Supplemental orders

HC Deb 22 May 2000 vol 350 cc759-805 9. The proceedings on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings. 10. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

I shall speak only briefly as the House has much important business before it this evening. The two Bills with which we are concerned are important in the Government's view, and there are particular reasons why we want to see them complete their stages of consideration as rapidly as possibly.

The Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill facilitates the granting of free television licences to the over-75s as from 1 April. The need for those new powers is pressing. The Government's announcement of free television licences for people aged 75 or over has been widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides and will help some of the most vulnerable members of the community. Without the Bill, elderly, and often frail, claimants could be put to considerable inconvenience in claiming their entitlement. The cost of administering the concession would also be far higher than under our proposals.

The second Bill is the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will deal with its further stages. It will be regarded by most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides as long overdue and uncontroversial. It deals with abuses and problems caused by unauthorised traders in the royal parks. It has the support of those on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

So what?

Janet Anderson

The right hon. Gentleman is in a minority. If, by his actions later this evening, he shows that he wants to consign tourists to London to eating dodgy hamburgers sold by dubious illegal traders in the royal parks, he will do the tourist industry a serious injustice. He will have plenty of time later to elaborate on his views.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Can the Minister tell us whether the Leader of the House has been informed of the displeasure expressed by Conservative Members about her failure to move the first allocation of time motion, despite her presence in the Palace of Westminster and the fact that she has voted? Can the Minister also tell us why the right hon. Lady failed to move this second motion?

Janet Anderson

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is always aware of what is going on in the Chamber. I am moving the motion because both Bills are the business of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that I am a Minister in that Department.

The need for new powers is pressing if we are to deal with the abuse of illegal trading in the royal parks. The health, safety and well-being of visitors must be protected, along with the rights and expectations of authorised traders. The peaceful atmosphere of the royal parks must be maintained. The Bill will protect the interests of members of the public who visit the royal parks. I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

8.57 pm

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

I make it clear that we support both the Bills mentioned in the guillotine motion. Like the Minister, I want the maximum opportunity for debate on the important issues that arise from the Bills and that are set down for discussion on Report.

Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) set out in some detail the Opposition view on the use of the guillotine. We shall reinforce that view in the Division Lobby at the end of this debate.

The previous debate was characterised by accusation and counter-accusation about who is to blame for the situation in which the Government find themselves. Our argument is not with the Bills, although some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will rightly wish to discuss some points of concern. However, this is the fifth or sixth Bill that I have dealt with in this Session as a Front-Bench spokesman on Home Affairs or Culture, Media and Sport. I must conclude that the Government's legislative programme is overloaded. During my 13 years as a Member, it has been unprecedented for the House to be asked to give Third Readings to no fewer than four Bills in one evening. If anyone thinks that blame attaches to any of my right hon. or hon. Friends for frustrating progress, that is not true.

The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill received its Second Reading in Committee, so this debate and our proceedings last Wednesday offer the only opportunities for hon. Members to discuss the measure. Although we have made our views abundantly clear from the Opposition Front Bench—as the Minister acknowledged—the Bill contains important issues of principle, such as the seizure and confiscation of assets and the question of penalties, which hon. Members obviously want to discuss.

Further important and fundamental issues are involved in the Government's proposals to implement their pledge to give all those aged over 74 a free television licence. As the Minister will know, during our extremely productive Committee proceedings, we managed to resolve—or make progress on—several matters of concern to right hon. and hon. Members. However, it is clear that there should be an opportunity to debate those points on Report, and for those Members who were not members of the Standing Committee to have the opportunity to put their threepenn'orth—as we would say in Yorkshire—into the debate on those important matters.

The Opposition formally do not approve the use of the guillotine. I hope that, during the next four to five hours, we shall be able to debate issues on both Bills that are of concern to hon. Members, even though we support the Bills. It is a sad occasion when measures that are formally supported by the Opposition nevertheless become the subject of a guillotine—not because hon. Members want to take time debating the issues, but because the Government have introduced too much legislation.

9.2 pm

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

I have been a Member for about 17 years. During that time, there have been several timetable motions, but I have never spoken on them—either at my own desire or at the behest of the Whips. I am moved to do so tonight and I make no apology for that.

When the Minister opened the debate, she made my point for me. She seems to believe that because the Opposition support the Bills, that is the end of the matter—as we support the Bills, it would be quite inappropriate to detain the House by actually examining their content.

Earlier this evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out that he was a traditionalist. I join him in that. It was my impression that I came to the House to scrutinise legislation—that is why I draw my princely salary. However, if I thought that there was common ground between myself and Labour Members, I was quickly disabused of that idea shortly after the general election.

I recall the last appearance—for the time being—of my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box when we were considering the Bill to abolish the assisted places scheme. I cannot remember whether we were discussing a guillotine motion or whether we were asking the then Leader of the House, now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, for time properly to debate the issue. However, she used a phrase that I found absolutely chilling. As a Member of the House—as a traditionalist—I still find it chilling. She said that we did not need any more time to debate the measure because the people had spoken.

That phrase was used to advance a proposition on a Bill that would take from parents of modest means the ability to send their children to some of the best schools in the country—in breach of a specific assurance to the contrary given by a Labour shadow Front-Bench spokesman when Labour was in opposition. All that was cast to the wind.

As I recall it, that Bill's First Reading was on a Monday and it was proposed that its Second Reading and remaining stages in the Commons should take place the same week. However—I remember it as clearly as if it were yesterday—hon. Members came into the House, as they will later, tapping their watches and pointing at the clock in the extraordinary belief that for £48,000 a year all they had to do was come in and tap their watches at 10 o'clock at night, and they would then be entitled to go home. We pointed out to them that they were not going home then, any more than they will go home at 10 o'clock tonight. We have a duty in the House of Commons to scrutinise the legislation that is before us.

I remember that, on that occasion, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a speech of commendable brevity; it went on for no more than 90 minutes. He pointed out that the issues would have to be dealt with the following week when we had another two days to debate the Bill. I am reminded that the debate did not take place under a guillotine motion, but the principle holds true.

The view, "The people have spoken; no scrutiny is necessary; can we please be paid our salaries and go?" was expressed three years ago, and we would like to think that, in the intervening period, even this Government have begun to understand that we engage in a two-part process—they propose and we scrutinise. We have a vote and we come second, and that is the way it is for the time being. However, they do not recognise that process, and they do not recognise how draconian a guillotine motion is. If someone wants to scrutinise a Bill even though they agree with it, the Government say, "Let's have a guillotine motion."

It is worth remembering how draconian guillotine motions are. The 22nd edition of "Erskine May", the guide to parliamentary practice—I doubt whether practice has changed from that described in the previous 21 editions—states that guillotine motions may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate.

Mr. Bercow

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that we should have the maximum time to consider the two Bills because there are no fewer than 13 amendments, new clauses and new schedules tabled for debate and because the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and the Minister for the Arts have on various occasions referred to dodgy burgers and rip-off traders? That may be a source of hilarity to the hon. Lady, but Ministers have not troubled themselves to offer any evidence for their charges against members of the public and traders who do not have the opportunity tonight or at any other time in a public forum to defend themselves.

Mr. Nicholls

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting did not make a speech of any great length but, even in her short address, she managed to introduce the concept of forcibly feeding people burgers. I do not go to the London parks very often—perhaps, you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but I have heard no reports of people being forcibly fed burgers. I have carefully read the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill to see whether it contains any provisions to prevent the forcible feeding of burgers. If that practice is going on in London parks, there is nothing in the Bill to stop it. However, the Minister introduced the concept as justification for the Government's motion.

Mr. Bercow

I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend again, because he has dealt eloquently with my intervention. He knows that the Opposition support this Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill. However, if Ministers are to make charges against people, the least they should do is provide evidence of the health-damaging properties of the burgers in question. They have not done so. The Minister for the Arts should also provide evidence of the allegedly rip-off prices that he mentioned. Under interrogation the other day he palpably failed to do that.

Mr. Nicholls

My hon. Friend is exactly right and he anticipates the remarks that I shall make shortly. The Bill involves issues relating to liberty and people's capacity to pursue a humble calling in their own way without the nanny state bearing down on them. However, if I am not careful, my hon. Friend will lead me astray—quite unintentionally, I am sure—and divert me from the sequence of my argument.

A few moments ago, I was saying that guillotines have their place. Of course they do, otherwise I would not have voted for them over the years. However, there is no doubt that the authorities state plainly that the use of the guillotine is draconian. I have a list of all the measures that have been guillotined since 1945. I shall not detain the House by going through them at great length, but it is instructive to examine some to give an idea of the gravity of measures which justify guillotining.

In the 1946–47 Session, the Transport Bill and the iron and steel legislation were subject to the guillotine procedure, as was the Housing Rents and Repairs Bill in 1953. In the 1971–72 Session, the European Communities Bill was subject to a guillotine. Indeed, there could be no more appropriate measure to be guillotined, as it dealt with a major constitutional issue in a way which, in retrospect, we know was profoundly misjudged.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

Will my hon. Friend give the House an idea of how long those Bills were in Committee? Is he aware that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was in Committee for only 35 minutes, so probably deserved greater scrutiny on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Nicholls

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, one could make such a point without arguing for any particular brief on what the European Communities Bill did. At least it was acknowledged then that a draconian measure that would severely limit our ability to exert our sovereignty had been debated for a long time before being subject to a guillotine.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

rose—

Mr. Nicholls

I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.

Another Bill in the 1971–72 Session which was thought appropriate for the guillotine procedure was the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill. My hon. Friend is twitching.

Mr. Paterson

I wanted to intervene when the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was in the Chamber. Sadly, however, he has just left. My hon. Friend is getting dangerously close to the hon. Gentleman's argument that there is a case for guillotine motions on what he described as important measures. Does he agree that that puts power back in the hands of the Executive, as they, not Members of Parliament, decide what measures to introduce and which are important?

Mr. Nicholls

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that he was not criticising the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for leaving, as the hon. Gentleman has been in the House many years and sometimes has to leave in the middle of our deliberations.

The hon. Gentleman may have been here in 1972, when the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill was subject to a guillotine. In passing, as we remember from the history books, I am delighted that some hon. Members, perhaps including the hon. Gentleman, insisted on that procedure for that ludicrous legislation, which said that one could legislate and order prices to go down when the market was driving them up. It is quite understandable that such lunacy should have been subject to the guillotine.

Bringing matters up to date, crucial constitutional measures that have been guillotined recently include the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill and, since the last election, the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. The European Communities (Amendment) Bill was guillotined, demonstrating that Europe, or rather the European Union—at least for the time being—is always with us. The Government of Wales Bill, the Northern Ireland Bill and the Human Rights Bill were also guillotined. That Bill, which became the Human Rights Act 1998, needed to be guillotined to be driven through the House, and as the Government will discover in a few short months, it will play havoc with this country's legal system.

The list includes a number of substantial Bills dealing with the future of the country, its identity and its constitution. Joining the list of all those important Bills that have gone through the House since the war is the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. We are debating a proposal to guillotine a Bill dealing with the activities of hamburger salesmen. The Government say that if we accept that the Bill is correct in principle, no scrutiny is necessary.

Let us examine the matters that we shall consider tonight, after the guillotine motion has been approved—on the assumption that it is approved. We shall discuss the seizure provisions. Government Members may ask whether those matter. Yes, they do. There is a peculiar meanness about the way in which the provisions have been drafted. We are not dealing with major capitalists, extremely efficient makers of money or the nouveaux riches glitterati whose friends Labour Members are these days. We are speaking of people with a much humbler calling, who make a living selling hamburgers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the allocation of time for the Bill. We are not dealing with the content of the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Nicholls

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point, in summary, is that when we get to the detail of the Bill, we will see that we are speaking about depriving people of their livelihood. If we go down that road, we need time for the debate.

What would be lost by debating these matters in detail? After all, the time now is 9.16 pm. Speaking for myself, and perhaps for some of my hon. Friends, I do not expect to work normal office hours for the salary that the state pays me. Underlining the ethos of using the guillotine on tiny measures such as this Bill is the belief among Labour Members that debate, let alone debate out of office hours, is quite unnecessary.

There is even an hon. Lady who says that she will give up her membership of Parliament because she finds that it does not fit in with family life. I find it extraordinary that when we do a job as big as the job that we should be doing in the House—scrutinising legislation—hon. Members say that we should be paid an abnormally high salary for working normal office hours.

