The allotted day

HC Deb 29 November 2000 vol 357 cc986-1034

12. In this Order, "allotted day" means any day on which the Disqualifications Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

As Opposition Front-Bench Members will no doubt observe, this is the second time this week that I have moved a motion to timetable certain Bills.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)

We had noticed.

Mr. Straw

The motion is in respect of the third and fourth Bills that it has been necessary to subject to a timetable motion this week.

May I deal with the need for guillotines? It may be helpful if I first dispose of the reasons that are irrelevant to our requirement for timetable motions. It has been suggested that we have needed timetable motions in this Session because there have been more Government Bills than in any similar Session, of a normal length, between elections. That is incorrect. Leaving aside the long Sessions that have occurred after each election—since 1974, although not including it—more Government Bills were considered during five separate Sessions between 1979 and 1997 than in this Session.

Nor is it a case, as has been alleged, of the late introduction of Bills. Bills have been introduced into this House and the other place either at a similar time to previous years or earlier. If we compare the 1994–95 Session with this one, for example—it was a similar length and rather fewer Bills were introduced—22 Bills were introduced by March 1995 into the Commons, compared with the 31 that had been introduced by March 2000.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw

I should like to deal with the matter in hand first, and then of course I will give way.

So the guillotines are not to do with the fact that there have been more Bills in this Session, because there have not, or with the late introduction of Bills, because that has not occurred either.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

What is it then?

Mr. Straw

I am glad that that has been asked, on cue, by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Wilshire

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Straw

I am elaborating on this point, and I may even answer the hon. Gentleman's question without the need for an intervention from him.

There have been two Bills additional to those anticipated at the time of the Queen's Speech last year. The Football (Disorder) Bill, was, in principle, supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Not by me.

Mr. Straw

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned that. The fact that it could easily have been filibustered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was one of the reasons why we had to have a timetable motion on that. Yet again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own side, having supported the principle of the Bill, could not deliver.

The Football (Disorder) Bill was widely supported by the Opposition Front Bench in principle, even though they could not deliver.

Mr. Forth

So what?

Mr. Straw

I was just going to say that there was a need for it. As far as we can judge, it has proved very successful.

There was another Bill that we judged necessary, although I accept that it has been controversial throughout its passage. I refer to the Bill to implement the recommendations of the former chairman of the Conservative party, Chris Patten, in respect of police in Northern Ireland. I continue to take the view that that was necessary, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends.

The introduction of two additional Bills is one reason for the number of guillotines. The second is that throughout the passage of Bills for which I have been responsible in my three and a half years as Home Secretary, I have gone out of my way to ensure that proposals are judged on their merits and not on the fact that there may be a weight of votes on our side, which there is. Where we can, we have listened to amendments and have then amended Bills. If we believed that suggestions for amendments from the Opposition Benches, as well as from our side, would command the approval of the House and improve the Bill, we accepted them. That has occurred at every stage.

I thank individual Opposition Members as much as my right hon. and hon. Friends for the way in which every Bill in which I have been involved has been improved as a result of the parliamentary process. However, people cannot have it both ways, and that inevitably means that when we improve a Bill because we are listening to the proposals made from the Opposition as well as the Government Benches, the Bill has to be amended. Sometimes—indeed, often—an undertaking has to be given in this House to amend a Bill in the other place; there is then traffic back to this place.

The third and overriding reason for this situation is that we cannot, and have never been able to, command a majority in the other place, whereas, although there were many Sessions in which Conservative Governments introduced Bills that were just as controversial as some of those we have introduced during this Session—in some cases, for example, in 1988–89, they were more controversial—the Conservatives could always guarantee that they would obtain a majority in the other place. That was true even on a notorious matter on which they later came to regret their majority—the deeply divisive poll tax—when people who had never previously been seen in the other place, and who were not even known to the attendants, were pulled out of the woodwork to vote for the Conservatives so that the measure would be passed. Thus, it is now more likely not only that amendments will be carried in the other place against the advice of the Government but that more time will have to be allocated.

Mr. Wilshire

I want to take the right hon. Gentleman back to one of his earlier points: was he arguing that the fact that there had been fewer Bills than usual was a plus? I should have thought that a better argument would be that there had been more Bills, so that there was less time per Bill. If the number of Bills is the same and the right hon. Gentleman has still got himself into this mess, he is quite incompetent.

Mr. Straw

I do not accept for a second that the Government are in any sort of mess. I was dealing with charges made in the House and elsewhere regarding our reasons for imposing guillotines—

Mr. Hogg

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw

I will give way in a second.

I was explaining why we have had to impose four guillotines this week. I merely point out that, looking back over the past 20 years, there is nothing especially unusual either in the number of guillotines or in the number of Bills for the whole Session. The central allegation made by the Conservatives is that there have been too many Bills during this Session. That is incorrect. The main reason for this end-loading is that we have accepted many amendments; we have listened to what has been said—I regard that as a merit; and, above all, we do not command a majority in the other place.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

The Bill left this House at Easter and its first day in Committee in the other place was on 11 May. After that, will the Secretary of State confirm that it did not reappear in the House of Lords until 10 October? Surely that delay is entirely down to the Government. If they had been prepared to bring the measure back earlier, the current logjam would not have occurred and we would not be facing this disgraceful situation today.

Mr. Straw

The hon. Gentleman would be correct had the other place been idle from the day on which the Bill left this House to the day on which it went into Committee in the other place. It is true that the Bill could have been scheduled earlier, but that would only have meant that—assuming that the Conservatives had behaved towards other measures as they did towards this one—some other measure would have been subject to the guillotine.

Mr. Hogg

May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to his point that the Government do not command a majority in the other place? That is true. The right hon. Gentleman implies that a large number of amendments are passed by the other place contrary to the Government's advice, and that that is the source of his problem.

There are 665 amendments to this Bill. Will the Home Secretary tell the House how many of them are Government amendments—or are supported by the Government—and how many were passed contrary to their advice?

Mr. Straw

My recollection is that there are 666 amendments, one of which was passed contrary to the advice of the Government. However, the fact that there are a great number of amendments makes my point rather than the right hon. and learned Gentleman's—[Interruption.] A great number of amendments were tabled in response to the concerns that were expressed. Neither this House nor the other place can have it both ways. We have been listening, and I have been anxious to ensure that, so far as possible, we proceed with the Bill on the basis of consensus between the parties.

It is widely accepted—in this country, at least—that we do not want to go down the same road as the United States and that it is not a good idea for a campaign manager also to pop up as a returning officer. Therefore, we should ensure that the ground rules are operated and moderated by people who are above the battle and that, so far as possible, there is widespread agreement between the parties about how those ground rules should operate.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

The Home Secretary is missing the point. He started with consensus on the Bill. Its main provisions were implemented by voluntary agreement between the parties in the Scottish elections last year, but he has now arrived at a pig's breakfast and the consensus has totally fallen apart, especially on section 4. That must surely be his responsibility. Is he seriously suggesting that a Bill with 666 amendments is in a fit condition to be guillotined?

Mr. Straw

I do not accept for a second that the consensus has fallen apart, but there will be disagreement about some issues. The hon. Gentleman refers to clause 4. I am not sure whether he is talking about the provisions on advice for the conduct of referendums. We have strengthened the provisions on controlling expenditure in referendums; they are far stronger than those proposed in the Neill report. I exempt the Scottish National party from criticism about party funding because, so far as I recall, they were always in favour of statutory controls on party funding, but I shall not take criticism from the principal Opposition party, because it presided over the most scandalous situation with regard to the funding of political parties. In the face of all sorts of unacceptable things that appeared to be going on, we called for the Nolan committee on standards in public life to be allowed to examine party funding.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

The Conservatives fought it.

