Government of Wales Bill (Hansard, 25 March 1998)

HC Deb 25 March 1998 vol 309 cc525-8 525

§ [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

§ As amended (in the Committee), considered.

4.45 pm

§ Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members will be aware that, in the regional lists set out in clause 4, the Bill provides for elections for a registered political party, defined in that clause as a party registered under any enactment providing for the registration of political parties. Hon. Members will also be aware that a Bill for the registration of political parties will shortly be introduced and that it will govern not only this Bill but the Scotland Bill, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and—if the statement that we have just heard about the White Paper is correct—the London Bill.
We are to debate a clause and an amendment—amendment No. 183—about an aspect of registration on which the registration of political parties Bill could have a crucial effect, either in remedying a fundamental flaw that we have identified and raised earlier, or in failing to remedy it. To make any sense of today's debate, which is crucial to the integrity of the Bill that we are considering, it is necessary to have detailed sight of the forthcoming legislation.
I have already asked for that formally. On 2 March, I said: So central is the question of registration to the proper working of the electoral roll system that it is unconscionable that the legislation could complete its passage through this place without full sight of, and discussion about, the statutory criteria by which registration will operate…I make that point very seriously at this stage in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to ensure that, when we return to the Bill on Report on the Floor of the House in due course, we shall be fully apprised of the details of the forthcoming legislation". The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), led me to believe that he had some sympathy with my view, although he qualified what he said. He said: I am not in a position to give a guarantee about when the details on registration will emerge. He could, however, assure Opposition Members that we want to see whether it will deal with these issues."—[Official Report, 2 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 803–5.] The hon. Gentleman also accepted that the matter was crucial and central.
The point is that we have not had sight of the legislation. I have made inquiries of the Table Office and the Library, but I have been told that it is not ready even in draft. It is not possible for the House to see it, although—as the Government have acknowledged—whether the fundamental flaw that I have mentioned would be remediable is central. Surely the House has a right to information that would allow it to understand the implications of a vital element of legislation such as this Bill before it completes its passage.
I do not believe that today's debate on the proposed electoral process should take place until hon. Members have had a chance to give proper consideration to the 526 details—even if only in draft—of the registration of political parties Bill. Without a sight of it, we will be asked to complete our consideration of this Bill in the dark. At the very least, we need to debate this extraordinary situation, which has been caused by the Government's failure to provide crucial information.
I therefore ask whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will accept a motion, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
I have listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I appreciate the notice he gave of his concerns and his arguments, but I have to tell him that I am not prepared to accept such a motion. However, I understand that amendment No. 183, to which he referred—which is tabled in his name and those of his hon. Friends—is broadly connected with the matter that he raised. I would be prepared to permit a separate Division on that amendment. However, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that, in terms of the programme motion, I will not be able to do that if the amendment cannot be moved before 11 o'clock.

§ Mr. Ancram
Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling. I shall take on board what you said about amendment No. 183.
On another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, we are proceeding in this business on the basis of a uniquely agreed programme, which was agreed among all the parties at the beginning of the Committee stage and which settled on a given number of days for Committee and Report.
As you will understand, such an agreement is based on the time that Opposition parties believe they need to do justice to important legislation being taken on the Floor of the House. In this case, it was agreed that there would be seven days for the Committee stage—now completed—and two days for Report and Third Reading.
If, on Report, the Government bring forward substantial new clauses and amendments in the knowledge that they will take precedence over any other business—thereby reducing the time available to the Opposition parties to discuss matters that they wish to discuss—should there not be a duty on the Government to allow extra time, as provided for under the original business agreement?
As the protector of Back-Bench rights in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will understand my concern that, unless this is resolved as a matter of principle, future agreements of this sort could be defeated by Governments effectively hijacking Report stages, in the way that the Government have sought partially to do on this occasion.