Even though the principle of the Bill is agreed, it contains measures that deserve to be scrutinised. The House should devote sufficient time to that. I do not see what the problem is. On several occasions in recent weeks, I and my hon. Friends have shown that we are prepared to spend the time necessary to consider Bills in detail. If Labour Members cannot be persuaded to scrutinise the legislation introduced by the Government— without anticipating the debate, I can say that the Bill has not been drafted with any great skill, to put it mildly—it is not too much to ask that they should at least make the case for it.

Perhaps the serried ranks of the Labour party are outside the Chamber, waiting to come in and make major speeches. Although my hon. Friends and I are outnumbered 3:1 in the House—I am thinking of quantity, rather than quality—there are two Labour Back Benchers present. They seem to be awake, but they are not moving, and I cannot tell whether they intend to speak. It is remarkable not only that Labour Members are not prepared to scrutinise the legislation, but that apparently they are not even prepared to make the case for it.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend is a parliamentary traditionalist, who has 17 years of experience in the House. He referred to the short debate that took place in Committee. Is he shocked by Labour Members' enunciation of an entirely new parliamentary doctrine: a Bill's brisk consideration in Committee somehow justifies a Government decision to truncate, through a guillotine, its consideration on Report? Does he agree that the Committee reports the Bill to the House and that hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee should have a proper opportunity to contribute to its consideration on Report?

Mr. Nicholls

My hon. Friend is right. He can make that point only because, before he entered the House of Commons, he knew something about the profession that he was entering. I shall embarrass my hon. Friend for a moment by pointing out that he has a degree in politics. However, I am sure that he agrees that, whatever length of time one has wanted to go into Parliament, and whatever trouble one has taken to equip oneself to understand the work, one does not realise until one arrives here exactly what the job entails.

Labour Members have been here for three years. They are better informed but clearly none the wiser. They should have realised by now that some constitutional proprieties mean that they should return home at the weekend and, instead of saying, "Feel sorry for me; I've had to work long hours for my £48,000 a year", claim, "I have scrutinised the Executive. I have responded to a Whip; we all do that, but I have also considered the legislation to ascertain whether I can make a private point to the Whips, out of the Opposition's hearing." That is not happening.

What passes for debate and scrutiny has been utterly reduced. The people speak; the Minister comes into the Chamber; she optimistically looks at the clock; she speaks about the force-feeding of the public with hamburgers in the royal parks. She thinks that she can simply walk off with her salary, which exceeds £80,000 a year, believing that she has done the job of a Minister of the Crown. The Minister yawns; it may be the tedium of my speech or the realisation that she will be here in the early hours of the morning. If we cannot make the Government behave as they should and scrutinise Bills; if we cannot win in the Lobby, we can at least expose the Government to the shame that they should feel for treating the House and their constituents with conspicuous contempt.

9.22 pm

Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)

In a previous debate, it was a considerable pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I feel less privileged on this occasion. However, I repeat the point that I made previously: the Government have gone way over the top in their response to apparent provocation by scheduling two guillotines and four Bills for one day. Liberal Democrats believe that that is the wrong response. We shall vote against the guillotine, which we believe is out of place. I deployed arguments for that in the previous debate.

Mr. Nicholls

How does the hon. Gentleman conclude that criticising Bills constitutes provocation whereas voting against them does not?

Mr. Stunell

The hon. Gentleman was so committed to resisting the Government that he was not present during the previous debate on a guillotine. Had he been here, he would have heard the case that I presented. I suggest that he has a quick look at Hansard tomorrow morning. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not take much pleasure in having it pointed out that he did not listen to the debate.

Mr. Nicholls

I have read it.

Hon. Members

We are talking about this evening.

Mr. Stunell

Indeed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Can we stop the interventions from sedentary positions and proceed in a more orderly fashion?

Mr. Stunell

I am happy to take interventions when appropriate. The debate on the guillotine on the first two Bills was enlivened by interventions by Labour and Conservative Members, who believed that I should explain an alternative way forward in more detail. I gave an undertaking to do precisely that during this debate. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, nods his head. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will think it in order for me to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and I have submitted a paper to the Modernisation Committee that suggests ways to deal with the immediate problems, starting from the Queen's Speech in November. The principles that we suggest could be applied to the remainder of the Session, if Members on both sides of the House were willing. We propose setting up a legislative business Committee, which would include all parties—Back Benchers and Front Benchers—the usual channels and representatives of minority parties. Immediately after the Queen's Speech, it would consider at what time during the year Bills should be introduced, in which House they would be most appropriately introduced and what would be a sensible time to allow for debate.

Let us deal head on with the overloading of the House. Whereas one of the Opposition's weapons against the Government is holding them to ransom on the day's timetable, one of the Government's weapons against the Opposition is holding us to ransom on the year's timetable so that we do not even know when the summer recess will begin, let alone when it will end.

Mr. Forth

In that great scheme of his, how would the hon. Gentleman cater for the regrettably ever more common eventuality that, after publishing a Bill in good faith and even undertaking a pre-legislative stage, the Government have to table several hundred amendments during proceedings? How would his neat consensual timetable deal with that?

Mr. Stunell

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue—the quality of the legislation that is introduced. The House has approved the proposal from the Modernisation Committee, which he so disparages, to ensure that far more Bills receive the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny, which involves not only hon. Members considering the legislation, but its being overhauled and reviewed with the benefit of outside evidence taken by a Select Committee.

No one can entirely legislate for Government error and fault. No one can entirely imagine everything that may go wrong and all the amendments that might be necessary, but I share a view with the right hon. Gentleman. If the Government have to abandon half a Bill in Committee—as happened with, for example, the Utilities Bill—and have to table a couple of hundred more amendments, the Liberal Democrats would take the view that different procedures should have been applied before it entered the legislative mill. The Chamber is not unlike a computer software slogan, "Rubbish in, rubbish out". If one begins with ill-considered, ill-drafted legislation, it is likely to remain so, however much we mess about with it.

If a legislative business Committee and adequate pre-legislative scrutiny were in place, many—but not all—of the problems that the House faces would be addressed and we could say, "This heavy legislative programme represents 35 or 40 weeks' work." However, after the Queen's Speech, we do not know in which month a Bill will be introduced or what consultation period will be involved, and there is a scramble to pass legislation before the summer recess. We cannot allow all that to continue.

The House has approved the possibility, in defined circumstances, of carrying legislation over into the following Session. That avoids another of the problems that we face: the somewhat light programme between the Queen's Speech and Christmas, a heavy Committee programme and the scramble as measures return from the House of Lords. Our system could hardly be better designed to ensure that we foul up, because we are rushing and scampering at the wrong times.

Surely, the aim of both Government and Opposition is to make certain that the legislation that emerges from this place is appropriate. The Opposition will want to challenge the principles of a Bill, and to ensure that the mechanics are right or, at least, favourable to the interests that they prefer; the Government will want to ensure that they produce working, workable legislation in a timely fashion. We do not obtain the best quality of government or of legislation from our current arrangements, which I would describe as boom-and-bust legislative procedures. It is filibuster and guillotine, boom and bust, and we have problems with both parts of that.

We oppose this guillotine, although, if these were any parks other than royal parks, any half-decent council would have referred the matter to the environmental health committee and it would have been sorted out in 10 minutes. What has happened in regard to the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill is no advertisement for Parliament. It is particularly strange in the light of yet another proposal submitted to the Modernisation Committee for the improvement of scrutiny of European legislation.

The hon. Members who have spent so much time talking about royal parks are the very ones who repeatedly complain here about the House's failure to control and monitor properly the flood of European legislation that arrives on our shores; yet it is they who prevented the Modernisation Committee from recommending the establishment of additional Select Committees to scrutinise such legislation. The reason given was that they did not have enough Conservative Members to staff the Committees. They have enough Conservative Members to keep us up talking about royal parks, but not enough to man Select Committees to scrutinise European legislation. One sometimes wonders if they deliberately design to fail: I can think of no better way of doing it.

Mr. Paterson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stunell

Certainly. Let us hear the explanation.

Mr. Paterson

May I point out that my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and I are all members of the European Scrutiny Committee?

Mr. Stunell

I am delighted to hear it, but apparently those hon. Members could not persuade enough of their colleagues to become members of the proposed additional Committees. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, I thought it made a good deal of sense for those scrutinising that flood of European legislation to be people who had developed a certain expertise on the topics concerned. I thought that it would be sensible to establish Committees that matched the directorates involved, so that such expertise could be built up. Indeed, I considered such a process to be not just sensible but highly necessary. I should have expected Conservative Members to be entirely committed to achieving that; yet, although they have time to spend on bogus amendments about royal parks, they have no time to join the additional European Committees. Although we shall oppose the guillotine on this particular pair of Bills, the actions of Conservative Members test even our patience considerably.

At the beginning of my speech, I outlined briefly a scheme that would enable the business of the House to be planned so that, more often than not, the problems that we face tonight would be automatically avoided. I also said something else. When Conservative Members wondered how a legislature could possibly get a tighter grip on an over-mighty Executive, I said that one way of doing that would be to have a fairly and proportionately elected Parliament. Their faces fell.

Executives in European Community countries and wider afield are far more beholden to their legislatures than the Executive of this country. The fundamental reason for that is the fact that in those countries there is no one-party domination. Conservative Members may not like that, but the fact that they do not like it does not mean that it is not true.

Mr. Fabricant

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thinks that guillotines would be avoided by having proportional representation. They would not. The Italian Parliament has guillotine motions. Why is the Italian Parliament putting to their people in a referendum a proposal to introduce a first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Stunell

We often hear such arguments. I would be more than happy to engage in a debate on proportional representation, but—

Madam Speaker

Not today.

Mr. Stunell

I anticipated that that would be your view, Madam Speaker. I would be delighted to have that debate on another occasion.

Instead of this guillotine motion, we should be discussing the serious, practical implementation of ideas that I am not putting to hon. Members for the first time, but which have already been before the House and approved but not implemented. That would get us a long way forward. Ideas have been discussed such as improved pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation and Standing Committees that draw much more strongly on the relevant Select Committee membership, so that Standing Committees considering Bills contain people who know what they are talking about.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, and I served on the Committee considering the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and if I may say so we had an unusually well-informed debate. If there was one thing that members of that Committee knew about it was political parties, and that greatly informed the discussion. I am afraid that that is not always so when hon. Members are allocated to Standing Committees.

We need to make better use of other agencies. Westminster Hall could be used for debates on Law Commission reports, for Adjournment debates, for holding Ministers to account and for debates on Select Committee reports. We even need a little self-discipline. Although there is no doubt that hon. Members have, and should continue to have, the right to use the procedures of the House to express their anger and outrage at what any Government are doing—long may that continue—we still require a little discretion, common sense and self-discipline so as not every time to use the shotgun or the sledgehammer to crack the nut.

These two debates have been made necessary by the Government, who have over-reacted to the situation. I suggest to Opposition Members that when we have genuine cause to hold up this or any other Government, we should use the procedure ruthlessly, but if every time we see a space, we fill it, the value of the genuine, deeply held and sometimes bitter opposition to a real issue gets completely hidden in the noise.

9.38 pm

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

I thank the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for having the courtesy to come here and propose the motion. That is something of a novelty, given our earlier proceedings. However, she did not sustain her argument that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill in particular—I attended the earlier stages of the debate on that Bill—should be subject to a guillotine. She merely said that it was an important Bill, and that the Government wanted it on the statute book.

The Minister failed to explain what was so important about the Bill that it required a timetable motion, and what enormous consumption of time had taken place which meant that the motion had to be introduced. She said that it was her preference to spend as little time as possible arguing about the timetable motion so that more time could be spent arguing about the substance of the Bill. That is a fairly honest and honourable position. However, there are times when the consideration of the guillotine motion is more important than the substance of the Bill that is to be guillotined—such is the enormity of a decision to curtail debate and to limit the free speech of Members and their ability to scrutinise a Bill, which is their primary role. Clear justification must be given for that. Frankly, that has been lacking tonight.