Mr. Straw

They not only fought it, but refused to allow the Nolan committee to look at the matter. It has fallen to us to clean up the conduct of British politics—we said that we would do so in our manifesto—first by asking what became the Neill committee to study the matter and then by introducing the changes that we propose.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

rose—

Mr. Straw

I shall give way, but then I want to make progress.

Mr. Bercow

Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously advancing the novel and pernicious parliamentary doctrine that the more heavily amended a Bill is in the other place, the greater the justification for truncating its consideration in the House? Does he not accept that, irrespective of whether more or too many Bills have been introduced this Session, there is a serious case to answer—the charge that there have been more ill-conceived, badly drafted and hastily introduced Bills under this Administration?

Mr. Straw

The advantage of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and me is that our memory goes back beyond May 1997, as does the memory of many of those sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a competition about really badly drafted Bills, he should have been in the House during the first and second Sessions of the 1979 to 1983 Parliament.

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend was still at school.

Mr. Straw

That is no excuse. After all, the Leader of the Opposition was also still at school then, but while other people were going out in the evening and enjoying themselves, he was studying Hansard—between his 14 pints—day by day and week by week. He would surely have known about the utter chaos that the previous Administration got themselves into. For example, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill was so huge and chaotic that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) had to withdraw it altogether and start again. Then, when the Bill came back at the end of the 1980 session—[Interruption.] The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill (No.2) is in good order. The only problem is that the other place has decided not to acknowledge that. There cannot have been a better drafted, simpler Bill than that and, in due course, it will ensure justice for the victims of crime as well as justice for defendants. It will speed up the criminal justice system. The fact that the Conservatives have sabotaged that Bill illustrates how hollow is their claim to be taken seriously on law and order and crime, as on many other issues.

I did not answer the first question of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I do not think that the guillotine is pernicious; it is regrettable, but it has happened under Governments of both persuasions. The majority of the 666 amendments are technical and consequential. Owing to the structure of this Bill, one change in principle has led to a huge number of consequential and similar amendments.

So far, the Bill has been the subject of considerable scrutiny. First, I made an oral statement on the Neill report in July 1999. We then had a full day's debate on the report, on a motion for the Adjournment, in November 1999, and we published the draft Bill. Since the Bill itself was published, the two Houses together have spent 114 hours considering it and a considerable number of

changes have been made. With the hours that we will spend on the Bill today, we think that that is adequate time for consideration.

One of our anxieties was also the anxiety of a Government of a different persuasion in the early 1980s—that if we did not guillotine the Bill, the debate would simply be filibustered. The Conservatives often deny that charge, but leaving aside the provocative term "filibuster", let us consider what happened during the debate on Monday. I gather that one of the complaints today is that it will be some time before we get to group 10. On Monday, there was every opportunity—even in the three or four hours available—for the House to debate the three important groups of amendments. The other groups were all technical.

What happened? We spent an inordinate length of time on the first group, which was third in order of importance. We then moved on to the second group, which concerned the most technical issue imaginable—the naming of the National Assembly for Wales—and other consequential amendments. The Conservatives decided to go on at such length on that issue—to dance on the point of a needle, for hour after hour—that when 12 o'clock came there was no chance to debate any of the other issues or to allow my hon. Friends or hon. Members to express concern about what the Government were doing.

Mr. Forth

That is what happens with a guillotine.

Mr. Straw

No, it is what happens when an Opposition cannot see sense. If I had been on the Opposition Benches, I would have found many more opportunities to have a pop at the Government. Conservative Members completely failed to use those opportunities. It was hopeless. We could truncate this debate, but it is possible that we will get into a similar position today.

Mr. Grieve

Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, as I think his colleagues on the Treasury Bench have, that at no time has the Bill been subject to any sort of filibuster in this place—not in Committee, on Report or on Second Reading? There has been complete co-operation in an attempt to get through substantial constitutional legislation in proper form. Will he also understand that the complaint today is that, at the end of the process, we face 666 amendments and have minimal time to consider important further changes?

Mr. Straw

My understanding is that the Conservative Opposition behaved very constructively in Committee, and we are grateful to them for that. The difficulty that they face is one that we faced for part of the 1980s, although after a few election defeats, we finally learned our lesson. The Conservative party cannot speak for its Back Benchers when we discuss voluntary arrangements. That is a fact of life.

Many of the guillotine motions that were introduced between 1979 and 1997 were introduced in the 1980s. That is because we thought that our constituents needed to see us arguing about tiny points into the small hours of the morning. Gradually, we came to the view that our constituents wanted us to examine legislation sensibly and rationally, and the best way to do that is by voluntary agreement. It gives an Opposition more flexibility, but there must be a backstop. We can then get on with our other job of representing our constituents.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

Can the Home Secretary confirm that no attempt was made to reach a voluntary agreement on a programme motion on Monday night, yesterday or today? The Government have not given the House the opportunity to decide how best to arrange these matters or how to avoid the filibustering which, as he rightly said, took place on Monday night.

Mr. Straw

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not privy to the discussions through the usual channels. However, if he is right and the Government did not invite discussion on the timetable motion, there is nothing to stop the Opposition Chief Whip or the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip making such a suggestion. We have hard experience of dealing with the official Opposition, if not the Liberal Democrats, and Conservative Members have taken the opportunity to speak at length—that is a statement of fact—so I think that Government business managers judged that the risks of taking the approach that the hon. Gentleman suggests would be too great.

One complaint about the guillotine motion for the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill is that it is being introduced for a long Bill to which there are 666 amendments. However, if one makes that complaint about that Bill, one cannot make a similar complaint about the Disqualifications Bill. I cannot think of a shorter Bill that has come before the House in the whole Session. It is one page long, with just one operative clause and two consequential ones. It is a simple Bill with just three clauses—

Mr. Forth

It is a constitutional Bill.

Mr. Straw

I know that opinions about the Bill differ. In fact, some Conservative Members feel so strongly about it that, if there were no backstop to the debate, they would do their best to talk it out.

The Bill has been the subject of considerable discussion in the House. It was introduced in December 1999 and its Second Reading, Committee and Report stages were held on 25 and 26 January and lasted more than 26 hours. That was a memorable occasion. The Government were not having their best week; Prime Minister's Question Time was coming up, offering the Leader of the Opposition a great opportunity to shine. What did Conservative Back Benchers do? They took away the opportunity provided each week for the Leader of the Opposition to shine. [Interruption.] All the leadership bids take place in the Conservative party.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

The Home Secretary has just said that, in his eyes, an important constitutional measure is much less important than the little bit of spin that may be put by one party or another on Prime Minister's questions. Those of use who care about the constitution of this country were very concerned about the Disqualifications Bill, and we remain so. The fact that we debated it at length show the care that Conservative Members took. The Home Secretary seems to think that a little bit of spin from Prime Minister's questions is more important than that.

Mr. Straw

I do not recall saying that—indeed, I did not say it. I was making the point that Conservative Members managed to talk out not Government business but the important part of the parliamentary week in which the Prime Minister is subject to questioning, not least by the Leader of the Opposition. I found that an eccentric consequence. There were many Conservative Members, although obviously not the hon. Gentleman, who found it an eccentric notion as well.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw

No. If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I must make progress.

The Bill has been discussed at great length. It has also been discussed in the other place. It is unfortunate that in the other place, clause 1 was knocked out, but it is widely accepted that it is entirely legitimate for this House to seek to put the operative clause back in the Bill.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth)

Sefton, East.

