Business of the House

HC Deb 25 January 2000 vol 343 cc553-8 7.30 pm

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

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.

The business for tomorrow will now be progress on remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which will be brought to a conclusion next week. I will give the normal, full business statement tomorrow.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

The Leader of the House has announced that the Government have lost one of the days that they had earmarked for their legislative programme. They have lost it because they did not respond sensitively to legitimate issues raised over the past two days.

Today's Bill, which has provoked the statement, was not in the Queen's Speech. The mode of trial Bill, which will have to be reintroduced following its defeat in another place, will put additional pressure on the Government's programme. Does not all that show that the Government are mismanaging the business of the House trying to get 28 Bills through, and that they should now drop some of their ill-considered and unpopular measures?

Mrs. Beckett

I can only say that the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that his remarks are in no way borne out by the events of the past couple of days. On Second Reading of the Disqualifications Bill, the Conservatives said that they were not opposed to it and did not vote against it. The shadow Home Secretary said that the Opposition would give the Bill a fair wind. If the right hon. Gentleman's idea of a fair wind is almost two full days' debate, I have to tell him that it is not mine.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

The Leader of the House will agree that I raised that issue at an early stage, because I saw no reason why the Bill should be rushed. When minority parties express an opinion, it should be taken into consideration. Instead, the Bill was rushed through, like a steamroller trying to get ahead of business. Plenty of time could have been taken, rather than wasted, as it has been today.

Mrs. Beckett

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that he raised that point, in a way that Conservative Members did not. However, I believe that I am right in saying that, like them, he complained about the two days' proceedings being so close together, not about the amount of time given. I do not recall anyone complaining about the amount of time offered at any business statement in which the business was announced.

As I told the hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion, I understand his concerns and we considered the matter. However, as I am sure he is well aware, it is not at all unprecedented for a Bill to be taken through the House in one day, or, indeed, two.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)

In emergencies.

Mrs. Beckett

Not necessarily. The Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1996 was taken through the House in one day, in May 1996. The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996 was also taken through in one day, in October 1996. I shall not bore Opposition Members by listing their sins, but one further example will be regarded as relevant by those hon. Members who have enjoyed the past two days: the last occasion on which a Bill was taken on two consecutive days, as was the Disqualifications Bill, it became the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Member in charge of the Bill was the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the way in which business has been handled today, the 1,000th day of the Government's term in office, is symbolic of the way in which business has generally been handled over the past two and a half years? That is, with a lack of respect for our traditions, incompetence and overweening arrogance.

Mrs. Beckett

I completely agree with one thing that the hon. Gentleman has said, and that is that it has been quite characteristic of the past two years. It has been gross misjudgment and mishandling on behalf of the Conservative party which has been successful beyond our wildest dreams in talking at considerable length on a Bill that it said it did not oppose. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a three-clause Bill. As a result, the Conservative party succeeded in losing its opportunity to question my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time. It lost also an opportunity to make progress on a Bill that its few remaining supporters in the City want to see on the statute book. I call that three whammys in a row.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

Will the right hon. Lady make time for a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so that he can explain to the House and the country—there will be general concern—the answer to the question that we have been posing for the past 26 hours: has a grubby deal been done with Sinn Fein, known terrorists, to pass the Bill that we have just debated?

Mrs. Beckett

I will simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I am sure he heard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State say that most of us in the House do not wish to do or say anything that in any way jeopardises the peace process. I hope that he shares that view.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

May I say to my right hon. Friend that I think that we handled the Disqualifications Bill excellently? Last night we called the Tories' bluff and won the legislation.

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The sad fact is that the Conservative party has lost control of its Back Benchers, and it shows.

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

The right hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to the highly successful Protection from Harassment Bill, which the previous Government put through the House with the full agreement of all the Opposition parties. I do not think that anyone suggests that that was an important constitutional measure which deserved to be treated in a different way from the way in which the right hon. Lady has abused the House over the past 24 hours. It was the Government who lost control; it was the Government who did not bother to move closures; and it was the Government who failed to expedite the Bill in as sensible a fashion as they could. The Government could have simply given sufficient time between Second Reading and remaining stages, including consideration in Committee. The Bill could then have proceeded in a more sensible fashion. That is the right hon. Lady's fault.

Mrs. Beckett

The right hon. Gentleman was not here on any of the occasions when we discussed timing and the amount of time given to the Bill. On no occasion were the Government pressed to give more time for the Bill until yesterday.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North)

Surely there are two possibilities regarding the loss of Prime Minister's questions. One is that the Leader of the Opposition wished to avoid them today. The other is that the right hon. Gentleman has lost control of his party.

Mrs. Beckett

There is much in what my hon. Friend says. Either the Leader of the Opposition consented and was happy to see Prime Minister's Question Time lost because he knew for several hours before the deadline fell that that would be the effect of his party's behaviour, or he had lost control of it. He has another characteristic that has been evident over the past two and a half years, which is that he is inclined to make short-termist judgments, such as the letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which I can assure the Conservative party will come back to haunt it on many occasions. As so many of the right hon. Gentleman's gestures come back to haunt him, I think that he should be known as Boomerang Bill.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I am not going to play the game of blaming either side. However, I emphasise that the way in which we dealt with the Disqualifications Bill does no credit to the Government or the main Opposition party. I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the unanimity on several occasions in the Select Committee of which she is a distinguished Chair, on seeking more programme motions so that we can deal with business in a business-like fashion. The games that have been played recently do no credit to the House, the Government's business managers or the official Opposition.