I do not dispute that the Government at times have a right to ask the House to support a timetable motion. It may be that a matter has been considered over a great length of time and that it is felt by the House that it should come to a decision and move on, but the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill has not been discussed for a great length of time. Those who were present in the House last Wednesday will, I think, agree that we were making progress and that the Government would have had their Bill that night. For some extraordinary reason, they decided to pull stumps at 10 o'clock, but they would have had the Bill that night. We were making progress. I have no doubt that we would have continued to make progress.

I fear that the timetable motion has more to do with the management of those on the Government Benches, and with addressing some of the concerns that they have raised privately with their Whips, than with delivering the Bill. I now fear that the Bill and its Third Reading will be longer in coming than would have been the case had we pursued the discussion last Wednesday night.

We were told that it was an important Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who has temporarily left the Chamber, was concerned that it represented an attack on small entrepreneurs. That was far from true, according to supporters of the Bill. They alleged that it was an assault on organised crime and the Mafia. That is all the more reason, therefore, for the Bill to receive greater and prolonged scrutiny—scrutiny that is now denied by the motion.

Earlier, a novel argument for the guillotine was introduced by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). He said that he had no objection whatever to sitting through the night on important measures such as the minimum wage legislation—if it was important Labour Members were prepared to put in the hours. I entirely accept that. However, he wanted a timetable motion because he was not prepared to sit through the night to discuss what he regarded as a consensual or smaller measure—I will not say an unimportant measure; I do not think that he meant that—or a measure of less weight, such as the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. He believed that such a measure should be guillotined.

As the hon. Gentleman developed his argument, he resiled from that position. He warmed to his theme and became so passionate at one stage that he struck the microphone, but he moved from his initial position and said that all Bills should be guillotined. Timetables should be applied to all Bills, but the length of time should depend on the importance of the Bill.

The question arises who is to determine the length of time, as has happened today. The length of time that the Bill will be discussed is a consequence of the timetable motion. The hon. Gentleman did not dwell on the mechanism by which it would be decided that a Bill was important, or the mechanism by which the time that it should have would be decided, but I did not have much confidence in his argument.

I remember when what I would regard as a very important Bill was guillotined—the Bill that put into English law the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty. It was not guillotined after prolonged scrutiny, and certainly not after prolonged speeches by Opposition Members. Indeed, the Member who spoke longest on that Bill was the Minister himself, who was none other than the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. It was he, if anyone, who spoke at length on that Bill. My view is that he did not speak overlong on the Bill. He certainly did not filibuster. He dealt with the Bill properly, but it was outrageous to curtail debate when he spoke for longer than anyone else. I therefore cannot have any confidence in his judgment that only important Bills should not be time restricted, whereas unimportant ones—perhaps such as the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill—should be so restricted.

I rather felt that the hon. Gentleman gave the game away in finishing his remarks, when he said, "By the way, we should do away with all this voting and vote just once a week. It can be announced that we should all be here on that day; then we could plan our timetables accordingly." That is when the cat came out of the bag. Undoubtedly, it would be for the convenience of some hon. Members if we turned up once a week, disposed of all our voting and did away with argument. However, this is not a congress of ambassadors. It is supposed to be a deliberative assembly, to which we come along to listen to the arguments nd then make our decisions.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made much of the need to make greater use of timetabling. However, I draw his attention to what happened during the passage of the Government of Scotland Act 1998, which was substantially timetabled and demonstrated the weaknesses of using that procedure. I also note that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who is a veteran of that Act's prolonged consideration, is now in the Chamber.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, previously agreed timetables are disrupted not only by the tabling of hundreds of Government amendments. Sometimes, it is only when we start the detailed scrutiny of a Bill that we have any inkling of potential problems with the legislation. Time and again as we considered the 1998 Act, some Labour Members were frustrated—it was not a question of delay or filibustering—by the timetable motion, which prevented them from debating and exploring in Committee previously unforeseen issues.

In our consideration of the 1998 Act, frequently the programme motion's effect—I do not think that it was deliberately so; in this case, I am certainly not a conspiracy theorist—was to silence the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Although I do not think that that was the intention of the timetable, often enough that was its effect. Those who advocate timetable motions should be clear that they will be silencing not only Opposition Members. Earlier in this Session, I watched with awe and much approval as a disciplined group of Labour Members dealt very effectively with opposed private business. If timetable motions were used more often, Labour Members would soon begin to fall foul of their provisions. I do not advocate going down that road.

As I said, my fear is that this timetable motion is more to do with the management of Labour Members' disgruntlement than with achieving the legislation. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary, who is essentially Deputy Leader of the House, to find a relatively small group of Labour Members who are prepared to stay on after 10 pm to deal effectively with the arguments that are made by the few Opposition Members who attend those debates. I believe that the Government would find it much easier to get their business by taking that path, rather than by continually pulling stumps, coming back and having to endure—as we shall today—two three-hour debates on timetable motions. I think that the Government would find it more expedient to pass legislation in that way than by using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

9.49 pm

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

Earlier, I had the privilege of hearing the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) speak about what Parliament is all about. This Parliament is all about the scrutinising and preparation of legislation. It is not a nine-to-five job.

Let me take the House back with an image from history. Imagine that it is the year 850. Dank mists lie over the water and all that can be heard is the regular swish-swash of oars from a longboat as it enters a misty inlet, which, in future, will be known by the Icelandic words for misty inlet—Reykjavik. Within 50 years, a Parliament was formed, called the Althing—the forerunner of our Parliament.

In 900 to 950, Norsemen, who later came via Scandinavia to colonise our country, as they had earlier, stood opposite a cliff and would debate not in a Parliament contained by a roof, but in a Parliament contained by the heavens. The acoustics were such that they used to shout at each other, aiming their voices at a cliff. Debates sometimes lasted two, three or four weeks. Chieftains would come from throughout the island of Iceland to speak at the Althing—a collection of individuals who debated the law. There was no written record—

Mr. Forth

And no guillotine.

Mr. Fabricant

More to the point, as my right hon. Friend says, there was no guillotine.

The point is that this Parliament follows in the tradition of the Althing—or it should. However, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has said, the Government have got themselves into a mess. They are over-legislating. As I said earlier, I remember being advised by—I hesitate to use the word—my mentor, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who was my pair in the days when we were allowed to have pairs. When the Conservative Government were not doing so well, he said that they should stop legislating and stand still. My advice to the Government, who are not doing well, is not to legislate—or at least not to over-legislate. That is what has got them into this mess.

Why have we got a guillotine motion? Is it because we have discussed the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill or the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill at length? No. The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was discussed for just 35 minutes in Standing Committee and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill was considered in two sittings for just two hours and three minutes.

Some might say that they are unimportant Bills, but we know that they are not. The Minister has told us that they are important Bills. So why are they being guillotined? Is it because the Government think that we would not otherwise complete all the stages this evening? I am convinced that if there were no guillotine and the Government were to agree to discuss the Bills through the night if need be, both Bills would receive Third Reading long before the sun rose over the horizon.

As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, we have a guillotine because Labour Members believe that being a Member of Parliament is a salaried job. But as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) so eloquently said earlier, this is not a place where one can do a nine-to-five job.

I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), who has just had twins. I appreciate that some people have other lives apart from the House of Commons. However, even in a nine-to-five job, one is expected to do the job. One cannot say to an employer, "I am now going to take a four-month leave of absence, but you must keep the job open for me. In the meantime, I want you to adapt your own practices, so that everything slows down because of me." It would be immoral to ask that of an employer. It is even more immoral to ask that of the state which pays our wages.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

I am interested in the description "nine-to-five job", which none of us wants. Was the hon. Gentleman against the Jopling recommendations? I cannot remember Conservative opposition in the last Parliament to the recommendations, particularly the recommendation that the amount of time spent in the House after 10 o'clock should be limited. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe that what we are advocating is all wrong, why was there not such opposition to Jopling at the time?

Mr. Fabricant

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. When I came into the House in 1992, I was bewildered by this place. I had come from industry, and I was not a Blair babe. I was a Major man, and I tended to vote with the Government. Rarely did I question the Government. I have to say that I am enjoying myself a darn sight more now that I am able to think for myself in opposition. I had my doubts about Jopling because I thought that it was conceivable that we might be in opposition some day. However, I voted with the Government because I was a Major man. I did not feel happy with the provisions of the Maastricht treaty but, like a good victim of the Whips, I voted for that, too.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)

Does my hon. Friend recall that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster)—a former Labour Chief Whip—made it clear that he had doubts about Jopling at the time? He has said explicitly that he only dropped those doubts—and that Labour only became prepared to accept Jopling—when the Labour party was convinced that it was going to win the election. There was no high principle involved; it was pure politics.

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend has made his point clearly. Of course it is a question of politics, organisation and trying to run this House like a legislation factory. However, that is wrong. Legislation is never perfect. There is a strange argument that if legislation is not contentious, we should not spend time over it. However, just because we might agree with the broad thrust of a Bill does not mean that its provisions may not be contentious or imperfect.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), That, at this day's sitting, the Motions on Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] and Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill (Allocation of Time) and Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Fabricant

Labour Members have tried to argue that Conservative Governments had guillotine motions, too, but there are two points to make in reply. First, two wrongs do not make a right. Secondly, if we accept that sometimes guillotine motions are not wrong, because matters can be debated at length on the Floor of the House and in Committee, it is worth examining how often different Governments have used them. My near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has made a detailed analysis. He said that during the Thatcher and Major years, the Conservative Government had 60 guillotine motions, but the Labour Government have had 50 in the past three years. It appears that the opinion of many journalists and parliamentarians that this Government are becoming more and more presidential, and less and less interested in what happens in the House, is borne out by their lack of compunction in using guillotine motions.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who sadly is no longer in her place, was right to point out that the people who dislike the way in which Parliament works should perhaps not have come here in the first place. Some people believe that when they are in Rome, they should do as the Romans do, but some hon. Members seem to believe that they should make the Romans do as they do. That is the fallacious argument that has been made by many Labour Back Benchers today.

It is interesting that those who argue for guillotine motions and a factory of legislation were not elected in 1992 or before. They were all new Members of Parliament in 1997, who are as bewildered as I was during the 1992– 97 Parliament. I can appreciate how they feel, because I too have had to sit on the Back Benches and vote with the Government because of the force of the Whips and my sense of duty to my party.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who is no longer in his place, spoke at some length in this debate and in the earlier timetable debate about what he would do, if in government, to try to ensure that legislation went through steadily. He said that the Government's legislation is going through boom and bust, but I think that it is going through bust and bust—just as I fear the economy soon will.

When I asked the hon. Member for Hazel Grove what he would do to prevent guillotines being imposed, he had no answer. However, the answer is obvious: if need be, we must be prepared to debate through the night. If the Government Whips had not pulled stumps at 10 o'clock last Wednesday, we could have finished business by 2 or 3 o'clock the next morning, at the latest.

Mr. Greenway

Or before.

Mr. Fabricant

Or before, as my hon. Friend rightly says.

This Bill must be debated fully. Parliament is a place where people scrutinise legislation and speak—

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)

On and on.

Mr. Fabricant

If necessary, they will go on and on and on, as the hon. Gentleman says. However, I give way to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who always makes welcome interventions.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

The hon. Gentleman has called me unkind in the past, so I will not be unkind to him tonight. Does not he agree that we might get through our debates faster if our speeches were terse and to the point?

Mr. Fabricant

The hon. Gentleman is right. I shall be terse and to the point when I contribute to the Third Reading debates on these Bills.

Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)

For the first time.

Mr. Fabricant

That is very unfair. When I want, I can speak to the point, but sometimes we must expand on the role of Parliament. Too many people believe that Parliament is not a talking shop, and that we should not scrutinise legislation. They believe that hon. Members should merely vote, unthinkingly, according to the wishes of their Whips.

Mr. Bercow

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister for the Arts wants to truncate scrutiny of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill because he lacks evidence about the pricing policies of burger sellers and the nutritional—or other—properties of their products?

Madam Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go down that route.

Mr. Fabricant

I shall not go down that route, especially as it has been said that bird droppings—

Madam Speaker

Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman not to go down that route. He should concentrate on the motion before the House.

Mr. Fabricant

I draw the House's attention to the Parks Regulation Act 1872, which defines which parks are royal. We should have to debate the Bill for much more than a couple of hours if all the hon. Members with royal parks in their constituencies were present tonight. The Act states that the royal parks are Hyde park, St. James's park, Green park—known as "the" Green park in 1872—Kensington gardens, Parliament Square gardens, Regent's park, Kennington park, Primrose hill, Victoria park, Battersea park, Greenwich park, Kew gardens—including the pleasure grounds and the green there—Hampton Court park, gardens and green, Richmond park and green, Bushy park, Holyrood park, and Linlithgow Peel.