Mr. Hogg

The Home Secretary is not very good at constituency names.

Mr. Straw

I am good at many other things, but I am not very good at long constituency names which do not reflect a serious sense of place. If my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) were simply called the hon. Member for Kirkby, which is a proper place, I would know it. The problem goes back to Peter Walker and the artificial boundaries in the Local Government Act 1972. Constituencies were given the names of all sorts of strange places and even brooks in towns, which we had never heard of, and nor had the people in the town.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

This is a filibuster.

Mr. Straw

No, it is not a filibuster. I have one more point to make.

There will be complaints from the Opposition about the guillotine motion, as there always are from the Opposition, whichever party is in opposition. We used to make such complaints in the 1980s, but by the 1990s, particularly in the Parliament between 1992 and 1997, even when we disagreed with the principle of the Bill, we sought to enter into voluntary agreement wherever we could, because we thought that that was much more sensible. There was one Session, 1994–95, in which there were no guillotines at all, because of co-operation from the Opposition. It is a learning curve for the Opposition.

I rest my case by repeating the sage and amusing words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions—

Mr. Forth

Which constituency?

Mr. Straw

Sunderland.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)

North or South?

Mr. Straw

One or the other. Sunderland, South. Winding up the guillotine debate on Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said: I have never managed to work up much indignation about timetabling. However hard they search the Official Report, Opposition Members will not find one scintilla of indignation from me on the subject of guillotines during my years in Parliament. In my early days in opposition, I recall spending the best part of 150 hours considering the Bill that became the Water Act 1989, but covering barely 10 clauses. At the end of that, the Minister in charge, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), announced a guillotine. At that point, the Opposition were all supposed to rise and say how outrageous it all was. Personally, I could have kissed him.—[Official Report, 27 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 711.] None of us could have put it better. I look forward to the embraces and kisses of the Opposition.

5.13 pm

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)

Well, well, well. National guillotine week carries on. The only surprise is that the affable Home Secretary has chosen to be chief executioner every day.

Some of us who were in the House in the 1970s are reminded of poor old Michael Foot—in those days of greater honour, the Leader of the House used to move guillotine motions, rather than leaving it to departmental Ministers. I remember poor old Michael Foot moving five guillotine motions in one day. That ruined his reputation as a parliamentarian.

We value the Home Secretary's reputation as someone who is serious about this place. He is in such stark contrast to the Prime Minister and others who treat the Chamber in a cavalier way, but I regret that by moving four guillotine motions this week, he is following Michael Foot's road.

The Home Secretary cannot be comfortable with what he is doing today. It arises from the fact that an arrogant and incompetent Government have got their legislative programme horribly wrong. Labour Members who shake their heads—especially the parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin)—need to think about what the business managers have done.

This Labour Government have the biggest majority in the House in modern times and have reformed the other place to their supposed advantage, but in the final week of the longest Session in nearly 80 years—in the run-up to a new Queen's Speech which, unusually, will be delivered in December—we need to ask why they have been so incompetent and arrogant. The Home Secretary maintains that there is not an excessive number of Bills. I can let that remark pass, but I cannot ignore the sheer incompetence of not getting the Bills ready in time and, having got them ready, not being able to proceed with them.

Let us be specific about the two Bills that are relevant to the guillotine motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) reminded us in his powerful intervention, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill started in Committee in the other place on 11 May, but its second day in Committee was not until 10 October. That was pure incompetence—there was no filibustering or delay by the Opposition parties. The Government did not have their Bill properly drafted, could not make progress and did not know what they wanted to do. Month after month, like a rabbit in front of headlights, progress on the Bill remained absolutely stationary. We are rushing it through tonight on a timetable motion because of the Government's delays, not because of filibustering by the Opposition.

The Disqualifications Bill will be rushed through the House tomorrow. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), will recall that way back in January we stayed up all night because it was being rushed through as a matter of urgency. It was so urgent that it did not appear in the other place until October and has only just returned to us. Why such a huge delay? Again, it is due to total incompetence. Many people did not want the Bill; the Government lost their nerve; pressure was put on them by the Irish Government and Sinn Fein; and they had to reintroduce it in the other place. Once again, there was no undue delay or excessive, unreasonable opposition in the other place.

Mr. Bercow

Given how controversial the Disqualifications Bill has proved, does my right hon. Friend have any idea of the audacity displayed by the Under-Secretary when he introduced it on Second Reading? He said: I hope that this will not be too long a debate.—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 26] Is that not evidence of the Government's early determination to truncate its consideration?

Mr. MacKay

I feel sorry for the Under-Secretary, who seems to have disappeared—no, he is just about in the Chamber. He was set up and did not know what the Bill was all about. He had been told, "Don't worry. It's uncontroversial. It will get through in half an hour." Some 14 or 15 hours later, he was beginning to understand all about it. We should be sympathetic towards him; he was unaware that he had been sold a pup.

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge)

Does that not show the real need for the programming of all Bills at the beginning of a parliamentary Session? The right hon. Gentleman makes the argument well. We need to ensure that there is enough time to debate controversial Bills, and that we have a parliamentary timetable. Programming will achieve that.

Mr. MacKay

If a Bill is introduced in January as a matter of urgency and goes through all its stages in the House, the fact that it does not reappear until the autumn in the other place is entirely the Government's fault. The other place did not have much legislation in February, March and April, and there was every opportunity for the Bill to be taken through at leisure, and it could have been on the statute book— regrettably —because of the Government's majority. It is the Government who are incompetent in that they introduce badly drafted Bills and do not proceed with them quickly. This is no case for the hon. Lady's pet passion of timetabling.

As has been mentioned, 666 amendments have been tabled to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. It is a significant Bill which goes to the heart of our democracy, yet in a few hours tonight we are supposed to consider all those amendments. The Home Secretary is right that some of those amendments are consequential, but nowhere near 666 of them.

The Bill left the House with 181 pages and it has come back with more than 240 pages.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West)

rose—

Mr. MacKay

I will give way in a moment.

It is a different Bill, yet in the limited time available to us tonight we will have no opportunity to consider it. There are two pages of amendments and there is no way that we shall get through them all. The third group of amendments, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and myself, closely affects Northern Ireland. Those amendments will need considerable discussion and there is no way in which we shall be able to deal with them all.

Dr. Starkey

rose—

Mr. MacKay

I have not forgotten the hon. Lady.

There is no doubt that the majority of the amendments will not be debated tonight. Does that matter? Are they all consequential or not? Some matter greatly. The Representation of the People Act 1983 governs our elections to this place. The amendments to that Act were moved in the other place and we will not discuss any of them tonight. Is the Home Secretary happy that major amendments to the way in which we conduct elections to this place will have been debated and passed in the other place without any debate here simply because they are so far down the list and time is limited this late in the Session?

The Deputy Prime Minister, discussing the future of the National Air Traffic Services yesterday, said that it was disgraceful that the other place should take final and serious decisions on that matter. Yet the Representation of the People Act is entirely to do with us. It concerns the election of Members to this place. Major changes have been made, most of which we do not necessarily object to, but they need to be debated and they will not be because the Home Secretary has moved the guillotine motion today. Can he explain himself?

Mr. Straw

There would be some strength in the right hon. Gentleman's argument if the overwhelming bulk of the Bill were not agreed between the parties. The right hon. Gentleman has just shot down his own argument by saying, in a double negative, that the Opposition did not necessarily disagree with a large number of the amendments down for consideration. That is because they have been the subject of consultation. The basic structure of the Bill is the same as when it left the House. I accept, however, that it is technical and has needed frequent amendment in the other place in response to undertakings in the House which, for the most part, have been the subject of consultation with various political parties.

