HC Deb 31 January 1994 vol 236 cc710-4 10.23 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to make a short statement about a change in the business for tomorrow.

The business for tomorrow will now be a timetable motion on the Finance Bill, followed by conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So far we have debated one clause of the Finance Bill, and it was quite clear that progress was being made. We were ready to debate the next clause, on which it was also quite clear that progress would be made. It was equally clear that the Committee would proceed tomorrow in an orderly manner.

It is therefore quite outrageous that the Government should try to timetable the Finance Bill—one of the longest ever introduced—when it is quite clear that the Bill would have been debated properly. The fact is that the Government are no longer confident of their own legislation, which is why they wish to guillotine a Finance Bill, an action unheard of in recent times.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was it in order for the Leader of the House to announce a guillotine motion without giving the House the benefit of an explanation why it is necessary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

The Leader of the House is entirely responsible for his own statements.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South)

rose—

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

The right hon. Lady has not been here.

Mrs. Beckett

Quite right. I was not here because I had no notice of the statement from the Leader of the House. He did not even do me the courtesy of giving me 30 seconds' notice, as he did on the last occasion, of the fact that the Government proposed to guillotine after one day's debate a Finance Bill of more than 200 clauses.

I do not know why this Government even bother to come to Parliament, they have such contempt for the parliamentary process. Is there any Bill that they will not guillotine? They simply cannot be bothered to make their Members stay here to debate crucial issues that affect the British people and the tax package that they will have to pay in April. That is disgraceful, and the Leader of the House knows it. He is not fit to do his job.

Mr. Newton

I have three points to make in response to that. First, anyone who has followed today's proceedings —including speeches verging on an hour's length and many others lasting half an hour, some made by Members who were not in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate —will have recognised organised delaying tactics when they saw them.

Secondly, every effort was made by my hon. Friends in good faith to achieve an understanding. They thought that they had achieved one; manifestly it was not adhered to.

Thirdly, if the right hon. Lady would engage in sensible discussion through the usual channels, we would not be in this position.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House rather gave the House the impression that he was making a business statement. Would it not have been more helpful to know clearly that that was what he was doing, thus enabling hon. Members to ask him questions about whether he intended to timetable the entire Bill or merely the clauses taken on the Floor of the House? Important —and very long—Bills such as this, which are not usually timetabled, surely demand some opportunity for discussion in the House and for questioning the Leader of the House about his precise intentions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

This is a business statement, so a modicum of discussion and questioning is appropriate.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was quite obvious to some of us who wanted to take part in the debate on clause 46 and who have been in the House since 3.30 pm in order to do so that there were only seven hon. Members in the Chamber at 4.30 pm, and such was the poor attendance that many of us suspected that the business would collapse—that it would be a struggle to keep it going until 7 pm.

Hon. Members do not have to sit in the Chamber for hours on end to see what is going on there. What has happened here tonight has been a disgraceful waste of public money, and my right hon. Friend is entirely right to introduce a timetable motion.

Mr. Newton

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Before the Leader of the House answers, I must say that I should be grateful if hon. Members would remember that they should ask questions, not make statements of opinion.

Mr. Newton

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) confirmed one of the points that I made in responding to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). I apologise as I certainly intended no discourtesy by not responding to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It is our intention that the timetable motion should cover the rest of the proceedings on the Bill as a whole, and should provide probably more, and certainly no less, time than was spent on the previous Finance Bill. It is intended to ensure that the Bill is discussed in the proper and orderly way that both the House and the business community are entitled to expect.

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey)

Will the Leader of the House admit that those of us who have been in the Chamber for most of the night were expecting to debate the subsequent clauses—I have my speech ready for the clause that I thought we would go on to debate. We were not in any way attempting to delay business.

What the Leader of the House has done is an absolute disgrace. He has curtailed debate on a Bill that is twice the length of the previous Finance Bill and will enable highly technical legislation to pass through the House without proper scrutiny. The right hon. Gentleman has no proof of any attempt to filibuster. As an Opposition Member, I am proof of the fact that we did not discuss that tactic as I have my speech for later tonight. What has happened is a complete disgrace.

Mr. Newton

The hon. Lady appears to be confirming that it was the Opposition's intention that such important matters should be debated right through the night, or at least through a good part of it. That is exactly what people outside consider to be a silly way to carry on.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The Leader of the House has spoken about a silly way to carry on. I sat through the events. The Serjeant at Arms was unaware of what was happening when he moved the Mace to its position; you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not seem to know as you came from one Chair to the other—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I was well aware of what was happening as far as I could see. I am quite clear about what is happening now.

Mr. Foulkes

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We have a business statement, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask a question. If not, he should resume his seat.