I must confess to my ignorance in not knowing whether Linlithgow Peel is in Scotland, Ireland or Northern Ireland. I suspect that it is not in England—but where are the hon. Members associated with those royal parks? They are not in the Chamber.

Mr. Swayne

Is it my hon. Friend's estimate that the provisions of that Act are in any way co-measurate with the provisions of the Bill that will be before us after the debate on the motion? How long did it take for that Act to pass through its stages compared with the time that we are being allowed in which to discuss this Bill?

Mr. Fabricant

I was going to refer to my hon. Friend, but as he has asked me a question to which I have no answer, I must refer to him as the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that I do not know. The Parks Regulation Bill became an Act on 27 June 1872—I do not have its Committee stage here. Interestingly, it was printed not by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, but by George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode. That is a good example of privatisation before HMSO was founded.

I believe that under no circumstances would the 1872 Act have been guillotined when it was still a Bill. It would have been scrutinised for far longer than the mere 35 minutes that this Bill received in Committee, or the 43 minutes that the Second Reading debate took.

Mr. Swayne

The argument has been advanced this evening that the very fact that the Committee stage was so short is an argument for curtailing the Bill's remaining stages. Does my hon. Friend agree that the shorter the Committee stage, the greater the care that those of us who wish to scrutinise the remaining stages should take?

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend—the House will note that I am once again referring to him as an hon. Friend—is right.

It has been said that a number of amendments to the Bill were tabled on the Floor of the House just to be contentious. That is not the point. I do not know how many people served on the Standing Committee considering the Bill, but I know that there are 639 Members of Parliament—[Interruption.]—or rather, 659. I am showing my age. Actually, I was deducting 20 to take into account those who cannot take part in debate because they are Whips or work with the Speaker.

The remaining Members of Parliament may think of amendments that they want to table but are unable to do so unless they served on the Standing Committee. To accuse Conservative Members, as Ministers have done, of being provocative or trying to waste time by tabling amendments today is a disgrace and an abuse of the House.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend refers to the scurrilous criticism that amendments and new clauses have been tabled "to be contentious". Will he confirm the important point that, for many Opposition Members, contentiousness does not need to be contrived when it is natural?

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend, eloquent as ever, states the obvious. When legislation is badly drafted, one needs to be contentious to improve it.

Mr. Bermingham

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When a Bill is uncontested on Second Reading and flows through its Committee stage uncontested, is it not an abuse of the process of the House to table spurious amendments and make stupid interventions and silly points in order to prolong proceedings?

Madam Speaker

Spurious amendments may have been tabled, but all the amendments that were selected by this Speaker are perfectly in order.

Mr. Fabricant

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In fact, the hon. Gentleman will see that the selection list refers to the Speaker's provisional selection of amendments. That is the point. Perhaps more amendments were tabled, I do not know. However, the fact that they will come before the House today demonstrates that they should have been discussed in Committee. If they were not, it is right and proper that we discuss them on the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

Does my hon. Friend consider that Government new clause 2, in respect of the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill is a spurious amendment, to quote the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham)?

Mr. Fabricant

That is something that we shall have to debate. Sadly, we shall not be able to do so at length. The abuse of the House is not my debating these issues this evening but the imposition of the guillotine. I suspect that we shall have only an hour to debate six clauses and three groups comprising one new clause and five amendments. That is surely an abuse of the House.

Mr. Greenway

I am becoming a little concerned that my hon. Friend might think that the Committee did not pay sufficient regard to the Bill, given the time that we took to consider it. I give him the assurance that that is not the case. New clause 2 has been tabled by the Government at the request of the Opposition.

Mr. Fabricant

That was a helpful intervention. It demonstrates that the Government have much to learn from the Opposition. Why is it that the Government think that they can learn from the Opposition only in Committee and not on the Floor of the House? How much more could they learn were we able to debate these issues until 4, 5, 6 or 7 am? We might be able to continue right through until Wednesday. We have learned that the Prime Minister is taking parental leave, and we could continue through Prime Minister's Question Time, as we did once before.

Mr. Swayne

Am I correct in understanding that my hon. Friend said earlier that these matters should have been considered by the Committee? I think that I am quoting him correctly. Is he criticising the Committee for not having done its duty thoroughly? If that is so, is it his contention that the motion could have been avoided if the Committee of Selection had attended properly to its task?

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend takes me down an interesting line of reasoning which I think I would be wise not to pursue. However, two heads are better than one. I do not know how many Members served on the Committee, but let us say that there were 11. Given that there are 639 Members able to speak in the House, as opposed to a total membership of 659, surely they constitute a better body of opinion than 11 Members.

As perfect as the Committee undoubtedly was and as talented as all its members undoubtedly were, it would not be unreasonable to say that they would not be able to think of every improvement that could be made to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has said, it is so easy to be contentious when dealing with Government Bills. Even the Government are contentious when it comes to their Bills. We have only to remember the Utilities Bill, half of which had to be torn up and thrown away. The remaining half was improved by the Government, who had to introduce new clauses that, when put together, were as big the original Bill.

Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole)

I was a member of the Committee that considered the Utilities Bill. We sent it back on the ground that it did not do that for which it was intended because the Government had messed it about. I was a member also of the Committee that considered the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). During our consideration of it we put some good points to the Government. Only today I have received comments from the Minister, saying how grateful she is to us for making those points. Our suggestions should have gone into the Bill at that earlier stage. That flies in the face of what the Government are doing.

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend makes a serious point. When the House is working at its best, we co-operate to try to improve legislation. Both these Bills are non-contentious. Both sides want them to succeed. However, that does not mean that they should simply receive a Third Reading. They must be workable, just and correct. It is not unreasonable that amendments should be debated fully and, if necessary, at length. When the Government say, "No, we object to true democracy in the House of Commons", we must question their presidential attitude. The House of Commons is here to scrutinise legislation. It is not here to be timetabled.

Mr. Paterson

My hon. Friend should not give the House the impression that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill is not contentious. We are talking about extending the power of the law and the confiscation of private property. Surely our first role is to defend citizens from an over-mighty state.

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend makes his point in his way, but I am not sure that I agree. No doubt we shall discuss the point when we discuss the Bill, although we shall not do so at length because of the guillotine. I am a free marketeer and libertarian, but the basic principle of the Bill is to provide the same powers to the parks police as the Metropolitan police already have. In that way, traders will not simply be displaced from one area to another.

Mr. Maclean

With respect to my hon. Friend, has he not missed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)? It is not so much the substance of the Bill that we are questioning under the guillotine motion as the fact that its consideration has been largely completed already. Only one amendment remains to be discussed in full, as well as a group of amendments that we were more than half way through. Can my hon. Friend recall a case in which a Government imposed a guillotine when so little remained to be debated on a Bill that had almost completed its Report stage? We could probably have completed the Bill last week if the Government had not slipped in a statement that day.

Mr. Fabricant

My right hon. Friend is correct, of course. I was present when we debated the Bill until the Government decided to cease consideration at 10 o'clock. Only two groups of amendments remain for discussion, including the one on the power of seizure, retention and disposal of property that we were half way through. After that, there remains a single amendment to do with counterfeit goods. We had no votes on the Bill, so keen were we that it should proceed rapidly. There is general agreement that the House wishes the Bill to be enacted once it has been made good, fair, accurate and just.

At present, however, the Bill is none of those things. Nor is the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill. We all want people aged over 75 to have free television. Indeed, I must declare an interest because my mother is 89, alive and well, and living in Lichfield. She is looking forward to not having to pay for her television licence. [Interruption.] For the record, I should say that she does not live with me in Lichfield, as some hon. Members have suggested.

The Bill needs to be discussed at length. One group of amendments relates to offences and penalties. There is potential for gross intrusion. The previous Government introduced the Data Protection Act 1988, and there is some doubt about whether the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill breaches the principle of that Act. It will give private organisations access to information contained on databases which are maintained by the Department of Social Security and which were previously regarded as secure.

These are important issues. Yes, we want the outcome to be that people aged over 75 should have free television licences. I am certainly keen that traders should not be displaced either from parks on to public streets or vice versa. However, we must get the measures right. Is it so unreasonable to say in the House of Commons that we want legislation to be right?

What do the Government say? They say no. They say that we must decide on all those measures quickly, even though there are several contentious issues, and even though, time and again, the Government get their own legislation wrong. We saw that with their introduction of new clauses on these Bills and on previous measures.

In conclusion—because my voice is giving up on me—the Government have an unhappy record on legislation. They try to railroad it through, like some victorious power; they are heedless of democracy and of what is right. However, while doing that, they cannot achieve quality; time after time, they have to correct their legislation—usually at a late stage.

It would be in the Government's interest not to impose a guillotine on these measures, because only with time do they find out that their legislation is fallacious. Was it not a year after the Opposition made criticisms of the Utilities Bill that those criticisms finally seeped through to the Department of Trade and Industry and into the mind of the Secretary of State? It took a whole year.

I am not suggesting that we spend a year discussing either of the Bills, but I am arguing that we should debate them properly. There was a teacher who always used to interrupt me when I was giving a little discourse to my class—like certain Labour Members who intervene on me to try to shut me up, but that tends to make me speak for even longer, because interventions make people talk longer. I suspect that the Government would find that, if the legislation were not guillotined and they had not drawn stumps, we should have held the Third Reading debate more than a week ago.

The measure is imperfect. An imperfect Government are trying to force through far too much legislation too quickly—it is deficient and has to be corrected. The use of the guillotine 50 times in three years, compared with 60 times in 11 years when we were in government, demonstrates clearly that the Government are not concerned with democracy. They are not interested in Parliament. They make announcements to the press before they make them to the House. They try to sideline Westminster.

Power is centred more and more on Whitehall, but the electorate are listening. They are watching; they have seen through the Government. Every time the Government make an announcement, the electorate say, "What, again? More money? We don't believe it because we don't see it." Perhaps a year from now, just before the election, money will be announced and the Government will be telling the truth, but no one will believe them—

Madam Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way now. A moment ago, I thought he was in his peroration.

Mr. Fabricant

To conclude, the bypassing of Parliament achieves nothing. In the short term, it results in imprecise legislation. In the long term, the public see through it. In two or three years' time—under a Conservative Government—the legislation will come back and we shall have to correct it, because, when the Labour Government railroad legislation through, they consistently get it wrong.

10.29 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The length of a speech and its quality are not entirely related. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) should take a leaf out of the book of Abraham Lincoln and his Gettysburg address, which took less than five minutes. It echoed down the ages because of its content.

I do not complain that the debate on the motion promises to be rather longer than the debates on the substance of the Bills. The management of legislation is in many ways more important than its substance. I only regret that, in speaking against the guillotine, Conservative Members' views have been sustained by such weak arguments. It is peculiar to latch on to these two instant Bills to make such points.

The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill owes its genesis to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). He was a member of the Standing Committee and expressed himself to be more than content with the way in which the Bill had been introduced. In so far as he had any criticisms to make—and he made them—he expressed considerable irritation that the Bill had not been introduced earlier and had not been dealt with more expeditiously. His absence speaks eloquently of his irritation at the performance and gyrations of some Conservative Members who have done so much to prevent the Bill from becoming law.

Mr. Maclean

The right hon. Gentleman is correct in so far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was concerned about the delays in getting the Bill to the House. The Government caused those delays last year because of the time it took them to get the private Member's Bill that my right hon. Friend introduced through the legislative process. Unfortunately, he had to introduce his Bill late in the Session and it did not receive a Second Reading. His concerns were caused by delays in the Government machine. The Government approved a Bill which they eventually decided was uncontentious.

Mr. Maclennan

I wish I could say that it is a novel idea to suggest that delays caused by the Government are wrong, while those caused by the Opposition are right. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster complained about delay, and the Bill has been considerably delayed more than necessary by the antics of Conservative Members.

Mr. Bercow

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Government that brief consideration of a Bill in Standing Committee justifies the imposition of a guillotine on Report, or does he agree with the Opposition that such consideration justifies no such thing?

