HC Deb 04 November 1999 vol 337 cc580-3

7 pm

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)

In view of the lack of progress on the Bill tonight, I regret to tell the House that the first business on Monday will be consideration of a supplemental timetable motion to the Greater London Authority Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments. The rest of the business for Monday will be as I announced in my business statement earlier today.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

This further guillotine motion is yet more evidence of the Government's inability to draft Bills and to manage their legislative programme. With 818 Government amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill, they have overtaken the record set by the Scotland Bill for the most Government amendments to any legislation.

For poor drafting, the Greater London Authority Bill is without precedent. Moreover, the House finished its business early on Monday and Tuesday this week, but now the Government are having to rush through consideration of their remaining legislation. We have seen no filibustering this afternoon. Serious contributions have been made from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The announcement about the guillotine means that serious issues about transport in London run the risk of being inadequately considered. How much time will be allotted for debating the remaining sections of the Bill on Monday and what arrangements does the right hon. Lady propose to make for discussing the Food Standards Agency Bill? Is not the announcement she has just made an insult to London and to Londoners?

Mrs. Beckett

That is absolutely ridiculous, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The Government have not hitherto sought to draw debate on the Bill to a close. Indeed, we have had agreed progress of business throughout the previous consideration of the legislation. We offered a programme motion today and we sought reasonably rapid progress, but we have disposed of only six out of 56 groups of amendments. I remind the House, and those Opposition Members who probably do not know much about the Bill, that the Government have sought to reverse only one amendment made in the other place, although some amendments have been tidied up to bring them into order, as the House would expect.

The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no filibuster, but the first group of amendments today covered an issue that has already been extensively aired in the House in previous consideration of the Bill. The debate took four hours.

Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)

Does the Leader of the House not recognise that the Government brought to the House the most complicated Bill—with the largest number of clauses and schedules perhaps ever, and certainly for a long time—and we have a booklet containing 820 amendments from the other place over 197 pages? For right hon. and hon. Members to spend a little time considering those amendments and putting their views to the House is entirely proper and in order. We have a complex Bill with many amendments, but the Leader of the House now says that she wishes to curtail discussion and restrict Members' ability to influence what is vital legislation.

We have seen no filibuster, but we have had sensible, sound discussion. Does the Leader of the House not recognise that, with 56 groups of amendments—50 of which are still outstanding—it is outrageous for the House to be expected to complete that business in one day? Will she consider extending the length of time available to Members to deal with the Bill?

Mrs. Beckett

We did the devolution legislation, which was also long and complex, on programme motions. The Government are prepared, and happy, to agree programme motions and the sensible progress of business. The hon. Gentleman is a newer Member and will not recall, for example, the passage of the Railways Act 1993 or the Water Act 1989. Those Bills were less than half the size of the Greater London Authority Bill and hundreds of amendments were tabled to them. In the case of the Railways Act 1993, some 470 amendments came back to the Commons.

We allowed two full days. We were perfectly prepared to make progress, and we hoped to make progress reasonably rapidly. I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that we have not done so.

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)

The Leader of the House conceded at business questions this morning that there were problems with the Bill and, by my standards, I behaved like a Trappist monk this afternoon. Will the Leader of the House say how much time she is going to give us for the rest of the very dense business that remains to be done?

Mrs. Beckett

The motion to be tabled tomorrow will be discussed through the usual channels. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we are trying, as we have tried throughout, to arrange discussion of the Bill so that major issues can be properly considered. We shall continue to do so.

Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley)

I have been in and out of the Chamber all day, and have listened to all of today's debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the programme motion. The wittering of Opposition Members is astonishing to hear, and their crocodile tears continue to flow. I welcome the motion and hope that we will see more sensible management of Government business for the rest of the Parliament.