Mr. Foulkes

I was not clear whether it was a business statement because it started with a point of order and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, taking points of order—[Interruption.] I understand that it says "Point of order" on the annunciator screen. It has not been clarified—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. With the greatest respect, we are on a business statement. I am not interested in what appears on the screen; the hon. Gentleman should be paying attention to the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman will ask a question of the Leader of the House in the normal manner, I am sure that he will receive an answer.

Mr. Foulkes

Did not the Leader of the House rise and say, "On a point of order"?

Mr. Newton

I rose and said that, on a point of order, I should like to make a short statement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

As it is a statement, why does not the Leader of the House have the guts to admit that what he is doing tonight with the guillotine motion is simply because the two wings of the Tory party are fighting like Kilkenny cats? They will not stay up at night in order to get the legislation through, and they treat the British people and taxpayers with arrogance and contempt. The Government are pushing through legislation to introduce 12 more taxes and put another £10 a week tax on everybody's pay packet. They are achieving all that by using the guillotine motion. It is time they packed their bags and went.

Mr. Newton

The contempt of the public—or whatever phrase the hon. Gentleman used—is shown in the deliberate tactic to discuss important matters in the middle of the night.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that the step being taken is pretty unprecedented in relation to a Finance Bill? Will he undertake that the timetable motion that he tables will contain provision for a Committee to be set up to consider the allocation of time on the clauses of the Finance Bill? That seems to be the very least that the Government can do in such extreme circumstances.

Mr. Newton

The Finance Bill was guillotined in 1968, in 1975 and in 1992, just before the election. I intend that the timetable motion should provide for a Business Committee in the ordinary way.

Mrs. Beckett

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you said a moment ago that what appears on the communicator was not your concern, and I understand that it was not your responsibility. You will recall that on a previous occasion it was said that if the communicators did not show "Business statement" hon. Members would not know what was happening. You may also recall that there were clear assurances by the Government to the Speaker and to the House that on no subsequent occasion would the Leader of the House rise on a point of order and make a business statement announcing a guillotine without hon. Members being warned of it. I understand that the House was assured that at least 10 or 15 minutes would be given. This is a gross discourtesy to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you are well aware.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are on questions about business and the Leader of the House is about to respond to the right hon. Lady.

Mr. Newton

I should certainly have wished to give notice, but that was not practicable because of the particular circumstances and, specifically, because of the inter-relationship of the various motions before the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield)

Why is it necessary so soon in the progress of the Bill to table a timetable motion? Why is that considered necessary after only one clause has been debated? If the explanation by the Leader of the House is that it is because of some failure to reach an agreement with an Opposition Member, will he sa.y with which hon. Member he considers he had an agreement?

Mr. Newton

The hon. Gentleman will know the contacts to which I am referring, which were not contacts with me personally. If he does not, it would not be right for me to give details of them on the Floor of the House. I have no reason to doubt that they were undertaken in good faith by all those involved. The hon. Gentleman provided his own answer to the first part of his question. The reason for the guillotine is that it has taken all day to debate only one clause, and in a way that made it quite clear that delay was intended.

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)

I took part in the debate on the amendment because my constituency covers Glasgow airport, which is an important employer in my area. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) spoke for 50 minutes because the issue is vital to his constituents who live in the highlands and islands. How can that be a reason for guillotining business that is also important for the rest of Britain?

Mr. Newton

I entirely accept the legitimacy of hon. Members raising constituency issues, but I do not think that it takes 50 minutes or an hour to do it.

Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth)

Is it not the case that the Leader of the House is supposed to protect the interests of Back Benchers? Is it not in the interest of Back Benchers to debate in full a Finance Bill that contains more taxes at a higher level than have ever been put to the House?

Mr. Newton

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) make it quite clear that he thought that his interests as a Back Bencher were being protected by what I have announced.

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Does not the Leader of the House accept that the guillotine has been imposed for the simple reason that we in the Opposition wanted to give proper scrutiny to a new tax that was mentioned nowhere in the Government's election manifesto? The Government are running away from a proper debate on other taxes that were also not included in that manifesto. Can the Leader of the House find any precedent of a Finance Bill being guillotined after only one clause had been dealt with?

Mr. Newton

I cannot find any precedent either for an Opposition behaving in the way that this one is behaving. If the hon. Gentleman wants proper scrutiny of the Bill, I am giving him an opportunity to do that at sensible hours in a sensible way.

Mr. Mike O'Brien (Warwickshire, North)

If the Leader of the House thinks that we ought to debate matters at sensible hours, why, last week, did he direct his hon. Friends dealing with the criminal justice Bill to engage in debate until 4.30 in the morning? Will he tell us the precise terms of the guillotine motion that is to be moved tomorrow? Has he yet thought of them—or is the government to be conducted as he goes along?

Mr. Newton

The guillotine will be tabled very shortly —if it has not been tabled already—and it will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper. I have already indicated its general terms. It will provide for the conclusion of the proceedings on the Floor by 10 o'clock tomorrow night.