Mr. Maclennan

In this case, the short time it took to consider the Bill in Committee and the absence of significant representations to those on the Committee—I was one of them—suggested that the people most directly affected by its provisions were not greatly perturbed. The Bill was widely perceived to meet a need. It might even have been desirable to have it on the statute book before the summer recess when people visit the royal parks—

Mr. Paterson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan

Let me finish my sentence. I do not want to make a speech that is much longer than Lincoln's at Gettysburg. However, as I have been interrupted, I will give way.

Mr. Paterson

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Had he been here at 10 o'clock last Wednesday night, he would have seen that we were well on the way to completing the Bill's report stage. Very few Members wished to speak and if the 10 o'clock motion had been moved and a Government Whip had not arbitrarily interrupted the debate, the Bill would probably have sailed on and been given a fair wind. It was unnecessary to stop proceedings at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Maclennan

The 10 o'clock rule exists to enable the Government to conclude proceedings if that seems appropriate to them and to the House. I belong to the school of thought that, on the whole, it makes more sense for proceedings to conclude at 10 o'clock than to go on beyond that.

I remember my late friend, John Mackintosh, the former Labour Member of Parliament for Berwick and East Lothian, serving notice on the then Labour Government, whom he mostly supported, that if they were so unwise as to bring on legislation after 10 o'clock, they could not count on his support. That view weighed heavily with the Government as they had a very small majority, and they almost invariably paid attention to what he said. In fact, he almost established a convention of the House.

I am concerned that, because the present Government do not have a small majority—indeed, they have an almost unprecedentedly large majority—they will plough on regardless because no one is prepared to put their foot down and say, at 10 o'clock, "Enough is enough." I think that enough is enough. I am fortified in that view by what I read in today's Evening Standard, where the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Buckingham, Mr. George Walden, talks of how the public have increasingly lost sympathy with the House and ceased to see it as the cockpit of major national debate, not least because of its inability properly to manage its business and because it goes on debating matters into the night.

I do not want to take too much issue with the hon. Member for Lichfield, who was indulging his wit.

Mr. David Taylor

What?

Mr. Maclennan

After-dinner speeches are supposed to be light and entertaining, and the hon. Member for Lichfield fell firmly into that category.

Mr. Fraser

Can the right hon. Gentleman, who is giving us a Cook's tour of parliamentary procedure, explain why, in recent Committee proceedings on the Utilities Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill, which I attended, his colleagues tabled amendments but did not bother to turn up to move them? How does that help the parliamentary process that he is describing?

Mr. Maclennan

Curiously enough, I am addressing the two Bills that are before the House and whether or not a guillotine motion should be employed in this instance. I am not aware of what the hon. Gentleman has described and I cannot see that it is relevant to the discussion. The relevant question is whether this is the best way to manage the business of the House.

It is time that the Opposition got together with the Government and took up the idea of a legislative procedure Committee in which we seek agreement about how to deal with these matters. It is plain nonsense that we should be subject to the silly behaviour that characterised the consideration of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill at an earlier stage on the Floor of the House, provoking an almost equally unacceptable attempt by the Government to curtail debate. That is not a rational way to deal with these matters, and it is time for the House to grow up and recognise that we are simply switching off the public with these performances. We may greatly entertain ourselves—hon. Members on both sides of the House are here because they have been told that they are required to be here, so they make the proceedings light and amusing for themselves—but that attitude to what is essentially an issue of public policy is too self-interested and self-centred.

Mr. Bercow

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Buckinghamites naturally tend to protect each other. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my predecessor, who in many ways is an admirable and distinguished fellow. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not claiming that my predecessor, Mr. George Walden, was supporting the application of the guillotine on these two Bills? Parliament is held in low esteem, perhaps even in public opprobrium, not because of its consideration of these Bills, but because Ministers and Government Back Benchers rarely attend, could not care less what people think, and despise the traditions of this distinguished House.

Mr. Maclennan

The former hon. Member for Buckingham made a better plea than I could in this matter, and he gave a great deal of thought to it. I recommend the article to his successor and suggest that he read it. The former hon. Member did not address the subject of guillotines. What he addressed, squarely, was the issue of the House failing to manage its business in a way that makes sense to the public. In particular, he referred to holding debates after 10 pm. It is not a rational response on the part of his successor to go down the route that he is following tonight.

Mr. David Taylor

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it not ambitious to expect the official Opposition to sign up to the principles of rational debate? Is that not as likely as a group of sumo wrestlers signing up to Weight Watchers?

Mr. Maclennan

I live in hope. I have listened to Conservative Members in the House and outside advancing arguments—more often, perhaps, when in opposition than when in government—for the sensible management of debate.

I served on the Hansard Society committee on the reform of the legislative process, which was chaired by Lord Rippon, a former Member of Parliament for Hexham. That committee put forward ideas that I would commend to the present Administration. They were supported by people of all parties and none as being the way forward.

I grant, and it has always been granted, that Oppositions—I have served more in opposition than in government—have some fear of the loss of time being the loss of an opportunity to hold the Government to account. None the less, the factious use of time simply discredits the process of opposition and makes it seem irrelevant.

When a couple of Bills on which both sides are united on the substance lead to such a partisan exchange, it exacerbates the public disaffection—the switch-off factor. It would be sensible for us all to recognise that before it is too late—before the only serious debates in this country are those that take place not in the Chamber, but with people such as Andrew Marr, Robin Oakley or John Sergeant mediating them. I should prefer to have those debates in the House, under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and under the chairmanship of the Speaker. This is where we want to hear it happen, but we must have a sense of proportion in deciding which are the big issues. Maastricht has been cited this evening, as has the Scotland Bill. Those were major issues that required and received lengthy debate, but if we inflate matters such as the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill in the way that occurred tonight and last week, I am afraid that we will go on losing the confidence and respect of the public whom we are trying to serve.

10.44 pm

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch)

I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in relation to today's news. Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are on the Front Bench. The big news that most people are talking about today is the additional £29 million to be given to the dome. Many of my constituents object strongly to that, yet the House has had no opportunity to discuss it. I believe that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross made a similar point, with which I agree.

I could not follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill because that measure did not receive its Second Reading until after 10 pm. I am surprised that he did not object to that. It would not have happened under a Conservative Government. It was a convention under the previous Government that a Second Reading debate would not start after 10 pm. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman tried to make that point.

The Minister's introduction to the debate included specious arguments. She argued that there was an urgent demand for the television licences measure to get on to the statute book. It may now be urgent, but that is because the Government delayed earlier. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has left, but those of us who practised as barristers recall a time when many papers, which had been sitting in chambers for longer than they should, changed from routine to urgent. That meant that they had been overlooked, not that an emergency had occurred. If the Minister meant that the Bill was an emergency measure, I remind hon. Members that it has not been pushed through the House on that basis.

Having had a rather leisurely Second Reading debate after 10 pm, the Bill went into Committee. The first day the Committee sat, it spent only half an hour considering the matter before it adjourned and returned after Easter. That is hardly indicative of extreme urgency.

Mr. Fraser

Does my hon. Friend agree that a perfectly adequate ten-minute Bill, which was supported by Conservative Members, was introduced last year to tackle the same issue? Had it been accepted, the Government would not have had to introduce a Bill in such a politically expedient way.

Mr. Chope

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) introduced a ten-minute Bill which was supported by all parties, but not the Government Front Bench. If the Government were not so proud or foolish, they could have accepted the Bill, which would be on the statute book by now—and 11,000 of my constituents, who will benefit from free licences for those aged over 75, would already be benefiting.

Mr. Bercow

We have reached a significant point in our deliberations. My hon. Friend says that the House's time, which Labour Members claim so jealously to guard, has been frivolously wasted for no other or better reason than the hubris of Ministers.

Mr. Chope

My hon. Friend is right, as he invariably is. We are considering a serious issue. The more the Government believe that they can push through measures by use of the guillotine, the less attention they will give to whether the Bills should have been introduced in the first place and whether they should have been piecemeal measures.

We would not be discussing the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill if someone had thought more seriously about whether we required a Bill that embraced the needs of Westminster, the royal parks and perhaps other local authority areas. One Bill could have covered all those subjects. Instead, the City of Westminster Bill was introduced in the previous Session and the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill has been introduced in this Session.

We learn from a previous debate that there is every prospect of other local authorities calling for even more legislation because the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the City of Westminster Act 1999 will result in displacement of anti-social behaviour to other local authorities. That means that more prime time in the House will be taken up. That could have been avoided if the Government had considered matters in advance. The Minister's argument about the need for urgency does not wash.

Last November, the Chancellor announced that all over-75s would be given a free television licence this autumn, but pensioners are to receive their licence rather later than many of them expected. That is so often the case with the Government. Be that as it may, free licences will be introduced on 1 November, but, by all accounts, arguments about who would administer the scheme were still taking place in Whitehall in the early months of this year. There would have been no need for the Bill had the Government adopted the common-sense proposition that the over-75s—effectively, the generation of law-abiding, God-fearing citizens that served this country so well in the war—could be trusted to own a television without a licence. There would have been no need for this bureaucracy.

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman must discuss the allocation of time motion, not the Bill's merits.

Mr. Chope

I was not seeking to discuss the Bill's merits and I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Government could have achieved their objective without legislating. Had they given that more thought, less of our time would have been wasted in considering the Bill.

I look forward to the Minister's explanation of why the first sitting of the Committee considering this urgent legislation lasted only half an hour; the second lasted only an hour and a half. Had it met for a full sitting, consideration could have been completed and the Bill could have returned to the House much sooner.

Mr. Swayne

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) suggested that greater use be made of pre-legislative scrutiny, which would rely greatly on the expertise of Select Committees. Is it my hon. Friend's estimate that scrutiny of the Bill in Committee would have been much more exhaustive had such a procedure been applied? Therefore, the timetable motion would not have been required.

Mr. Chope

I take my hon. Friend's point; the timetable motion is not required. It represents a macho exercise by the Government—an attempt to satisfy some of their Back Benchers by making a point against my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). That is unnecessary. We know perfectly well that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was being discussed last Wednesday—I was speaking to amendment No. 6—and I expected the 10 o'clock motion to be moved by the Government, which would have allowed me to finish my speech and the House to complete its consideration of that important measure. After hearing the Government's reply, we could have dealt with the remaining amendment and proceeded to Third Reading.

Mr. Maclean

Will my hon. Friend comment on the rumour, which was awash in the House that night, that, incompetently, the Government had put Labour Members on a one-line Whip, they had all gone home and were not in the House to vote? The Government did not want the debate to go beyond 10 o'clock because they knew that there may have been a vote on amendment No. 6.

Mr. Chope

I remember discussing that point with my right hon. Friend on that occasion. If one thinks of these proceedings as a game, Conservative Members missed a trick: we were concentrating too hard on the merits of the Bill and not thinking enough about strategy and tactics.

Mr. Bercow

If the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill was so uncontentious that it required minimal consideration in Committee, why have the Government only now tabled new clause 2? Did that not occur to them before? If not, why not?

Mr. Chope

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had a chance to read the Committee proceedings, but I have. It is clear from those proceedings that, as a result of comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), the Minister said that she would think about that point. To give her credit, she did think about it and recognised that it was a good point, and that is now reflected in new clause 2.

It has been suggested that the whole purpose of the Report stage of Bills is merely to consider a good many more detailed amendments. We know perfectly well that one of the few opportunities that often arise in the House for the discussion of major issues results from the introduction of new clauses on Report. That is why, on Report, new clauses take priority over amendments. On many a criminal justice Bill, issues relating to, for instance, capital punishment have been presented on Report and we have engaged in major debates here, some of which have lasted all day. The idea that we should curtail Report stages because they are an unimportant part of the legislative process is a dangerous one: it could result in the conferring of substantially more power to the Executive and to the power of the legislature—the true representatives of the people—being much diminished.

Mr. Maclean

My hon. Friend speaks of the importance of considering new clauses. Would he care to reflect on the fact that four of the new clauses selected by the Speaker—from which we assume that they are not bogus or spurious, but are genuine new clauses worthy of debate here—were tabled by Opposition Members, including me, and one was tabled by the Government? In those circumstances, is it not outrageous to curtail debate on these important new clauses?

Mr. Chope

I entirely agree. It is outrageous to curtail debate in this way, and it need never have happened. At the end of tonight's proceedings, we shall probably find that more time has been spent overall on discussing allocation of time motions than would have been spent on discussing the substantive issues contained in the Bills had the Government not tabled those motions. I find it depressing that the Government felt it necessary to table them to try to satisfy their Back Benchers.