I ask the right hon. Lady again to ensure that, when we approach measures in future, efforts will be made to distinguish issues about which there is a clear difference of opinion—between the Front Benches or with the minority parties—and that proper time will be given to debate them. Having done that, we should try to ascertain whether we can determine an agreed programme to tackle them in a business-like way. Having done that—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. I hope that this will be the hon. Gentleman's last point.

Mr. Tyler

I could hardly hear what you were saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of the noise that Conservative Members made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I said that I hoped that this was the hon. Gentleman's last point.

Mr. Tyler

It is. The precedents that the Leader of the House cited for moving immediately from one stage of a Bill to another were not similar to the measure that has just been discussed. Having to move so fast did not help hon. Members.

Mrs. Beckett

May I first say to the hon. Gentleman that all hon. Members share the support that he voiced for a sensible programme motion. However, it is not always fashionable for Conservative Members to admit that.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should identify measures that will cause problems and may consequently need more time, and agree about the way in which to handle them. We were in that position when we began to debate the Disqualifications Bill. The shadow Home Secretary made that clear. She said that the Opposition did not oppose the Bill, and that they would give it a fair wind. There was an opportunity to return to the debate on the Bill after 10 o'clock on Monday, but it was not taken. I understand that, because the Opposition had a reasonable time and were right to believe that the issues had been aired. They did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. Under those circumstances, when agreement appears to have been reached, but the agreement is subsequently torn up, difficulties arise. I personally take the Leader of the Opposition's extraordinary and ill-judged letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as support for programme motions.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

Last week, the right hon. Lady made a statement to which I responded when business was changed following consideration of the Representation of the People Bill. There was anxiety among Conservative Members and some Labour Members because two Second Readings took place after consideration of the measure. Again, anxiety has been caused because of the treatment of the Disqualifications Bill. The right hon. Lady should appreciate the concern among hon. Members of all parties. Will she assure us that she will talk to business managers to ensure that proposed legislation will be given due regard, that hon. Members will be able to scrutinise and debate it properly, and that it will not be rushed through the House in the same manner as the Disqualifications Bill?

Mrs. Beckett

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that, on more mature reflection, he might be sorry that he made that point. He is entirely correct that there is a strong parallel between what happened last week and what happened this week. Last week there was an acceptance and an understanding on both sides of the House, including between Front-Bench Members, that there was little of contention to air, but that there were issues that should be aired and that they would be dealt with in proper time. Then what happened was that a group of Conservative Members used the opportunity to try to talk out the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. He knows that that is what happened, because he was here, and we know that that is what happened. Those are precisely the tactics that have often been adopted—I accept, on different grounds—by the same usual suspects.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

The Leader of the House has a duty to represent the interests of the House and all Back Benchers. Does she accept that Ministers have a duty to reply to matters raised during debate sensitively, positively and rationally? Does she regret that that has not been the case, and that she and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland have intentionally misled the House as to the content—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. When I get to my feet, he should sit down. Did I hear him say that the right hon. Lady misled the House?

Mr. Winterton

Yes, I most certainly did. The letter to which the right hon. Lady and the Minister referred—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that statement. He knows the rules of the House, perhaps better than I. I want him to get to his feet only if he will withdraw that statement. No one has misled the House.

Mr. Winterton

The House has been misled because the implication—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement? I advise him to do so. I implore him to withdraw that statement.

Mr. Winterton

If the right hon. Lady—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. There are no ifs and buts. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that statement.

Mr. Winterton

I will apologise to the House and to the right hon. Lady, but she has misused—

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has apologised and has resumed his seat. I shall call only one more hon. Member.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

The right hon. Lady will have witnessed the disciplined and successful tactics of her own Back Benchers on Monday evening during the discussion of private business. She will not be surprised that the Opposition have learned from those tactics over the past 24 hours. Will she confirm that she could have used Labour's majority at any stage during the proceedings up till Two o'clock this afternoon to bring the Committee to a close, but she did not do so because she did not want to expose the Prime Minister to questioning from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) or from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)?

Mrs. Beckett

Opposition Members have spent a good deal of time talking about the importance of what they regard as the constitutional implications of the legislation, and then have called on me to curtail it, guillotine it, propose closure of the debate or not move the Ten o'clock motion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken most careful heed of all those injunctions, and I shall bear them very much in mind.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What we have just seen was predicted three months ago—you, from the Chair, in conflict with someone who may refer to himself as an Assistant Speaker in the other Chamber. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) knows the rules, as we do. If we cannot get an Assistant Speaker from the other Chamber unconditionally to withdraw an allegation of deliberately misleading the House, what hope is there for the proper policing of our proceedings under the new arrangements?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I received an apology and when an apology is given, as far as the Chair is concerned, the matter is finished.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. Gentleman have a point of order?

Sir Teddy Taylor

It is a very important question that I want to ask the Leader of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can wait until the Business statement tomorrow.