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a most serious matter. I for one have long advocated the timetabling of very important Bills such as this. This is the second occasion on which we have encountered problems during devolution debates. A few weeks ago, a very important debate on the West Lothian question was seriously curtailed because the Government chose to make a very long statement—as, indeed, they have done again today.
Another problem, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has not mentioned, is that, because the many amendments before us were tabled 527 so late on Monday, it has been impossible for us to table amendments to those amendments. That is surely a very serious matter. The House is being held in contempt by the Government not allowing a proper debate on these important matters.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The Chair cannot rule on agreements made between the usual channels. If an agreement is made but then becomes unsatisfactory to one or other of the parties, that matter must be pursued through the usual channels once again. The responsibility of the Business Committee was to consider the matter, and it did so in the way laid down. Now, the House has approved the Business Committee's motion, so we are encased in that motion for our consideration of the rest of the Bill.
I am sure that everyone recognises that we are on a learning process on programmed Bills. Satisfactory progress in the way the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons wants obviously relies on good will between all the parties, through the usual channels, and ensuring that adequate time is made available so that all parts of a Bill receive the scrutiny that is thought right for each of those parts—if this practice is to be applied more widely in future.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all grateful to you for those wise words, but you are the Chairman of the Business Committee. Although I fully appreciate that what you can and cannot do there is carefully circumscribed—and, as you rightly said, the House has approved the motion—we are most anxious that programming should work.
We have tried to show that in every way—but today the programme has been turned into a guillotine. We find that utterly unacceptable and we cannot guarantee that, on future controversial Bills, we shall want to co-operate as we have sought to do on the Bills in question if adequate flexibility and injury time are not allowed.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Again, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we are on a learning curve with such matters. I am sure that, so long as there is sufficient good will across the House, if the situations that have arisen in respect of Bills that have been programmed so far appear to one or more parties to be unsatisfactory, that will be examined. That would be in the spirit of the report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.
The Committee was anxious that the House should accept the idea, and an attempt has been made to use the programming system for two very complex and important Bills, which may for that reason have been more likely to throw up difficulties. I hope, however, that we can overcome those difficulties, so that what is seen as a useful initiative can still be employed in future.

§ Mr. Ancram
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to take up any more of the House's time, but what my hon. Friend said relates in particular to Government new clause 31, which was, I understand, tabled late on Monday. It was starred yesterday, and we sought to amend it but, obviously, our amendment is starred today and is therefore not eligible to be considered for selection.
528 I raise that matter because what you have just said reminded me that, on 26 February, the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary had a short interchange on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—their words are recorded at column 546 and I shall not bother the House by quoting them in full—in which they both made it clear that they felt it right for amendments and new clauses to be tabled in sufficient time for amendments to them to be tabled by Opposition parties. That has not been the case in this instance, and I hope that you can tell us that the process outlined between the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary should form the basis of good manners for such proceedings in future.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I hope that we will all learn from the experience that we now have of the Bills that have been programmed. The Business Committee has tried to foresee the difficulties and ensure that adequate time is available, but sometimes, of necessity, contingencies arise. Important Government statements may have to be made or late amendments may be tabled, and those may cut across the perfectly well-intentioned views of the participants in the Business Committee. Perhaps we will learn from that and try to ensure more flexibility in future; I hope that that aim will be pursued through the usual channels.

§ The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies)
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would allow me to make one or two brief observations in response to the points raised—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. What the right hon. Gentleman says must be expressed as a point of order. If he wishes to raise a point of order or a further point of order, he may, but this is not an opportunity for a general statement.

§ Mr. Davies
I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and was about to ask whether you would allow me to make one or two points arising from the observations made by right hon. and hon. Members and from your replies. Therefore, I want to do that as a point of order.
Can you confirm that the Opposition had every opportunity to discuss with the Government the terms of the time made available? Can you also confirm that the Government made available all the time requested by the Opposition to facilitate the debate that was required?
Perhaps you would further confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the first three hours of today's debate will be on a subject initially raised by the Opposition, on which the Government agreed in Committee to table amendments on Report to fulfil the Opposition's request—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State is engaging in argument rather than making a point of order. He must know that the Chair cannot confirm those things. The Chair is not a party to discussions among the usual channels and cannot know what is agreed. The Chair will understand only what is produced in terms of resolutions and discussions in the Business Committee.