As to whether there will be enough time to reach the final groups of amendments, that is entirely in the hands of the Opposition. There will not be enough time if Opposition Members behave as they did the other day, but there will be if they behave sensibly.

Mr. MacKay

I disagree, as the matter is entirely in the hands of the Government, who are arrogantly timetabling a Bill and not allowing us to debate it. There is no practical way of debating all the groups of amendments. In my capacity as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I can say that the Northern Ireland amendments are very serious and will require careful consideration—[Interruption.] As the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is explaining to the Home Secretary, those are serious amendments, and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, his colleagues, and Conservative Members feel strongly about them. There is no possibility that we shall reach the amendments on the Representation of the People Act 1983, which will affect election to the House.

In response to the point that the Home Secretary has just made, I emphasise that we broadly support the measure. However, the broad support of those on the Conservative Front Bench does not mean that other Members or other parties agree with the legislation. I agree with the Home Secretary that most of the Bill is non-controversial, but people with different views will want to examine the Home Secretary's proposals. It is not controversial in party political terms, but it does relate to democracy and elections to the House and is extremely important. There is no opportunity, however, to look at the proposals that affect the election of Members of Parliament, all of which have come from the other place, whose Members will not be directly involved in parliamentary elections. Indeed, they are not even allowed to vote in those elections.

That constitutional outrage is contrary to what the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday in a debate on a separate matter. The Home Secretary should be ashamed, and the matter needs to be put right. At this late hour, he should come up with a manuscript amendment to ensure that, at the very least, amendments relating to the Representation of the People Act and parliamentary elections are properly debated and discussed by the House; otherwise, we shall be in an anomalous position with which, I know, the Home Secretary will be uncomfortable, as he cannot possibly be right.

Dr. Starkey

I knew that the right hon. Gentleman would eventually keep his promise.

The burden of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is insufficient time to discuss the substance of the Bill. Would it not be more logical for him to cut short debate on the allocation of time, thereby making additional hours available for the substantive debate that will stop at midnight, but which could start now?

Mr. MacKay

Debate on these Bills is being guillotined and truncated, and all neutral outside observers feel that that is thoroughly wrong. This important matter needs to be discussed by the House. If the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) thinks that it is not important and is relaxed about the fact that, in the last week of a Session, a Bill which is practically a new measure has come from the House of Lords and many amendments to it will not be debated in the Chamber, I am amazed that she wishes to belong to the House of Commons. What was the point of her coming here in the first place?

Dr. Starkey

I shall rephrase my question so that the right hon. Gentleman gets the point. If this bit of the debate—which, frankly, is fruitless—were cut short, it would add to the time available to discuss substantive amendments. I am proposing a method by which the Opposition could add an hour and a half to the time available to discuss the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pass up that chance, that demonstrates that all his concern about discussing the Bill is hogwash.

Mr. MacKay

I have rarely been more pleased in my 20-odd years in the House to have given way to a Labour Member. The hon. Lady gave the game away when she said that our debate is fruitless. The pure arrogance of new Labour, of which the hon. Lady is a caricature, was much in evidence. I am immensely grateful for her contribution, which will be used to the full in future.

If I agreed that we should not pursue the serious wrong of guillotining the Bills—

Mr. Hogg

My right hon. Friend would not carry his colleagues with him.

Mr. MacKay

I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to restrain himself for a moment. I used the word "if". If I was of a charitable nature and wanted to do that, and if I managed to persuade, by the strength of my argument, my right hon. and learned Friend and other right hon. and hon. Friends not to speak, we would immediately move on to the main business. If I did so, there would be a slight change. The time available to debate each amendment would be 0.6 of a second instead of 0.36 of a second. With 666 amendments to consider, curtailing the debate would make virtually no difference to our consideration of those amendments, but it makes a huge difference to explaining to Labour Members that the guillotine breaches democracy and is a constitutional outrage. The proposal is totally wrong, and they will live to regret it.

I turn to the specifics of both Bills. I should appreciate it if the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, I guess, will tomorrow carry some of the burden associated with the Disqualifications Bill, paid a little attention. More importantly, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who will also be closely involved, will pay attention.

A strand runs through both Bills, which significantly affects Northern Ireland—the appeasement of and concessions to Sinn Fein. There is no reason to pass the Disqualifications Bill other than to offer an additional confidence-building measure to Sinn Fein so that its politicians will be able to sit, on the one hand, in the Northern Ireland Assembly—possibly as Ministers in the Executive—and, on the other, in the Irish Dail and, possibly, in this Parliament. That is wrong because the Republic of Ireland is not part of the Commonwealth and because the reasons behind that measure are very dubious.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to deal with such matters on an hourly basis, so he will know that endless concessions have been made to the republicans, and that nothing has been gained in return from them. It has been all give by the Government and all take by the republicans.

Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of those who may sit in the Dail Eireann and in the House may also sit as fully fledged members of the seven-man IRA military council?

Mr. MacKay

That could conceivably happen. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I

pursue that matter further in tomorrow's debate—that is, if he is able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the three hours available. It is far from certain whether he will be able to do so as we shall be discussing a controversial measure that is widely opposed.

The Home Secretary lightly referred to the Disqualifications Bill as a modest little measure of only a few clauses and said that a debate of three hours would surely be sufficient. However, the amendment passed in the Lords removed clause 1. That effectively castrates it, which was our intention. We are not talking about minor amendments or small details in a large Bill about which we could have a narrow debate—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rightly call us to order if we strayed. We are talking about the detail of an entire Bill.

We need to discuss all the merits of a Bill which has been rejected in another place. Will the Home Secretary speculate on when a whole Bill was last thrown out by the other place? The answer must be at least several years ago. A Bill that was effectively thrown out will be reinstated in just three hours. I am sure that, on reflection, he will agree that that is wrong.

Mr. Forth

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill must be regarded as a constitutional measure? It has important implications for the House and the other place, as it bears on people's qualifications to sit in the House of Commons. It also bears on the relationship between this place, the Northern Ireland Assembly and, potentially, the Dail in Ireland. Can there be any more constitutional measure than that?

Mr. MacKay

As so often, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right. We are discussing a serious constitutional measure, which makes changes that many hon. Members and a majority in the other place want to resist. We will attempt to do so tomorrow in the limited time available.

Let us return to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and its effects on Northern Ireland and on the funding of political parties. After yesterday's amusing outburst from the Home Secretary about the different national football teams in our country, and in the light of his desire, which I broadly share, to increase awareness of what he likes to call Britishness, one might have assumed that he would want United Kingdom political parties to be treated identically.

However, it has shocked many people that measures ensuring that political parties cannot receive foreign donations will not apply in Northern Ireland, although it has been widely agreed in Parliament, and accepted in the Conservative party, that it is wrong for political parties to receive such donations. That is strange and anomalous, and there is only one reason why it is the case. It is another sop to Sinn Fein and another piece of appeasement. It reflects a strand that runs through both Bills.

Mr. George Howarth

I should like to correct the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman. I consulted all the political parties in Northern Ireland about the provision. Every one of them asked for it, as they were afraid that retaliation would occur if they had to publish the sources of donations. Let me set the record straight. It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman—as, indeed, it surprised me at the time—that the one party that opposed the measure was Sinn Fein.

Mr. MacKay

As usual, the Under-Secretary is charming but wrong. The issue on which we agree and on which he tried to organise a little smokescreen just now is security. The only respect in which Northern Ireland political parties should be treated slightly differently from parties elsewhere in the United Kingdom is in respect of allowing them not to publish the names of major donors, for simple security reasons. That is widely accepted.