Mr. Maclean

It is a question of pique.

Mr. Chope

It shows that the Government no longer command the respect of their Back Benchers and are having to throw them titbits every now and again to try to keep them satisfied. That is an astonishing way to behave, given that the Government have such a large majority.

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend will have read in The Times—this is pertinent to the motion—that several Labour Members will be standing down after serving just one term. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government's motive in imposing guillotine motions such as this—although they destroy the democracy in which we currently serve—is to keep Blair babes, and others who are going to have twins, in the House of Commons?

Mr. Chope

My hon. Friend made some excellent comments earlier about "Major's men", a gang of which he was a proud member.

Mr. Bercow

He voted for Redwood.

Mr. Chope

My hon. Friend does not want that to be put on the record—[Interruption.] As for Blair's babes, I am the last person who can comment usefully. When I was at school, I was asked to write an essay on the proposition "A Woman's Place is in the Home". I think I was the only person in my year who divided the proposition into different stages in a woman's life. Would it, for example, be appropriate for her to be at home looking after young children and to go out to work later? But perhaps I am straying a bit from the subject of tonight's debate.

The Government had an opportunity to introduce the television licences legislation earlier, if indeed they needed to introduce it at all, but they are now trying to force the Bill through urgently. The Minister said on Second Reading that issues related to the total cost of administering the scheme for free licences would be brought out during the debate in Committee. It is my understanding that those issues have not yet been brought out, and we could have legitimately raised that on Third Reading. I hope that we shall still be able to discuss that during the Third Reading debate, which will be much curtailed as a result of the Government's allocation of time motion.

My constituency contains some 11,000 pensioners over 75, which is more than in any other parliamentary constituency in the country. They are eager to find out how the new scheme for television licences will be administered. Hon. Members will be deprived of the opportunity to raise those issues on Third Reading.

Under the terms of the allocation of time motion, I expect to be able to speak further on amendment No. 6 to the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, which I was speaking to when the House adjourned at 10 o'clock last Wednesday. The major point that has emerged from today's proceedings on these allocation of time motions is that the Government are guilty of proliferating piecemeal legislation. That is the root cause of the problem over the Government's timetable and the allocation of time motions for debating these Bills.

The provisions of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill could have been included in a consolidated measure in common with the City of Westminster Act 1999. If the Government were less regulatory minded, we could have achieved the objective of allowing people aged over 75 to watch television without paying a licence fee, without any need for the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill or the bureaucracy it creates, which will cost some £24 million. Interestingly, that sum is not dissimilar to the extra £29 million that the Government have awarded to the dome—a cause that has little sympathy among the general public.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Those matters are nothing to do with the timetable motion.

Mr. Chope

I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

11.3 pm

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

It is a great pleasure to be called in the debate, and I shall be as brief as I can, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak and time is short.

This is a completely unnecessary guillotine motion. I was here at 10 o'clock on Wednesday last week. Few Labour Members were present. Progress was being made. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was speaking to amendment No. 6, and the debate was going smoothly. Serious points had been made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). To my astonishment, the Labour Whip closed proceedings down and moved the motion that the House be adjourned. That was completely unnecessary. It was a symptom of the fact that the Government and Government Whips in particular have lost control of their Back Benchers. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Maclean

The Back Benchers had gone home.

Mr. Paterson

They had. They wanted to go to bed. I wonder what their constituents think about that. Why were those Members sent here? The debate has been most interesting because it has thrown up major differences on either side of the House. I regard it as a huge honour to be elected to the House. I am allowed to stand here and to say what I like. I am one of 659 people with an enormous privilege: to come here and to speak. That is what Parliament is all about.

I might be a bit of a traditionalist. The first Parliaments were held in Acton Burnell and Shrewsbury in Shropshire. I regard it as a retrograde step that, soon after, Parliament moved to Westminster and has been here ever since. There is always hope that it might move back to Shrewsbury. It is unlikely, but I am prepared to travel from Shropshire to speak, to represent the people of North Shropshire, to say what I think about matters and to give my judgment. I may be wrong. I may be laughed at. I may be shouted down, but that is my role as a Member of Parliament.

I find it extraordinary because people have gone to such trouble to get in here. We all know it because we have all been through the process. We all had to go through the party system, to fight our duff seat, to be councillors and to work our way through our party machines to get in here. It is a long hard slog to become a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)

Is not the Government's behaviour a much more worrying and sinister phenomenon than my hon. Friend suggests? Is it not a fact that they have become so arrogant with their enormous majority that they do not feel that they need to listen to parliamentary opinion any more? If the going gets a bit rough, they know that they can always pull stumps and guillotine the measure through with their vast docile majority.

Mr. Paterson

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, which I shall come to. The Government do take advantage of their huge majority. My hon. Friend is right. What I find extraordinary is that many Labour Members are here on a temporary stay. They will not be here for more than one Parliament.

Mr. David Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible to reconcile the view that we have just heard—that the Government have a large docile majority—with his own view that the reason for the timetabling of the legislation is because the Government have lost control of that large docile majority?

Mr. Paterson

The Government are lazy. It is as simple as that. They are lazy in imposing discipline on their troops. We see that. There are ridiculous objections to the time here. In an earlier debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out that, on Friday morning, he was here from 9 o'clock until 2.30. I was here in the later stages of that debate. Surely those qualify as civilised hours for a debate, according to all the criteria of the new Labour luvvies. Surely they can all get out of bed in time to be here by 9.30.

Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paterson

I am delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North.

Mr. Marsden

South, actually.

I have been listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he not agree that it is perhaps a sign occasionally of greater maturity among Labour Members that many of them prefer—and, indeed, need—to spend Fridays in their constituencies listening to and representing their constituents, rather than sitting in this place and listening to some of the waffle that we have heard this evening?

Mr. Paterson

That is an important contribution because it shows the difference between the attitudes on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that he should be visiting his constituency. He should be concerned with his constituents. That is right, but I feel that too many Labour Members are obsessed with face-to-face meetings with their constituents and not with their equal responsibilities here: passing laws that make very important decisions affecting the civil liberties of the citizens of this country.

Mr. Maclean

Is it not the case that, now, almost every second Friday is a non-sitting Friday to enable Members to visit their constituencies and to meet constituents, but that, when we do have sitting Fridays, there is important business before the House? We had two Bills on Friday, which we passed. One was promoted by a Conservative Member and the other by a Labour Member. There was total support from both Front-Bench teams and from hon. Members on both sides of the House. One Bill dealt with the freedom of patients to have doctors' practice investigated. The other tightened up on animal cruelty. It was not waffle or rubbish that Members dealt with on that important Friday, when the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) could not be bothered to be here.

Mr. Paterson

My right hon. Friend makes his point with his usual eloquence. On Friday, he was in the Chamber, speaking and proposing sensible amendments that have improved those two Bills.

It is most important that Labour Members should consider their role. They are more than county councillors or district councillors. Although councillors have a very worthwhile occupation, there is an awful lot more to being an hon. Member than acting as a councillor, by only holding surgeries and paying attention to constituents' nitty-gritty details. Members of Parliament have another role and that role is performed here in the Chamber—by speaking up for constituents.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, South has rights that the 70,000-odd people whom he represents do not have.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has to speak to the timetable motion, not remind us of the duties of Members of Parliament. Most of us know those duties.

Mr. Forth

Those Labour Members do not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not need to be reminded.

Mr. Paterson

I shall follow your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Bercow

Does not this allocation of time motion admirably explain the mindset of Government Back Benchers—this is utterly germane to the allocation of time motion—in that they are wholly docile in agreeing not to speak about any of the matters for which time is being allocated, but they are utterly outspoken about their selfish right to go home when it suits them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The allocation of time motion is not about when hon. Members go home—it has nothing to do with that—but about an allocation of time for the legislation that we are about to consider. Hon. Gentlemen must speak to that.

Mr. Paterson

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important to discuss the allocation of time motion in the light of how Labour Members seem to respect parliamentary time. I think that that is the point that Opposition Members are trying to get at.

Mr. Bercow

I certainly comply, immediately and without hesitation, with your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, does my hon. Friend not agree that, if sufficient hon. Members were motivated to comment on powers of seizure, on counterfeit, on offences and penalties on the disclosure of information and related matters, substantially more time than the Government are allocating would be required?

Mr. Paterson

Certainly; and perhaps they would be if it were their own property.

A telling phrase was used in a debate, last year, when one of the Government Back Benchers described himself as a "middle manager", which perhaps explains the difference between Opposition Members and Government Members. We think that our role is to oppose the motion, because we believe that we should be spending our time going through the Bill line by line. In the 1240s, knights came down from Shropshire to Parliament to examine Bills line by line, in the light of their own experience. They did not see themselves as middle managers. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) laughs. One of his predecessors—one of those very first knights from Shropshire—was described by Peter de Montford as being "over independent". The hon. Gentleman should remember that. He has been sent to this place to examine Bills line by line.

We are considering important legislation, affecting confiscation of property—

Mr. Swayne

The Mafia.

Mr. Paterson

I have not come to the Mafia yet.

I am concerned about extending the powers of law and order to the confiscation of private property. The Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill contains dramatic powers on the disclosure of confidential information to the BBC, of all organisations.

Mr. Fabricant

At least the BBC is a public corporation that is governed by royal charter. Is it not also true that the information to which my hon. Friend refers would be disclosed to private corporations contracted under the Bill's terms? Is that not worrying?

Mr. Paterson

That is worrying, but I will not be tempted by my hon. Friend to go into too much of the detail of the Bills, because we are discussing the timetable motion. The Bills deal with serious matters relating to law and order and the disclosure of information.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who is sadly not in his place, made a brief speech earlier, arguing that subjects that are debated in the House should be divided between those that are very important and those that are not. That is a dangerous suggestion. We are here to scrutinise the Executive and hold it to account. The Walsall doctrine, as we might call it, would give power to the Executive to decide what is important.

We have pushed as hard as we can this evening at the Liberal Democrats. The first contribution of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) was about as satisfactory as chewing cardboard and I am afraid that his second contribution did not enlighten us much more.

Mr. Swayne

The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), who is sadly no longer in his place, likened his speech to the Gettysburg address. He said that he had received no representations during the Committee stage from those who would be affected by the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, but the hamburger salesmen who would be affected were inarticulate and unlikely to be in a position to make such representations.

Mr. Paterson

My hon. Friend makes a telling point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has also tabled important amendments about language. One problem is that the entrepreneurs who sell their interesting sausages, hot dogs and other goods, including hot nuts, we have been told, speak a lot of foreign languages.

Mr. Stunell

It might be more helpful to remember, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out, that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—a Conservative Member who represents those who work in the parks—was keen for the Bill to proceed in its current form and took a dim view of the delays that had taken place. That is a different perspective from that offered by the hon. Member for New Forest, East or West, as the case may be.

Mr. Paterson

There was plenty of time after 10 o'clock last Wednesday evening to sort out the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. It could have been long behind us and we could be discussing something more interesting and more important. It is unnecessary to be discussing it now.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove had a second shot in this debate. He said that there should be an all-party legislative Committee consisting of Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members from both sides of the House. I thought that that was a pretty accurate description of the House of Commons. It was the most bizarre constitutional suggestion from the Liberal Democrats. We had waited all evening for it, and all that we heard was that the House of Commons should decide these matters.

Mr. Fabricant

The irony is that if there were such a Committee, as proposed by the woolly hatted woolly thinkers along the gangway, its consideration would be guillotined, so there would be no advantage.

Mr. Paterson

We have got nothing out of the Liberal Democrats about how they would sort out the problem.

We are faced with a capacity problem. The Government are trying to crash through 28 Bills in one Session and are tacking on a few private Members' Bills as well. Not long ago, a senior member of the Tory party who had been involved in running legislative programmes during the 1980s told me that it was not possible to get more than 18 Bills through. The Government are trying to crash through 28 when 18 will go into the pot. We are not increasing the time available—if anything we are reducing it, because the luvvies all want to get home to bed by 10 o'clock.

The problem is compounded by the Government's rotten drafting. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), who has just left the Chamber, referred to amendments tabled to the Utilities Bill that were not spoken to. We all know that that Bill had to be ripped up and started again from scratch. Those are problems caused by the Government. We are already overgoverned. We already have too much legislation, too many bureaucrats and too much taxation and the Government are only increasing that.

