 109 hours in Standing Committee. There can be no question of a constitutional outrage following the amount of time that has been devoted to the Bill.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

The Leader of the House told my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that insufficient progress was being made on the Bill. Why is he not moving a motion that would allow business to proceed?

Will the Leader of the House tell the House what he has in mind for tomorrow? What time will he table the motion—presumably one must have been drafted—for the debate to finish and only outstanding votes be taken? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember a Bill in the early 1970s during progress on which considerable voting went on through the night on remaining motions to be taken?

Mr. Newton

The motion that I propose to table will provide for a further five hours of debate on the Bill.

Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a general welcome among Conservative Members for the decision to table a motion of this kind? I came to the House with high hopes of having a serious debate about the issues that were raised by the amendments, two of which were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have been treated to nothing but a series of Second and Third Reading speeches?

Mr. Newton

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose vies, I suspect, will be widely shared on the Government benches.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the Leader of the House tell the House the last time that 400 Lords amendments were brought in by the Government in a two-day debate in advance of a recess period of some 14 days between the prorogation of a Session and the Queen's Speech? Is it not possible to find some extra time during this week or early next week to give the Bill the consideration it surely deserves?

Mr. Newton

A substantial number of amendments have come here from another place, but the hon. Gentleman knows well that the vast majority are of a character that one could properly describe as technical.

We have sought to provide what we believe to be adequate time, taking account of the subject matter. I believe that we have allowed the longest period for Commons consideration of Lords amendments for about two years. I will resist the suggestion that inadequate time has been allowed. What has happened today is that adequate time has been misused to the detriment of proper discussions of the Bill.

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)

The Leader of the House has not been in the Chamber for all of today's debate. May I draw to his attention—I hope that he will accept the point after consulting his right hon. and hon. Friends—that, on the penultimate set of amendments, only the Minister spoke, and that the amendments were accepted without Division?

Opposition Members were prepared formally to accept the amendments that we were debating at 10 o'clock, but the Minister said that they were important amendments, and spoke to them for five minutes. Does the Leader of the House accept that the Bill has been substantially rewritten, and that, although the changes might be matters of detail, they are matters of vital detail?

I hope that the guillotine motion that is tabled tomorrow will ensure that there is adequate time for debate. I hope that the Government will not try to wrap up the business by tomorrow night. I hope that you will use what influence you have, Madam Speaker, to resist that, as it would be intolerable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said, it would be a constitutional outrage if that were allowed to happen.

Mr. Newton

In response to the hon. Gentleman, I simply advert to the point that I have now made twice. At the rate of progress that was made on two amendments, neither of which were among the significant amendments referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, it would take a parliamentary month to complete consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

Can we have from the Leader of the House the detailed terms of the timetable motion? Clearly he knows the details. Why not tell the House of Commons tonight? He said that there were two outstanding and crucial issues. What is the maximum time available tomorrow for debating those issues?

Mr. Newton

I have already said that the guillotine motion will provide for five hours of further debate. That time would be available for debating the issues to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Matthew Banks (Southport)

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it will be possible tomorrow to debate the amendments which deal with pensions, and the so-called Peyton amendment referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone)? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the points made by the Opposition came from hon. Members who spent virtually no time in the Chamber during the debate this afternoon?

Mr. Newton

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I repeat that, in my judgment, five hours is an appropriate and reasonable amount of time for the further debate required on the Bill.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

Will the Leader of the House bear in mind two factors? When two days were originally assigned for consideration of the Lords amendments, first, it was assumed that the Monday would be open-ended; and secondly, it was not thought that there would be a statement which would take more than one and a half hours and would cut into the debate. Surely even this Leader of the House must recognise that to use the tactic of the guillotine in this way at this time is a dangerous matter, and that he is fashioning a weapon that one day will be used against his side.

Mr. Newton

Might I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a Member I respect, that this is only the second such motion that I have moved on a significant Government Bill; so I can hardly be accused of being slap-happy with timetable motions. I shall make a point that I made earlier in a slightly different form. I accept that there was a statement. Other things being equal, that would have made us more inclined to suspend the rule and continue with the debate this evening. However, we did not do so on the basis that the House took five hours to discuss two reasonably limited amendments.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

The Leader of the House has repeatedly said that it took five hours to discuss two amendments. Will he confirm that that is the basis on which he made his judgment? In line with his apparent general ignorance of the Bill that he is guillotining, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on that factual point. We have not dealt with two amendments. We were dealing with the fifth group, and each included a large number of amendments. Is the Leader of the House aware of that or has he been given some nonsense to read to the House which is in direct contradiction of the reality?

Will the Leader of the House confirm that there has been absolutely no time-wasting? Despite his apparent ignorance of the subject that he is dealing with, does he regard the financing of Railtrack, the franchising procedure, the closure procedure and the access charging procedure, all of which we have already dealt with, as minor matters that should be waved through the House?

Does the right hon. Gentleman further confirm that, although we had many hours in Committee, we did not have a guillotine motion? There are 470 amendments from the other place which deal not with minor or technical matters but with major changes to employment rights, a right to bid and, above all, the pension rights of hundreds of thousands of people. They are major issues, not minor or technical ones. Can the Leader of the House confirm that we have had no time to debate the amendments, other than the four hours of debate this afternoon?

Finally, does he understand that it is well understood outside the House, especially when we are about to go on two weeks of unasked-for holiday from this place, that the Government are closing the debate on these matters because they fear debate on them? The body of opinion outside the House already regards the legislation as discredited and being rushed through the House by Ministers who base their actions on dogma and prejudice,and that impression will be confirmed by the disreputable action taken tonight.

Mr. Newton

So far as the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said is concerned, I made it clear that I was referring to the amount of time taken to discuss the first two groups of amendments, which was in the order of five hours. In our view, that meant that there would not be sensible and orderly debate on the remaining amendments in a way which would concentrate on the major issues. Our expectation and hope is that the timetable motion will enable that debate to take place.