Mr. Howarth

indicated assent.

Mr. MacKay

I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary nodding. However, it is not correct to suggest that Northern Ireland parties should be treated differently from parties representing the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of collecting money from abroad. If the Under-Secretary gained the support of all political parties in his consultations, something has since gone badly wrong or he misunderstood his conversations.

The amendments tabled my myself and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann have the full support of Unionist Members. They are intended to ensure, among other things, that overseas donations are not received by Northern Ireland political parties. Allowing that practice has only one benefit, of which we are all aware: to ensure that the money flows into the IRA from the Americans and, to a lesser extent, to the minor loyalist paramilitary parties, which fish in the same murky pond on the eastern seaboard of the United States.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in respect of consultation with Northern Ireland parties on the wholly anomalous arrangements that allow them to receive foreign donations, my party vigorously and consistently opposed the exemption during consultation. It is misleading of the Under-Secretary to suggest otherwise.

Mr. MacKay

I am grateful to Northern Ireland's First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been in his place, but on duty in the Province as First Minister, the Under-Secretary would have been allowed to mislead the House. It is good news that the right hon. Gentleman is present to put the record straight and to confirm my remarks.

Mr. Robert McCartney

I, too, endorse everything said by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and I think I can state with confidence that the same position would be held by members of the Democratic Unionist party, who are not present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that the terms that have crept into these exchanges are unfortunate, and perhaps had better not be repeated.

Mr. MacKay

On a lighter note, I was about to say—anticipating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that I suppose we should congratulate the Minister on at least uniting, unusually, all three Unionist parties represented in the House. That does not happen as often as some of us would like.

I think that we have clarified the position. We have heard from two of the three Unionist parties, and I am fairly confident that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) is able to speak for the DUP on this matter.

Mr. Howarth

I can say that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), and probably, as he and the right hon. Gentleman have said, the DUP, were—in common with Sinn Fein—opposed to the provisions. But I think the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will be aware that the late Josias Cunningham of the Ulster Unionist Council said in evidence:

Taking the American example again, we have several well-heeled sympathisers. It would be very embarrassing if one of them said, "I would like to support your election campaign or party machine generally. Here is a cheque for $10,000." And we had to say, "Sorry. We're are not allowed to accept it". That is the evidence that we received from the right hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. MacKay

I suspect that there was far more evidence than the evidence of a man who, having died tragically in a car accident, cannot answer the Minister.

I do not want to be led further down this road, but I think it would be fair to say that others will be able to judge whether they believe the First Minister of Northern Ireland or the Minister's recollections. I maintain, and will maintain again if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if we reach the amendments concerned—I think we will, because they are quite high on the selection list—that this is another sop to Sinn Fein. It allows Sinn Fein to get money from America and elsewhere, and it does the same for loyalist paramilitary groups. That, I believe, is entirely wrong.

We should consider more than one aspect of the dirty money—for it is dirty money—that comes from America to republican and so-called loyalist parties. It would be bad enough if the money were just for their own election purposes, and related to political propaganda in Northern Ireland; but, worse still, it will involve referendums affecting the whole United Kingdom.

Through Northern Ireland, there is a huge loophole. If we had a referendum on, for instance, the single currency—the Prime Minister has promised one for the next Parliament —it would be possible to channel huge sums from Northern Ireland into a campaign on one side of the argument. That must be wrong. Equally, in the event of a border poll on the future of Northern Ireland—and there will always be such polls from time to time—huge sums could come in from the Republic and America to support one side of that argument. That is entirely against what Neill advocated.

This is a shabby, bad, nasty little motion, which is out of character for the Home Secretary. He should be thoroughly ashamed of it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

5.44 pm

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) would forgive me for perhaps disagreeing with her for a moment. She said that some aspects of the debate were fruitless. There is one fruitful aspect. It gives us the opportunity to expose fully the record of the Tories on guillotines and, in particular, the role played by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).

Some of us might recall that the right hon. Gentleman was an effective Whip under the previous Conservative Administration. In his speech today, he spent a long time weaving a tangled web of rhetoric in an attempt to disguise his own record, which is formidable, so again, as I did a couple of days ago, and for the public record, I take the opportunity to set out the record of the Tories and, in particular, the right hon. Gentleman.

As background, may I mention what the right hon. Gentleman's role was? In 1992, he was appointed to the Whips Office as a Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury. In 1993–95, he was Vice Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household. In 1995–96, he was Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household. For five long years, he worked in the Whips Office, supporting, promoting and cajoling hon. Members to come into the Division Lobby and to vote in favour of guillotines. He is Mr. Robespierre personified. He is the man who, under the previous Government, was more responsible than anyone else for forcing guillotine motions through the House of Commons.

Let us consider some of the Bills that the right hon. Gentleman guillotined. The Education (Schools) Bill, the Further and Higher Education Bill, the Local Government Bill, the Local Government Finance Bill, the Finance Bill, the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—all were guillotined by the right hon. Gentleman. It was his task in the Government.

Mr. MacKay

I am immensely flattered and I did not pay the hon. Gentleman, but, as he has some records in front of him, will he confirm that every time that I was involved in a guillotines—I am not against guillotines; I never said that I was during my speech—there was extensive discussion in the House and what some would call a filibuster? The Home Secretary likes to use that word. The hon. Gentleman will find that it never happened in the final week of a Session that was running into December and that the overwhelming majority of the guillotines were introduced when there had been extensive discussion already.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

It is not quite as the right hon. Gentleman says. I am referring to the period when Labour had taken a tactical decision to co-operate with the Conservative Government to ensure that legislation went through its stages in the House of Commons without filibuster. Even in those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman was responsible—[Interruption.] He would do well to look at the record to see when the great body of guillotine motions took place on Bills. Most were prior to the 1992 Parliament.

Mr. Bercow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I want to proceed a little. Let me finish the list because we are coming to an interesting Bill.

The next Bill on my list is the Railways Bill. What an interesting Bill the right hon. Gentleman guillotined. Does he remember it? Does he recall what it did? It privatised

British Rail and that led to the total collapse of the national network. The right hon. Gentleman was the villain of the piece. He was responsible for introducing the guillotine. That was his task, which he was paid to carry out—he was paid about £30,000 a year on top of his parliamentary salary to ensure that those Bills were guillotined in the House of Commons. I would say that there was an element of hypocrisy about these matters, but I cannot say that because it is not a parliamentary term.

Other guillotined legislation included the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, which we all remember as very significant legislation; the Non-Domestic Rating Bill; the 1994 Finance Bill—

Mrs. Anne Campbell

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I certainly shall when I have finished my list.

The list includes the Family Law Bill [Lords]. It also includes the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill. Does that legislation deal with matters in Northern Ireland? Of course it does.

Mr. MacKay

rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I presume that, when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, he will say, "Yes, I guillotined that legislation which relates to Northern Ireland."

Mr. MacKay

Yes, I guillotined that legislation which relates to Northern Ireland, but that guillotine simply reminds the House how soft on terrorism the Labour Opposition were. That is why a guillotine was necessary. Labour Members often deny that they were soft and say that there was a bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland, but I have always maintained that they were soft on terrorism. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Robespierre always had excuses and sought to justify his actions. Robespierre is a wonderful name for the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bercow

Although the hon. Gentleman is certainly a diligent researcher—I am full of admiration for his anorakish attention to the historical record—is he aware that several hon. Members in the Chamber are parliamentary virgins and, therefore, not remotely interested in—or could not give a tinker's cuss about-the record of alleged misdeeds of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay)? What we want instead from the cynical, world-weary hon. Gentleman is a principled defence of the parliamentary barbarity of what the Government themselves are proposing today.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

At the very beginning of my speech, I said that all I wanted to do was to draw attention to the former Government's record. That is my role today. The hon. Gentleman may not be interested in that, but many members of the public are very interested in it.