Mr. Maclean

My hon. Friend commented on the rotten drafting. One can always criticise aspects of drafting, and I have found some measures that the Government have accepted could have been drafted more appropriately. However, the real criticism should not be of the parliamentary draftsmen—who are desperately overstretched by the Government—but of the instructions issued by Ministers on the Utilities Bill, which tried to do far too much and was nonsense, the Transport Bill and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997.

Mr. Paterson

That is a fair comment. I have sat on the Standing Committee considering the Transport Bill, and elements of that Bill were badly drafted. Mistakes were made.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned Europe. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, and I wholly admire the Clerks who have to give us a precis of detailed legislation. Even then, we are making mistakes because we do not scrutinise European legislation as we do in the Chamber; or should do, if the Government allowed us the time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We have a timetable motion before us, and I remind the hon. Gentleman again that that is what he must speak to—not other matters in the House. That is not the point before us.

Mr. Paterson

I follow your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am just making the comparison between the need—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) some leeway, but making the point and demonstrating what can happen in other Committees is one thing. Going on and on at great length is something that I cannot permit. We have a narrow timetable motion. If the hon. Gentleman cannot speak to it, he has an option; he can sit down and let someone else be called.

Mr. Paterson

I will follow your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The first guillotine motion was on 11 June 1887, when the House had got bogged down in debates on Ireland for more than three weeks. It is interesting that Gladstone described that as a further abridgement of parliamentary liberty.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

Long after that guillotine motion was moved, matters concerning the royal parks were debated in this House on 29 November 1926. The then Government saw fit to allow a free and wide-ranging debate on issues similar to those that would be debated tonight, if we had time, in respect of Royal Parks (Trading) Bill. Were not Governments in those days more generous and sensible on matters concerning the royal parks, which are of great concern to us all?

Mr. Paterson

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We should be scrutinising the Bill line by line.

Mr. Maclean

My hon. Friend may like to contrast the guillotine introduced in the 19th century to deal with a long-running debate on the Irish question with the debate on the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill, which has not had a Report stage. It had a brief Second Reading, two brief sittings in Committee and no time at all on the Floor of the House. Surely there is a world of difference between the guillotine of the Irish business in the late 1800s and the guillotine of the Bill tonight.

Mr. Paterson

My right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The first guillotine was brought in to try to resolve the titanic problems of Ireland, which dominated parliamentary debate throughout the 19th century and have not been resolved now. I shall not refer to Parnell, Gladstone and those involved, as the House will be familiar with them. These were huge issues, debated at enormous length—and here are we, guillotining a relatively little Bill on television licences. The contrast could not be more dramatic. Gladstone, Lloyd George and Churchill did not make their names by going to bed early at 10 o'clock, but by speaking in this House with great erudition, in great detail and at great length. The Minister is laughing, but this debate is totally unnecessary.

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend mentioned the first time that guillotine motions were used following the titanic debates on the Northern Ireland question. How does he contrast those debates, which went on for months, with the debate on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, which lasted 43 minutes on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and just 35 minutes in Committee? At that stage, the Government say, "Enough is enough, the Blair babes want to go home so we will table a guillotine motion."

Mr. Paterson

There is a real danger that bad law will be passed, as we have seen with some of the other measures that the Government have guillotined. Severe criticisms were made of the Welsh and Scottish referendums, and that could have been because they were guillotined and debate was truncated. Very real criticisms have been made of the treaty of Amsterdam, which was enacted as the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1998, and that was guillotined. I live on the border with Wales and real criticisms have been made there of the Welsh Assembly. I suspect that is because the relevant legislation was crashed through the House without proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is the point—line by line scrutiny is important.

It is worth reminding the House of the wise words of John Biffen, who was a highly esteemed previous Leader of the House and greatly respected on both sides. He was also my predecessor and is now Lord Biffen. He wisely commented: All Governments are tomorrow's possible Opposition.—[Official Report, 27 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1088.] [Interruption.] I am delighted that the Minister has noted that point, but I wonder whether she will take it to heart. She made a brief, dismissive speech and I do not think that she really understands the importance of what we are discussing tonight.

Mr. Maclean

Before my hon. Friend criticises the Minister too much, I should point out that the guillotine motion is not her fault. She has been put up to do a job tonight as a departmental Minister when it should have been the Leader of the House. For the second time today, the right hon. Lady is skulking in her office instead of being at the Dispatch Box justifying the guillotine motions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Which Minister is before us has nothing to do with the motion. I do not want any debate on that issue. I do not like to say it, but the speech of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is becoming repetitive.

Mr. Paterson

Thank you for that helpful comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hayes

I am a little disappointed that my hon. Friend has not chosen to consider the issue of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 in relation to the guillotine motion, so perhaps he will take the opportunity to consider the Parks Regulation Act 1872 in that context. The 1872 Act preceded the introduction of guillotines but had debate proceeded at inordinate length, the then Government might have been moved to introduce guillotines much earlier. Will my hon. Friend give some consideration to the length and nature of the debate in 1872?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I want the hon. Gentleman to consider only the timetable motion.

Mr. Paterson

I shall not be tempted by the diversion my hon. Friend offers. There is too much legislation going through the House and the Government are not drafting legislation properly. The only solution is to allow more time for detailed consideration. It is not to try to crash through four Bills in one evening and to curtail debate in this disgraceful manner. I oppose the motion.

11.30 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

We have heard some reference to the fact that the Leader of the House has not been seen or heard this evening. Last Thursday, she stunned the House when she announced the business for tonight. She said: The House is taking a great deal of time discussing legislation that is not contentious and that would not normally require much time in the House. That was one of the right hon. Lady's main justifications for this evening's motions. She also stated: No amendments were tabled in Committee to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which is an important and worthwhile measure to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons…the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was uncontentious and supported by Opposition Members, and the Standing Committee sat only once. She complained that seven new clauses, 31 amendments and two new schedules were tabled to take up debating time on the Floor of the House.—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 459.] "Erskine May" states that consideration of a Bill on Report gives the House an opportunity to consider the text of a Bill "afresh". Does not that statement sanctify the Report stage, and make it clear that it is an opportunity for the House as a whole to consider a Bill after it has been in Committee?

It has been noted already that the Committee stages of the two Bills under consideration were lamentably brief. The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill was not debated on the Floor of the House. It was smuggled surreptitiously through a Second Reading Committee, which sat for only 43 minutes—hardly time to do it justice. Its Standing Committee sat for only 35 minutes, and that was all the consideration given to the Bill before it came to the Floor of the House on Report.

The Standing Committee considering the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill sat twice, for 31 minutes and for 92 minutes. Therefore, neither Bill has had the normal serious consideration in Committee. That would be bad enough, but the Leader of the House seemed to argue that the House should not bother with Report or Third Reading because no amendments had been tabled in Committee.

That is outrageous. Given her vast experience, we look to the Leader of the House for inspiration and guidance. I have been a Member of Parliament for only 17 years and I was a Minister for nine of them. Hon. Members like me look to her for guidance about the conduct of business in the House, but she seems to believe that Bills that have skidded through Committee do not deserve further attention on Report.

Mr. Bercow

The Committee considering the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill sat for just over two hours, but six amendments and new clauses have been tabled for consideration tonight. In the light of what "Erskine May" has to say on the subject, does my right hon. Friend agree that that justifies much longer consideration of the Bill on Report than was given to it in Committee?

Mr. Forth

Any rational person would have thought so, but apparently not. All logic has been stood on its head to justify this vicious attack on the House of Commons by the Government—something that we have come to learn, sadly, is only too typical, but with which we have to deal as best we can on this occasion.

Scant attention in Committee, very brief sittings and no amendments tabled—something in which the Leader of the House seemed to take pride, rather peculiarly—were all bad enough. In addition, the Government insulted the House by scheduling other business before the Report stage of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, so we did not even start debating it until 4.38 pm. To make matters worse, the Government twisted the knife by putting on private business at 7 pm. The net result was that we had only a very little time in which to initiate the Report stage. Even in that short time, progress was made: two groups of amendments were properly dealt with, despite the fact that the Government had insulted the House of Commons by truncating the amount of time available.

Mr. Maclean

Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that the Government deliberately curtailed the time available last week to discuss the amendments in an attempt to orchestrate a situation in which they could justify imposing a guillotine motion on it now?

Mr. Forth

That suggests a degree of subtlety and intelligence on the Government's part of which I doubt they are capable. I suspect that this was cock-up, not conspiracy.

I remind my right hon. Friend, who was in his place at the material time that, after the private business, we resumed our debate on the Bill at 9.10 pm and were making progress when the Government pulled the plug at 10 pm. To make this even more incredible, the Minister for the Arts said during the proceedings: It is proper that we should debate the proposals in the spirit of satisfying Parliament that the legislation proposed by the Government is necessary, well framed, proportionate—that has been mentioned several times—and therefore fit to proceed speedily on to the statute book. The Minister acknowledged the role that the House of Commons and those of us present were playing in the Bill's consideration. He went on to say: it is appropriate to proceed as we are this afternoon, and I shall address myself to the amendments.—[Official Report, 17 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 372.]

Mr. Bercow

I do not have the relevant copy of the Official Report in front of me, but would my right hon. Friend confirm my recollection that those sentiments were uttered by the hon. Gentleman at a very early stage in the debate? The inference that we must draw, and the rationale for the allocation of time motion tonight, is that while the hon. Gentleman apparently had infectious enthusiasm at the beginning of the proceedings, he was soon dissuaded by others.

Mr. Forth

What is so mysterious is that the Minister, having acknowledged the relevance and usefulness of the proceedings in which we were engaged at that time, then conspired with his fellow Ministers, and no doubt the Whips, to end the consideration of his own business at 10 o'clock, presumably to send the babes and others home to an early bed, and then forced the Government to come back with a guillotine motion that is forcing the babes to stay up until what I estimate will be 2 o'clock tomorrow morning. I hope that the Minister will be able to face the babes tomorrow, because when they realise that they could have had an early night and got the Bill over and done with, instead of having to sit here until an early hour of the morning because of this ill-thought-out guillotine motion, the Minister and his colleagues will be in real trouble.

Mr. Hayes

If the sequence of events that my right hon. Friend describes is accurate, as it certainly seems from my recollection, surely it returns us to his earlier point about the role of the Leader of the House. He talked about the Leader of the House offering inspiration and guidance. I submit that the Leader of the House should also offer a measure of protection for the rights of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have appealed for interventions to be brief, and that one is not. Interventions must be quick and sharp.

Mr. Forth

Just like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Quick and sharp as ever, I shall move on now to—

Mr. Bercow

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth

No, no. I shall not allow my hon. Friend to lead me astray. Following Mr. Deputy Speaker's guidance slavishly, as ever I do, I must move on to the main thrust of my argument. I have completed my preliminary remarks and must now get stuck into the real business.

Let me return to the claim made by the Leader of the House—insouciant, I think, is the only word to describe it—that the matters before us are uncontentious. That is the ultimate insult. Right hon. and hon. Members who sat in previous Parliaments will remember such triumphs of consensual politics as the Child Support Agency and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. Those provisions were shoved through the House on an all-party basis, with agreement but with brief and inadequate scrutiny. They ended up being some of the worst legislation ever inflicted on our citizenry.

Allegedly uncontentious legislation is some of the worst that exists. I believe that consensus is essentially an evil political concept. Even worse, in the context of the current Parliament's proceedings, when a Bill is deemed uncontentious, we become lazy about it. These two Bills have gone through Committee without proper scrutiny, and now we are told that because they were uncontentious, there is no need to waste the time of the House on debating, scrutinising or seeking to amend them.

That process is passing easily and seductively into the political language. It may be intended to let the babes go home early, but its net result is bad legislation.

Mr. Fabricant

rose—

Mr. Forth

I shall give way, but I am warming to my theme.

Mr. Fabricant

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is offering a fine example of how a stitch in time can save nine? So-called non-contentious legislation such as that on the Child Support Agency and dangerous dogs has had to be debated over and over so that it can be amended. If it had been properly debated in the first place, less parliamentary time would have been taken up.