Mrs. Beckett

Well, we all share that hope. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government are always keen to proceed through agreement, proper discussion and properly tabled debate. However, there are times when the Government recognise that that progress cannot be achieved without a guillotine motion.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

No doubt for the best of reasons, the Leader of the House has not been in the Chamber at all during today's proceedings. Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady has asserted that there has been time wasting and inadequate progress on the Bill, and I invite her to demonstrate how she believes that that has happened. How does she relate that to the completely inadequate amount of time that she proposes to allow the House properly to consider the mess of a Bill that the Government have inflicted on us today, and will inflict on us again on Monday?

Mrs. Beckett

I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier. We spent four hours on the first group of amendments, discussing a matter that had been debated extensively already. The Government are not seeking to change more than one of the amendments that have come from another place.

Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire)

Does the Leader of the House not recognise that, in the time that she is going to make available, it would not be possible to read into the record the details of the amendments that have still to be considered, much less debate them or give them serious consideration?

Does the right hon. Lady not understand also that, although the Prime Minister's contempt for Parliament is well established, the programme motion shows contempt for the British public, and that they will note that?

Mrs. Beckett

That is absolute rubbish. The right hon. Gentleman is not a new Member of Parliament, and he knows perfectly well that there has probably never been legislation for which it would have been possible to read into the record all the details of the amendments and still complete the debate. Moreover, in Standing Committee, on Report, in Lords Committee and on Third Reading—

Sir Brian Mawhinney

There are 900 amendments.

Mrs. Beckett

There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to shout, as I can hear him quite well. The vast majority of the amendments tabled to the Bill at all its stages were tabled by the Opposition. That is perfectly proper, and I make no complaint about it. However, if we tried to read amendments into the record, we really would be wasting our time.

Sir Brian Mawhinney

That is a contempt of the House.

Mrs. Beckett

The right hon. Gentleman is displaying contempt, as well as bad manners.

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge)

I have been involved in the deliberations on the Bill at every stage of its progress through the House. I was in the Chamber throughout this afternoon's discussion and can tell the Leader of the House that there was no filibustering. There is a huge amount of detail in the Bill, which is very important to my constituents and to the people of London. Will the right hon. Lady consider whether it would be more appropriate for the House to continue debating the Bill tomorrow, instead of debating family-friendly employment?

Mrs. Beckett

I would simply say to the hon. Gentleman what I have told the House already. The Government offered a programme motion to achieve agreed progress in the debate so as to deal with matters in an orderly fashion, exactly as the hon. Gentleman described. As he will know, that is how all the rest of the proceedings on the Bill have been conducted. I am sorry that it has not been possible to carry that orderliness through to the end.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

There was laughter in the House when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, read the list of amendments just before 7 o'clock. That had nothing to do with the dignity of the Chair. It stemmed from incredulity at the contempt that the Government have shown to the House in proposing to force through a Bill on which 51 groups of amendments are still outstanding. The group that we are currently discussing contains 22 separate amendments. We are debating 197 pages of amendments. Does the right hon. Lady really think that that is good government?

Mrs. Beckett

I am sorry to have to say that I understand that the hon. Gentleman has not been present for the debate. I would simply point out that we have looked into the issue. He should know that the vast majority of the amendments are technical. He must also know, as he has been a Member for a long time, that there is nothing unprecedented about what the Government are doing. Many pieces of legislation have, unfortunately, required hundreds of amendments at this stage. I repeat that the Government sought a programme motion and sought to make orderly progress. That has not been possible and so we have to take steps.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. That is quite enough on a single-item Government statement.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an unprecedented occasion—a Government Bill with 900 Government amendments. Comparatively few Members wished to question the Leader of the House on her totally inadequate statement. The right hon. Lady did not even tell the House of how much time we will have to devote to the Bill on Monday. We are to go away for the weekend with no idea of how much time we will have to debate the Bill, still less the Food Standards Bill, which is also important. We simply do not know what is happening on Monday.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This was a single-item business statement. The other matters—the suitability of what has happened and so forth—can be debated on the allocation of time motion on Monday.