Mr. Straw

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his excursion into the record of the committee of public safety that used to operate under the previous Government. I simply want to say—being as generous as I can—that the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) erred in his recollection when he claimed that the previous Government had never guillotined Bills at the end of a Session—

Mr. MacKay

I said rarely.

Mr. Straw

I do not know whether three times in a week is "rarely", but that is exactly what happened in November 1989, just as we were nearing the end of the Session. The Local Government and Housing Bill, the Employment Bill and the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill were all guillotined within the space of six days.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

The right hon. Member for Bracknell might recall that the Firearms (Amendment) Bill also was guillotined. Did not that legislation have implications for Northern Ireland?

Mr. MacKay

No.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Perhaps I am wrong. The interesting thing about that Bill is that various Home Office Ministers voted in support of the guillotine.

In the next day, a parliamentary question that I tabled will be answered. I draw attention to it because it will help students of Parliament who wonder what debates on guillotines are all about to understand the background. I understand that, in reply to my question, a right hon. Friend has set out in detail—

Mr. Forth

Did they?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

A parliamentary question has been asked.

Mr. Forth

How does the hon. Gentleman know the answer?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Because the information is available. Additionally, as this Government always answer questions and do not hide behind claims of unreasonable cost, I presume that the answer that I receive will be comprehensive. If it is what I expect, it will set out in detail all the legislation that has been guillotined since 1979. If the answer is available tomorrow, hon. Members may wish to carry it with them, as it would help them in their debates.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that there are 666 amendments, to one of which we objected. In other words, the Government support the great majority of amendments passed in the Lords. It seems to me that that is the Lords working at its best. If the Lords can accommodate that volume of business on consequential amendments that are inconsequential in nature and would not be treated as controversial in the Commons, thereby saving the Commons time, the Lords will have helped the legislative process.

Mr. Grieve

In the Lords, the Bill occupied five days in Committee and three or four on Report. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the House should simply rubber-stamp the amendments that were made there?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

If it had not been for the efforts in the past 12 months of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), we would have been able to find more time to discuss these matters. Although I understand why he and his colleagues do such things, in the past few years, they have repeatedly delayed legislation. It seems inevitable that, at the end of the Session, we are coming up against the buffers.

Mr. Hogg

Does the hon. Gentleman understand what he is saying? He is saying that primary legislation should be made in the unelected House, notwithstanding the fact that it relates to Parliament, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and will not be discussed in this place. Surely that must be a travesty of good sense, even to him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I cannot believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that we are going to debate 666 amendments today. When the previous, Conservative Government were in office and hundreds of amendments were tabled, they were never all discussed on the Floor of the House. The justification given by Ministers in that Government was that the amendments had been dealt with in the Lords and were not controversial. I cannot see how the argument could have changed since then.

Mr. Forth

Surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying either that I, singlehandedly, can shape the entire legislative Session, much as I would like to be able to do so, or that — certainly since the House returned late from a three-month summer recess dictated by the Government—we have not had ample time, had the Government managed their business properly, to consider these matters in very great detail. What about all the non-sitting Fridays and all the evenings when everyone bunked off early? What about all the other occasions when the House could have considered these matters? The Government have controlled the timetable. It was not me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

The right hon. Gentleman talks about non-sitting Fridays. It is all right for him, because his constituency is about 20 miles down the road, in Bromley. My constituency is 319 miles from London. It now takes me 11 hours to get home. The reality is that we have very limited time to discuss legislation on the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Has not the summer recess always been from July to late October? Moreover, does my hon. Friend remember that, in 1992, we rose for the summer recess on 15 July, two weeks earlier than usual, but returned at the usual time in October?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I do not really want to go down this route. If we compare one year against another over the years, the recesses broadly average out. It is legitimate to argue that we could sit on Fridays, but the fact is that, when it takes many hon. Members 10, 11 or 12 hours to get to and from London, we have to go home earlier in the week. We have to do that because of travel difficulties.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I think that the hon. Gentleman has said that none of the amendments, bar one, is controversial. I ask him to read Lords amendment No. 1, which the Government support. He says that we are talking about a non-controversial amendment. However, it reads:

A person may not be appointed as an Electoral Commissioner if he…is a member of a registered party or if he is

an officer or employee of a registered party

or has held an office

within the last ten years.

According to that amendment, a person could be appointed as an electoral commissioner if he tore up his membership card the week before. Surely that is controversial.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I hope that he catches the Deputy Speaker's eye.

6 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I note that the Secretary of State and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), took a full hour to deploy their arguments, when we have only three hours to debate the motion.

Mr. MacKay

There were a lot of interventions.

Mr. Tyler

I acknowledge that there were some interventions. However, I hope to do rather better.

The debate shows clearly that the pantomime season has started already. We have had a lot of, "Oh yes you did" and "Oh no we didn't". The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is clearly rehearsing for the role of Buttons. Others may have other views about who is to take which role. It is clear that we are having a repeat performance of Monday evening's debate. Rather than repeat everything that I said then—others have repeated what they said—I shall refer the House to columns 676 to 678.

My fears were entirely justified on Monday evening. A guillotine is a blunt instrument. I am depressed to find that the Home Secretary—I am glad that he is still on the Treasury Bench—seems not to understand the difference between so-called programme motions and a guillotine. A programme motion allows us to have Divisions at particular stages of a debate. Such motions provide an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House who have points to make to express their views and to vote. The problem with a guillotine is that we go right through the evening until everything falls, whether it is important or unimportant.

There was a classic example on Monday night. We spent three hours debating why there was too little time to debate amendments. I am sure that it would be wrong to suggest that there was waffle, because the Chair would

have called Members to account, but there were some prolix contributions. There was much elaboration and repetition.

When it came to the vote on the guillotine, which we were told was so important and critical to the future of democracy, what did we find? Extraordinarily few Conservative Members remained to vote. In the words of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), they bunked off.

Mr. Forth

Disgraceful.

Mr. Tyler

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that contribution to my speech.

When we moved on to a debate on the substance of the Freedom of Information Bill, which Conservative Members were saying was of critical importance and we needed more time to debate, how many Conservative Members came into the Lobby in support of the Liberal Democrat amendment? The answer is one. That was even more disgraceful. It was the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who joined us. I am sorry that he is not in his place this evening. He would have contributed a well rehearsed speech to the debate. However, he did that on Monday, and I think that we can take it as read that had he spoken this evening he would have made a similar contribution. He stuck to his principles and he voted. I think that there were seven other Members from other parties who supported us, along with Labour Members.

Mr. Forth

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting a new parliamentary principle? Is he saying that he will measure our assiduity in respect of parliamentary duties on the basis of whether we support Liberal Democrat amendments? That strikes me as a new principle. Does the hon. Gentleman really mean what he is saying?

Mr. Tyler

The right hon. Gentleman is most helpful on these occasions. I have now found the figures. I am able to report that five Members of other parties supported us, with 12 Labour Members and one Conservative.

Mr. Forth

So what?

Mr. Tyler

I am saying that we debated the amendment at great length, and the right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was an important one. When it came to a Division, what happened? In the right hon. Gentleman's words, his colleagues bunked off.