Mr. Forth

That is very likely the case. What makes things worse is the fact that the two Bills that have been impudently described as uncontentious are in fact highly contentious. One need only glance at clause 4 of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill—"Seizure of property"—or clause 5, which is entitled "Retention and disposal". The Bill gives the police considerably increased powers of seizure and confiscation of property from private individuals. That is highly contentious. If the Bill affected any other area of the law, Labour Members—those who bother to be here—would be outraged by the proposal to increase the powers of the police to confiscate property from vulnerable individual members of society. Not this time, however, because we have been told that the Bill is "uncontentious".

The Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill contains measures on "Disclosure of information", which involve supplying the BBC with social security information. The provision includes not only the BBC, however. It states that the BBC includes any person providing the BBC with services in connection with television licences. If that is not contentious, I do not know what is. These matters are highly contentious, yet the Government have had the nerve to try to smuggle them through the House and inflict them on a hapless populace on the basis that they are allegedly uncontentious.

We must ask why the Government have seen fit to bring new clause 2 before the House this evening.

Janet Anderson

Conservative Front Benchers asked for it.

Mr. Forth

The Minister—I am glad to see that she is awake—may say that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked for it. That is surely some demonstration that enough was wrong with the Bill for my hon. Friend to spot it and to persuade the Government, in Committee, to change their Bill. The Government still try to persuade us that such Bills are uncontentious, even when they have to be amended.

We are now in a fine pickle. These Bills—one of which did not even receive its Second Reading on the Floor of the House, and both of which went through a brief and truncated Committee stage—arrived for consideration on Report. One was making excellent progress—the Minister himself told us so—but had the plug pulled on it. Yet, when we are about to undertake such detailed consideration as we are allowed by the guillotine, we find that serious outstanding matters will probably not receive the proper attention of the House because there is no time.

Mr. Bercow

Why, in justification of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, have Ministers felt it necessary constantly to denigrate and vilify the hot-dog and hamburger salesmen of the royal parks? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if Ministers—including those who are usually courteous—opt for such a bitter and personal approach in this Chamber against those who do not have the opportunity to defend themselves, they should at least provide time for others—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The purpose of a timetable motion is not to go into the Bill in detail. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is aware of that.

Mr. Forth

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If time permits, we shall soon be able to undertake a little bit of detailed scrutiny—once the House has disposed of the guillotine motion. If the House were to give the motion its approval—as I sincerely hope it will not—then we should move to an all too brief consideration of the amendments that have been selected.

The fact that amendments have been selected, especially on the television licensing measure, is proof that Madam Speaker considered that they were worthy of debate on the Floor of the House. Surely, that is all that is needed to show that the matter is serious and substantial and had to be dealt with. However, the Government did not seem to agree. They will restrict the debate so much that it is highly doubtful whether we shall be able to do justice to the amendments that were selected by Madam Speaker herself.

It remains to be seen how much time the Government propose to take to persuade the House of the virtues and necessity of their new clause. That will be a test of the persuasiveness and commitment of Ministers—something of which we have seen little during the debate so far, especially on the part of the absent Leader of the House. However, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and the Minister for the Arts are both in their places, ready to help the House through the remaining stages of our proceedings on the measures. They will have their work cut out trying to persuade us that we should dispatch—in the little time available to us under their guillotine—the remaining business set down for the Bills.

That would be bad enough, but, on the television licensing measure, we have to deal not only with new clause 2, which would add a considerable, substantial and—for all I know—controversial provision, but with other amendments. I tabled two of those that were selected by Madam Speaker—I am flattered by that. The others were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). He, too, has seen fit to try to amend the Bill in order to improve it further. However, I very much doubt whether we shall have the opportunity to do that at this stage.

Sadly, the House finds itself in an invidious position. We shall almost certainly be unable to devote a proper amount of time to the amendments, even though they were selected by Madam Speaker and thus, by definition, relevant and important. We may well have to rely on another place—I hate to hear myself say that—to give proper scrutiny to the Bill. If we in the House of Commons cannot adequately discharge our responsibility to scrutinise legislation, and if the Government persist in introducing guillotines, with all their arrogance and contempt for the House, I can but conclude that, in order to do justice to the parliamentary process of scrutiny, we shall have to look to Members in another place to undertake the job that we are proved unable to do. I regret that. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I try to play my modest part in the scrutiny of Bills. I do my best, as do my—

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn)

The right hon. Gentleman is in opposition now.

Mr. Forth

The right hon. Gentleman, whom I welcome to the Chamber, suggests in an accusatory tone that I am in opposition. I had rumbled that fact and I have now come to appreciate it. He has known me for many years and in many different guises, and I tell him that I take my job in opposition seriously. I regard it as one of my duties to do what I can properly to scrutinise legislation and properly to hold the Government to account. Yes—I say this in the House, so it will not go any further—I admit that I occasionally seek to delay the Government imposing more and more legislation on my hapless voters. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends do the same thing. Is the right hon. Gentleman accusing me of something of which I should be ashamed because the truth could not be more different? I see that he seems to be endorsing what I do in opposition and I am grateful for that.

The Minister for the Arts has put on the record how he appreciated and approved of what we did in our scrutiny of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the Minister for Trade, who has joined the debate at this late hour, has endorsed my description of what I seek to do in opposition. I could not seek for any greater support.

Mr. Bercow

My right hon. Friend has rightly castigated the Government for their restrictions on debate. Given that 13 new clauses and amendments have been selected for debate on the Bills, will he estimate how long he thinks it will take the House to give proper consideration on Report and Third Reading to those new clauses and amendments if every Member in the Chamber were willing to make a short contribution?

Mr. Forth

I shall provide two estimates that are relevant to the guillotine motion, which is about timetabling. My first estimate is based on the progress that we made on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill last week and demonstrated that we could make. Two groups of amendments were dispatched between 4.38 pm and 7 pm and we gained the praise of the Minister for the Arts for that. We were well through the third group, on which we are about to resume debate, when the Government pulled the plug on us. Therefore, on that basis, I estimate that, last week, we could have probably dispatched all the Bill's stages by 11.30 pm or midnight at the latest.

My hon. Friend poses an even less likely scenario. If docile Labour Members and the absent babes—were they to be here—were capable of making speeches, which few of them are, and if they wanted to participate in the proceedings of the House, which few of them do, I suspect that it might take longer to complete our proceedings. However, because few Labour Members turn up, none of them choose to speak and the few who are capable of speaking have been silenced by their Whips, I do not think that we can expect what my hon. Friend suggests. That is a cause of great disappointment to me. Although the Government Whips smile with smug satisfaction at their silencing of their colleagues, it does little credit to the House that they have been so successful. Ministers may smile to themselves as well, but it does them no credit that they rely on a vicious guillotine of the type that we are debating to ram through the House the Bills that they expect us to endorse.

My final point to Ministers is that they should not expect the other place to treat the Bills as lightly as they have forced this House to treat them. The Government will be held to account if not in this House, then in another place—and so they should be. I predict that that unpleasant surprise will await them when the Bills reach—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of time to bills).

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 109.

Division No. 204]	[11.54 pm
AYES
Ainger, Nick	Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Atkins, Charlotte	Cann, Jamie
Austin, John	Caplin, Ivor
Banks, Tony	Casale, Roger
Barnes, Harry	Caton, Martin
Bayley, Hugh	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Beard, Nigel	Clapham, Michael
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Bennett, Andrew F
Berry, Roger	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Blackman, Liz	Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Blears, Ms Hazel	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Blizzard, Bob	Clwyd, Ann
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Coaker, Vernon
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Coffey, Ms Ann
Bradshaw, Ben	Cohen, Harry
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Colman, Tony
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Connarty, Michael
Browne, Desmond	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Burden, Richard	Corbyn, Jeremy
Burgon, Colin	Cousins, Jim
Butler, Mrs Christine	Crausby, David

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cummings, John	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
	Keeble, Ms Sally
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dalyell, Tam	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Darvill, Keith	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Khabra, Piara S
Davidson, Ian	Kilfoyle, Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Dawson, Hilton	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Dean, Mrs Janet	Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Donohoe, Brian H	Laxton, Bob
Doran, Frank	Lepper, David
Dowd, Jim	Levitt, Tom
Drew, David	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Efford, Clive	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Ennis, Jeff	Linton, Martin
Etherington, Bill	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Lock, David
Fisher, Mark	McAvoy, Thomas
Fitzpatrick, Jim	McCabe, Steve
Flint, Caroline	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Flynn, Paul	McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	McDonagh, Siobhain
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Macdonald, Calum
Fyfe, Maria	McDonnell, John
Galloway, George	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Gerrard, Neil	McIsaac, Shona
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Godsiff, Roger	Mackinlay, Andrew
Goggins, Paul	McNulty, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin	MacShane, Denis
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	Mactaggart, Fiona
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	McWalter, Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Mallaber, Judy
Grocott, Bruce	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Grogan, John	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hain, Peter	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Hanson, David	Martlew, Eric
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet	Maxton, John
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Meale, Alan
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	Merron, Gillian
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Hepburn, Stephen	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Heppell, John	Mitchell, Austin
Hesford, Stephen	Moffatt, Laura
Hill, Keith	Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Hinchliffe, David	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hoey, Kate	Morley, Elliot
Hope, Phil	Mountford, Kali
Hopkins, Kelvin	Mudie, George
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)	Mullin, Chris
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Humble, Mrs Joan	Olner, Bill
Hurst, Alan	O'Neill, Martin
Hutton, John	Pearson, Ian
Iddon, Dr Brian	Pendry, Tom
Illsley, Eric	Perham, Ms Linda
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Pickthall, Colin
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Pike, Peter L
Jamieson, David	Plaskitt, James
Jenkins, Brian	Pond, Chris
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Pope, Greg
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)	Pound, Stephen
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)	Purchase, Ken
	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Quinn, Lawrie	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Radice, Rt Hon Giles	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Rammell, Bill	Temple-Morris, Peter
Rapson, Syd	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Raynsford, Nick	Tipping, Paddy
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Touhig, Don
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Trickett, Jon
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Rowlands, Ted	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Roy, Frank	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Ruane, Chris	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Salter, Martin	Tynan, Bill
Sarwar, Mohammad	Vis, Dr Rudi
Savidge, Malcolm	Walley, Ms Joan
Sedgemore, Brian	Ward, Ms Claire
Singh, Marsha	Wareing, Robert N
Skinner, Dennis	Watts, David
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Wilson, Brian
Soley, Clive	Winnick, David
Spellar, John	Wood, Mike
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Woolas, Phil
Steinberg, Gerry	Wray, James
Stevenson, George	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Wyatt, Derek
Stinchcombe, Paul
Stoate, Dr Howard	Tellers for the Ayes:
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin	Mr. Clive Betts and
Stringer, Graham	Mr. Robert Ainsworth.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Gill, Christopher
Amess, David	Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Bercow, John	Green, Damian
Beresford, Sir Paul	Greenway, John
Blunt, Crispin	Gummer, Rt Hon John
Boswell, Tim	Hammond, Philip
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Hawkins, Nick
Brady, Graham	Hayes, John
Brazier, Julian	Heald, Oliver
Browning, Mrs Angela	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Hunter, Andrew
	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Key, Robert
	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Chope, Christopher	Leigh, Edward
Clappison, James	Letwin, Oliver
Collins, Tim	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Lidington, David
Cotter, Brian	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Cran, James	Llwyd, Elfyn
Curry, Rt Hon David	Loughton, Tim
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Faber, David	McLoughlin, Patrick
Fabricant, Michael	Madel, Sir David
Fearn, Ronnie	Nicholls, Patrick
Flight, Howard	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Ottaway, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Paterson, Owen
Fox, Dr Liam	Pickles, Eric
Fraser, Christopher	Randall, John
Gale, Roger	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Garnier, Edward	Rendel, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Robathan, Andrew
Gibb, Nick	Robertson, Laurence
Gidley, Sandra	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Ruffley, David	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Taylor, Sir Teddy
St Aubyn, Nick	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Sanders, Adrian	Tredinnick, David
Sayeed, Jonathan	Trend, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian	Tyrie, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)	Webb, Steve
Spelman, Mrs Caroline	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Spicer, Sir Michael	Whittingdale, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Wilkinson, John
Steen, Anthony	Willis, Phil
Streeter, Gary
Stunell, Andrew	Tellers for the Noes:
Swayne, Desmond	Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Syms, Robert	and
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill and the Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill—