Business of the House (Hansard, 21 July 1999)

§ The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)
In view of the lack of progress on business this week, the business for tomorrow will now be: consideration of an allocation of time motion on the Employment Relations Bill and on the Food Standards Bill—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)
Order. The House must listen to the Leader of the House.

§ Mrs. Beckett
That will be followed by conclusion of the remaining stages of the Food Standards Bill. I shall announce in my business statement tomorrow the arrangements for the completion of Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill.

§ Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)
That is an extraordinary over-reaction to what has been happening this evening. In the debate that has just concluded, the Secretary of State spoke for longer than any of my hon. Friends: he spoke for 15 minutes and included references to "The Goon Show" and to Spitfire pilots. If anybody has been wasting time, it has been the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. As for the Employment Relations Bill, nearly all the remaining amendments are Government amendments and there are only two brief issues which my hon. Friends want to debate, so there is no reason at all to conclude the discussion on that Bill. Finally, what has happened between last Thursday's business statement and tonight's to justify guillotining the Food Standards Bill?

§ Mrs. Beckett
What has happened between last week's business statement and tonight's is clear to most hon. Members. We have had a substantial amount of time wasted—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]—yes, wasted, although I accept not necessarily by the official Opposition as such. Time has been taken up in the House. The Opposition—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members asking questions if they do not want to listen to the answer. The Opposition have every right to use time in the House—that is their legitimate right and duty. It is also the right and duty of the Government to protect their business and to protect private Members' time.
The course of events over this week led the Government to have some anxiety about the progress of the Food Standards Bill. The official Opposition were offered a programme motion on the Bill, which is an uncontentious Bill that has had pre-legislative scrutiny. That offer was rejected. The Government are anxious to make sure that private Members' time on Friday is not jeopardised by individual Members dealing with the business tomorrow. That is what has happened between last week's business statement and tonight's.

§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)
This is surely an extraordinary situation. One of my colleagues has just said to me, "Try to rearrange these words: piss-up, brewery, organise". [Interruption.] This is an extraordinary and 1293 unnecessary announcement made at very short notice. Without any warning or consultation, the Government have suddenly changed their whole programme of business.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)
Order. I do not think that that kind of language does the House any credit or helps the situation.

§ Mr. Tyler
Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the House is treated in the way it has been treated by the Government in the past few minutes, you can understand why there are angry people in the Chamber tonight. There has been no consultation and no opportunity for the opposition parties to put their points of view. I believe that the handling of the Food Standards Bill, in particular, is a disgrace. There is no evidence whatsoever that the House would not treat with great care the proposals that were to be put before it tomorrow. Yet the Government have announced a guillotine motion.
We on these Benches have always been prepared to discuss programme motions, but we have not had an opportunity to have those discussions about this Bill or the Food Standards Bill. We find it quite extraordinary that the Leader of the House should come to the House at short notice—as though the business could not be handled on several days next week.
We are prepared to be flexible. I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider her attitude, particularly regarding tomorrow's business, and will be prepared to speak to the Opposition parties through the usual channels to see whether we can reach agreement. That is surely the best way for the House to consider the business of the House and to afford proper scrutiny to this important legislation.

§ Mrs. Beckett
In one sense, the hon. Gentleman made a perfectly sensible and legitimate point at the end of his remarks. He said that it ought to be possible to reach agreement about tomorrow's business, which is uncontentious and has pre-legislative scrutiny.

§ Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton)
You did not even try.

§ Mrs. Beckett
That is rubbish. If such an agreement were possible, the Government would give it favourable consideration. However, because it has not been possible to reach such an agreement and because the Government are not prepared to risk either the Food Standards Bill tomorrow or the private Members' business that follows it, we have made this proposal.
If, in the aftermath of this statement, cast-iron assurances can be given and delivered, the Government will consider the matter properly. However, the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for some time and he was here all this week and last week. What confidence does he have that those assurances will be delivered?

§ Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)
Will the Leader of the House explain to the House of Commons and to the country why she wishes to curtail discussion and debate on this legislation and the Food Standards Bill when we are about to enter one of the longest parliamentary recesses that this 1294 country has ever seen? Surely we can cut down the time of the recess and enlarge the opportunities for hon. Members to discuss important legislation.

§ Mrs. Beckett
That is a brilliant example of exactly what I am talking about. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman thought for a second about checking his facts. If he had, he would know that there were far longer parliamentary recesses under the Government that he supported. Indeed, the recess that we have proposed is only slightly longer than the recess during the same stage in the previous Parliament. So that is absolute rubbish.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about curtailing discussion, the Government do not intend to curtail discussion either on this legislation or on the Food Standards Bill. We intend to have that discussion in proper time and to come to a proper conclusion. That is what people such as the hon. Gentleman do not like.

§ Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)
Although the principle of the Food Standards Bill may not be contentious, a number of items within it are, and that is the reason for several of the amendments that have been tabled by Conservative and other Members who want a serious debate. The right hon. Lady said that the Bill had had pre-legislative scrutiny, but the relevant Committee did not go through the Bill line by line in the way a Bill should be examined in Standing Committee and on Report.
On one occasion, the Government rejected the views of the right hon. Lady's own Labour-dominated Committee which conducted the pre-legislative scrutiny. The House has every reason to question the Government again and to challenge them to say why they rejected the views of the Labour-dominated Committee that considered the Bill.

§ Mrs. Beckett
The hon. Gentleman has, no doubt mistakenly, made the case for the proposal that I have just made, as he appears to be saying—he may not mean it—that he will demand not proper debate, which the Government have no intention of denying, but the kind of line-by-line scrutiny and detailed debate for which there has been no call at any business statement when I have announced the timetable for the consideration of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not even attended any business questions in recent weeks. There has been a repeated pattern of Conservative Members not even showing up when we announce the business of the House, and they have not raised the issue of there not being enough time. Now they turn up at the last minute and say, "We need another five days." I say: no.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
The right hon. Lady will know that I am of a very passive disposition. We share membership of the Modernisation Committee, and at many of its meetings she has said that she looks to avoid using timetable motions. She will be aware that, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I am also concerned, as I am sure she is, that the House should have procedures whereby legislation that the Government bring before the House for the benefit of the nation is adequately scrutinised.
1295 Will the right hon. Lady read her Government's White Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", which gives 10 tips for better health? Tip No. 4 states: Manage stress by, for example, talking things through and making time to relax. I wish the right hon. Lady a happy recess, but will she please assure me that she will allow the House to do as the White Paper advises?

§ Mrs. Beckett
I am not sure that the House would recognise "passive" as an accurate description of the hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, he is one of the more active Members of the House. He is absolutely right to say that in the Modernisation Committee and elsewhere, the Government have made it plain, as I have done as Leader of the House, that we seek to avoid the use of guillotines if possible, and seek programme motions instead. He will recall that I mentioned earlier that we sought a programme motion on the Food Standards Bill, which the House will debate tomorrow.
I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that there must be proper, adequate scrutiny. I know that he has experience of programme motions facilitating such scrutiny. There is common ground between most hon. Members in that we want sensible timetabling of business, and proper, adequate debate and scrutiny. Most of us do not want to waste time.

§ Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)
Will the Leader of the House accept that, having come downstairs from a Select Committee, I have sat in the Chamber for almost all the time since then in a way that has not been matched by the majority of the hon. Members behind her who are shouting? Will she further accept that in the debate on amendment No. 15, which was in my view one of the most serious debates that has ever taken place in the House during my time here, the Secretary of State, quite properly, spoke for almost as long as all the Opposition Members who contributed? If such debates are to be curtailed in this way, that will be to the Government's discredit.

§ Mrs. Beckett
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point and, of course, I respect his experience in this matter, but I am sure that he will have noticed that I was careful to say that it was the progress and the general climate of the handling of business over the week as a whole that led to the Government's concern. There is nothing that the Government would have liked better than measured progress on tonight's business and the assurance that progress on tomorrow's business will also be measured and sensible and that it will reach the conclusion that we all want by the House's coming to a decision. Anxieties were raised not only that tonight's business might to some degree be in jeopardy but that tomorrow's business and private Members' time might be in jeopardy. The Government did not feel that we ought to run that risk.

§ Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)
I agree with the Leader of the House when she says that the conduct of this week's business has prompted this decision, because the Government wasted a whole day of the House's time on Monday with the Second Reading of a Bill which will have to be reintroduced in the next Session. Does she understand that the unfortunate victim of the 1296 Government's mishandling of their own business, which was designed simply to save the Deputy Prime Minister's face, is the Food Standards Bill, which the Government have scandalously mishandled? Pre-legislative scrutiny was unacceptably rushed, as I pointed out to her in detail when the Bill was referred to the Special Select Committee. It has been rushed through Standing Committee, and now we are told, extraordinarily, that it is to be programmed, yet we have no hint of how the House will deal with it.
The Food Standards Bill is important, and if the Government took it seriously, as I am sure they do—I know that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food certainly does—they would have provided Monday or a day next week to debate it. Such a programme motion as is proposed is completely unacceptable. I urge the Leader of the House in all sincerity to reconsider her statement.

§ Mrs. Beckett
As I hope that I have already made plain, it is the Government's intention that the Food Standards Bill will be properly scrutinised tomorrow and that proceedings can be brought to a proper conclusion. I know that the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends have sympathy with and support for some of the issues behind the Bill; we share their concern in that respect. It is because we are determined not to jeopardise that that we have chosen to take precautionary steps.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Monday's business, I simply draw to his attention the fact that, to my recollection, a minimum of two hours was taken up outside the discussion of business. Indeed, that would have gone on much longer had not the Deputy Speaker allowed a closure motion to be moved. It is the Government's lack of certainty about proper progress of business—not just as a result of the official Opposition, although I remind the hon. Gentleman that they did not agree to a programme motion on the Bill—that has led us reluctantly to take this step.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)
rose—

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Hogg
The right hon. Lady speaks of a lack of certainty, but I suggest that she consult the Board, because she will find that during the previous debate the Government Front Bencher spoke for 69 minutes and the Opposition Front Bencher for 26 minutes. On that basis, may I ask what possible reason there is for calling an end to tonight's debate and imposing a guillotine?

§ Mrs. Beckett
You will have observed, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have observed it if he had been listening—that I have been referring not solely to the progress of tonight's business but to the cumulative effect of this week. If we are talking about taking up time frivolously, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has an honourable place in the canons of this House.

§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)
Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that what we are listening to is the usual public school end-of-term froth from the Conservative party? Some of the more stupid 1297 Conservative Members have been behaving in this infantile way all week. As for the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who has just asked a question, what does he know about the conduct of tonight's business? He has, after all, been sitting at a table in the restaurant next to me.

§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
Will the right hon. Lady explain why the programme over the last week or so has gone to hell in a handbag in such a fashion that the Government have had to come to the House at short notice to make this statement at 10 o'clock tonight, when, according to my count, there are 298 Government amendments to be considered and only two Opposition amendments to be considered on the business for tonight? Also, given the references that have been made to time that has been taken in the debate, and especially as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry plainly had no answer to the cogent case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) were making for the amendments that they had tabled—he was unable to adduce a sensible reason not to accept them—is not the whole conduct of this business and this late statement tonight a disgrace and an arrogant treatment of Members of the House?

§ Mrs. Beckett
Usual complaint—as usual, unfounded.

§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)
The right hon. Lady has been extremely frank with the House. She has said that she wishes to timetable the Food Standards Bill to protect Friday's business. Am I not right in thinking that Friday's business in the other place is also to consider the Food Standards Bill? However, be that as it may, although she may be right in concluding that a timetable guillotine motion is appropriate for the Employment Relations Bill, which the House has been considering tonight, many people in rural communities the length and breadth of this country who are gravely concerned about the measures in the Food Standards Bill will regard the guillotine motion as another slap in the face from the Government for people who live in rural areas.

§ Mrs. Beckett
I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. He will appreciate that I have said that I shall address the timetable for the Employment Relations Bill in tomorrow's business statement. I have made it plain that the Government do intend to provide proper time tomorrow for debate of the Food Standards Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would have required more time than business would have allowed tomorrow for the Food Standards Bill—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. He is actually making the Government's case. If there are Members in the House who believe, whether as representatives of the official Opposition or as Back Benchers, that inadequate time was allowed for the Food Standards Bill, it was their job as Members of the House to raise the matter at business questions. It was also their job to raise the matter with their Front-Bench team if they thought that inadequate time had been allowed. We have had repeated examples of Members who could not be bothered to raise such issues in advance and who then come along at the last 1298 minute and say, "We need another day", or "We need another half a day. The hon. Gentleman is making the case for the guillotine.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)
The House will know that the Department of Trade and Industry has been trying to bring forward Second Reading of the electronic communications Bill, and it has been trying to blame the Conservative party for not allowing it to do so. It seems extraordinarily strange that the right hon. Lady is telling us that she was worried about getting the three Bills through this evening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Four."] I have four—any advance on five? She was telling us that and complaining that there was not enough time. She wanted to get a completely new Bill into the House before the end of the Session. Surely it is the mismanagement of the right hon. Lady, who should think about her own position before the Prime Minister sacks her, that has got the House into the position in which it finds itself tonight.

§ Mrs. Beckett
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has reminded me of a further and important point, which is that when the Government scheduled the business for today's debates, including the three Bills, no Opposition Member said that there would be inadequate time to consider them. Now, at 10.35 pm, we are told that the time was never adequate: too late.

§ Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
I want to clarify one of the right hon. Lady's answers, when she said that tomorrow's debate on the Food Standards Bill will be the same length as that announced in the business statement last week. Does that mean that any time taken up by the programme motion will not eat into time that would have been available to the Food Standards Bill?

§ Mrs. Beckett
No. I said that there would be adequate time for the debate. The issue was the length of time, which is something that we shall announce tomorrow.