That is what happens during a guillotine debate. There is not a carefully rehearsed and orchestrated opportunity to debate the issues that the House wants to debate and to divide on them. Instead, Members waffle. We have now a real choice between that sort of blunt instrument and a much more precise instrument. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are present who are also members of the Modernisation Committee, and by consensus we developed the idea that it was for the Opposition to say what issues they wanted to debate and to divide upon. That provides opportunities for Members on both sides of the House, including Labour rebels.

It will be within the recall of hon. Members now in their places that when we debated the Transport Bill on Report, it was decided that it would be important for certain Members to speak on particular issues. They did so and there were Divisions. When there is a guillotine, the Government too have it in their hands to waffle, filibuster or delay.

Mr. Hogg

Obviously there is some force in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about programme motions. I hope that he will recognise that Back Benchers may not share the same view as Front Benchers in terms of what is important. If a programme motion is to be determined by Front Benchers—the hon. Gentleman is the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, and therefore has an interest in arguing this point of view—other Members who have a different set of priorities may not have their views properly reflected.

Mr. Tyler

That is an important point. I acknowledge that the programme motion does not always work as perfectly as it should. However, on the occasion to which I referred, I received representations from both Labour and Conservative Back Benchers, as I am sure the Opposition Front Bench did. We made provision for those concerned. That cannot be done in a guillotined debate. However, in a programme motion, account can be taken of representations. As I have said, we managed to do that most successfully. I suggest that more often than not we should be seeking to adopt that approach.

On tonight's vote, on last night's vote and on Monday night's vote the business was set by the Government without consulting either of the Opposition parties. There was no opportunity for us to make representations about where decisions should be taken and at what point Members would want to have a proper debate on certain issues. The Government stand accused, as I said on Monday night, of hypocrisy in saying that they had no alternative but to introduce a guillotine motion. They had a much better alternative, and one that is accepted by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House as most effective.

It is not for me to give the Government advice on parliamentary tactics. However, would it not have been better to say, "We offered you the opportunity to debate the issues that you felt important and to have Divisions on them"? That would have put the Conservatives in some difficulty. There is a major division between the leadership of the Front Bench and the leadership on the Back Benches.

Mr. Grieve

Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the time that he thinks would be necessary to consider 666 Lords amendments and the Opposition amendments? I suggest that, far from there being any division, if a sensible time had been programmed, which would still have allowed the state opening of Parliament to take place next week, we would have put through the business having done a proper job.

Mr. Tyler

The hon. Gentleman comes to the point that I was about to make. I will not be betraying any secrets, but I am sure that in the specific circumstances of this week the Liberal Democrats would have been prepared to sit later if we knew that there would be adequate time for the particular issues that we wanted to debate and divide upon. That would have been true on Monday night, and certainly true last night, when there was consensus on many of the issues.

It is to be remarked upon that if there is a guillotine, we hand to the small minority the opportunity to filibuster on a particular interest to prevent other issues coming forward. The classic case was that of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and I am sorry that he is not in his place. With his extensive experience of Wales, he managed to entertain the House for a long time, to prevent a discussion starting on freedom of information in relation to his erstwhile Department. Since the BSE report, it has been categorised as a seedbed of secrecy and deliberate obfuscation. In such instances the guillotine plays into the hands of small minorities on either side of the House. It enables them to prevent the House from debating issues that are of importance.

Mr. Bercow

The hon. Gentleman has just attacked and impugned the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and he is entirely unjustified in doing so. Had we been able to get on to discuss the formulation of Government policy and the availability or non-availability of the facts leading to decisions, my right hon. Friend would have been able to demonstrate that the way the Government intend to proceed would suppress the release of relevant facts. My right hon. Friend devoted considerable attention to amendments relating to Wales and Northern Ireland because the Government's clauses on those subjects were woefully badly drafted—a point that he demonstrated effectively in his speech.

Mr. Tyler

The hon. Gentleman is being rather more prolix than he normally is—he is usually very succinct. I am afraid that he has missed the point of my contribution. What I was saying was that, if there were only a limited time in which to discuss certain issues, a practised parliamentarian such as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal would make his own contribution that much more succinct to fit the case; and he could, in speaking to an amendment, have gone on to defend his former Ministry against accusations of secrecy.

A programme motion will always be a more effective way for the Opposition as well as the Government to ensure that we debate the issues that need to be debated. That is why I think that the Government have missed a trick. Not only have they shown themselves to be hypocritical on the issue of the business motion that they put before the House, but they could also have wrong-footed the Opposition. If the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties had not been able to sign up to a programme motion, the Government would have been in a stronger moral position. As it is, they are not in a strong moral position tonight. All that they can do is pretend that their sin is somehow redeemed because their predecessors were equally wicked. I have never been able to accept that.

I shall turn briefly to the nature of the two Bills whose timetable motion we are discussing. As has already been said, it is extraordinary that they were both introduced comparatively early in the parliamentary year, as though they were very urgent. Then everything seemed to go quiet for an amazing length of time. It has not yet been mentioned, but the Government waited until October to bring them into Committee in the House of Lords.

Mr. MacKay

I just mentioned that.

Mr. Tyler

The right hon. Gentleman should wait a minute. He is not hanging on my every word, but he should do so.

The significance of the Government's action is that, this year, the other place came back in September. The House of Lords had plenty of time to make real progress and then send the Bills back to us in October or early November. That is what is so extraordinary.

The rationale for the so-called Disqualifications Bill has never been fully explained. However, the Bill was said at the outset to be urgent. The urgency argument has completely dissipated as each month has gone by. I cannot understand how the Government can pretend that it is still necessary to make progress at such speed today.

As I said earlier, the debate has all the elements of a well rehearsed pantomime. I regret that, and I hope that we shall shortly get on to the business that we are here to debate —the Bills. I hope that, in the new Session, which—all being well—will start next week, we shall all be able to learn a better way of dealing with our business.

6.13 pm

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge)

I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I felt that it was important to express my frustration at the synthetic indignation that has been voiced this evening.

Many people must feel frustration that we are spending time debating the guillotine rather than the Bill. I certainly felt frustration on Monday night, when we debated the guillotine on the Freedom of Information Bill. I had an important point about the Bill that I wanted to put to the Minister—I think that it related to amendment No. 22—about information concerning a tribunal brought under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The point had been raised with me by one of my constituents. Unfortunately, the amendment was in the third group of amendments, which we did not reach because of the discussions on technicalities on the other side of the House.

Mr. Swayne

Does not the hon. Lady realise that the remedy was in her own hands, in that she could have voted against the guillotine motion? I hope that she will learn from having made such a mistake on Monday.

Mrs. Campbell

Had I, and a sufficient number of other Labour Members, voted against the guillotine motion, we should have lost an excellent Bill because there would not have been time to debate it. Of course, that is the whole point of being in opposition. I have been in the hon. Gentleman's place myself, and I know that those are the kind of tricks that the Opposition play. I am not completely naive about these matters.

Mr. Wilshire

If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she is suggesting that the three-hour limit for the guillotine motion is something to which she objects. However, the decision to allocate three hours to this guillotine—and to the guillotine yesterday—was taken by Government Front-Bench Members, not by us. If the hon. Lady thinks that wrong, how long would she allow—a minute, or two? Or would she prefer a rubber stamp?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)

Order. The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is covered by the Standing Orders.

Mrs. Campbell

I am grateful to you for that intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The debate on the guillotine motion is timetabled for up to three hours, according to the Standing Orders, as Madam Deputy Speaker has helpfully reminded us. That will change after 6 December, when we adopt the new Standing Orders and, sensibly, everything will be programmed.

Mr. Grieve

Given the number of amendments and the amount of time available even without any discussion of the guillotine, does the hon. Lady consider that there is sufficient time to discuss the amount of new material that has come back from the other place? We have seven hours in which to discuss 666 amendments.

Mrs. Campbell

I have been in the Chamber since the beginning of the debate and I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been put forward. Opposition Members should say how many of those 666 amendments they consider controversial, and why we are not being given an opportunity—as we shall be under the new Standing Orders—to debate those controversial amendments and decide how much time will be allocated to each.

Mr. Hogg

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Campbell

No, I want to make some progress.

I brought up the example of the Freedom of Information Bill because I wanted to express my frustration at not being given the opportunity by the Opposition to make the point that I wished to make to the Minister on the Floor of the House. An Opposition who do not allow Government Back Benchers to make points to their own Ministers are incompetent, and the waffle that comes from that side of the House is, frankly, disgraceful.

I first came across a guillotine motion in, I think, December 1992. I was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Education Bill and I was disappointed that the then Government decided to curtail discussion and to impose a guillotine. The following year, right at the end of the parliamentary Session—despite what the Opposition spokesman said earlier—discussion of the Railways Bill was curtailed on 2 November, and on 3 November the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill was guillotined.

Bills were being curtailed, and not just at the end of the parliamentary Session. Almost immediately after the opening of the new Session, a guillotine was imposed, on 14 December 1993, on not one Bill, but two—the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill. That was a period in which we, as an Opposition, were co-operating with the Government. There was no necessity to curtail discussion on those two Bills at that stage in the parliamentary Session. The fact that guillotines were imposed demonstrates the hypocrisy on the part of Opposition Members tonight.

I think that I speak for many of my colleagues on this side of the House when I say how much we are looking forward to the new Session of Parliament, which will begin on 6 December, when programming will become the norm instead of ridiculous performances such as the one that we are witnessing this evening.

6.19 pm

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

I propose to make the briefest speech so far in this debate. I begin by agreeing with part of what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, in that the guillotine is the least satisfactory of all options. A more satisfactory one—if it can be secured—is an agreed programme motion that provides adequate time, to which I have often put my name when I believe that to be in the interests of proper discussion. The difficulty is that we can get an agreed programme motion only if the Government are prepared to offer adequate time. Given the scale of the amendments confronting the House this afternoon, I very much doubt whether the Government would have been able to open Parliament next week if they were first to concede the amount of time which, in my judgment, is necessary to deal with the Bills that are under discussion this week.

Mr. Hogg

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir George Young

Yes, but it will the only time, otherwise I will break my undertaking.

Mr. Hogg

I have already made the point to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that I have sympathy with the consensual timetable programme motion, but only on the basis that it is amendable. Many right hon. and hon. Members believe that those on the Front Benches did not actively reflect the identification of priorities. If we are to have programme motions, they must be amendable so that Back Benchers can seek to vary the allocated times.

Sir George Young

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I do not think that he disputes my point that the least satisfactory option is the guillotine. A better option is the agreed programme, and then we can have a discussion about how to reach it.

Just over a year ago, when I wound up the debate on the Loyal Address, I said that the Government's programme was ambitious. I also said:

For many of us, the shambles of the fag-end of the previous Session is still fresh in our memory—four guillotines in the last 10 days of the previous Session, and 820 amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill. However, far from learning the lessons of the end of the previous Session, the Government seem determined to repeat and amplify their mistakes. So indeed has this turned out to be. My warnings at that time were brushed aside by the Leader of the House, who explained that the Government were modernising and reforming the legislative process.—[Official Report, 24 November 2000; Vol. 339, c. 709-10.] The right hon. Lady went on to reassure the House that the development of how the Government were handling the House's work should also produce better legislation. I do not think that that hope has been achieved.

We end this Session, as we ended the previous one, with an unseemly rush of inadequate opportunities to consider important legislation. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was dealt with expeditiously and amicably in this House. The Minister was kind enough to compliment Opposition Members on the way in which they conducted themselves. Third Reading was on 14 March. Second Reading in another place was on 3 April. The Bill then disappeared into a legislative Bermuda triangle, the map for which is jealously guarded by Sir Murdo Maclean. The Bill was glimpsed briefly between the clouds on 11 May. It then disappeared entirely until 10 September, when it reappeared, running dangerously low on fuel, in another place.

This is an almost unprecedented disruption in the legislative process. It was rather elegantly explained away by a Minister in another place who said:

we have had an unfortunate break in the thread of continuity…But that has enabled us to have time to pause for reflection.— [Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 183.] The reflection has altered and substantially increased the Bill, which is now stacked, along with eight others, over the House of Commons, awaiting a landing slot.

This is a serious Bill. It sets the framework within which the democratic process takes place. It is a constitutional Bill; it influences how elections are conducted and referendums held. I caution the Home Secretary and other Ministers against over-use of the "listening Government" phrase. We have heard rather a lot of that this week. They may be a listening Government, but they are also rather careless. These Bills have not been well drafted, and that has been part of the trouble.

The Home Secretary says that the Government have not brought in very many Bills. He is able to say that only because, in one case, three Bills have been put into one. The Transport Bill is actually three Bills—it deals with the National Air Traffic Services, the Strategic Rail Authority and charging. This Bill is also more than one Bill—it is the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. So I urge caution about over-use of the argument about the number of Bills.

I spoke in yesterday's guillotined debate on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. Everybody spoke in a disciplined way—they stuck to the footpath and there was very little rambling. None the less, we could not do justice to all the amendments and the Bill was not fully considered. Exactly the same thing will happen to night.

The Disqualifications Bill also had a very unusual passage. Third Reading was on 25 January. Indeed, it was so important that the House sat all through the night. On 26 January, the Bill had its First Reading in another place and then disappeared off the radar until 27 July. It has now been amended substantially and this House is invited to accept that a Bill which the Government did not seem to mind about for six months now has to be rushed through in two days.

This is no way to manage a legislative programme; it is no way to treat Parliament and it is no way to scrutinise Bills. For those reasons, I will have no hesitation in voting against the guillotine.

6.26 pm

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

I shall also try to be brief. As other Members will know, our party is generally against guillotines in any form, particularly in the case of this legislation, as it may deprive us of the opportunity of debating some measures that apply uniquely to Northern Ireland. That is the point on which I wish to make a few comments.

Earlier in our proceedings, I intervened on the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and said that the concept of treating Northern Ireland separately from the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to foreign donations had been consistently opposed by our party. Shortly after that, the Under-Secretary of State for the Northern Ireland Office intervened to quote a passage of evidence given by the late Sir Josias Cunningham, who was at that time president of our party, which implied a willingness to accept foreign donations.

I wish to place this matter in context because I believe that the Minister has misled the House in this respect. The words that he quoted were said, but they were said on 17 June 1998, in evidence to the Committee. In the course of giving that evidence, Sir Josias also said that we would want a uniform system applied. If it were applied in the United Kingdom generally, we should not be omitted. On the point that I was making—that we objected and continue to object to Northern Ireland being treated separately on this matter—the evidence given on that date was quite clear. The comments that Sir Josias made on that occasion were in discussing foreign donations in general. They predated the recommendations in the report, because they were evidence given beforehand. Subsequently, the report was made recommending a ban on foreign donations. We have made it clear that we are quite happy to accept that. However, we have also made it clear, right through this matter, that when the Government brought forward proposals to treat Northern Ireland separately, we objected to them.

May I quote to the Minister from the letter that was sent to the party funding unit at the Home Office by the general secretary of the Ulster Unionist council, Mr. David Boyd, dated 13 October 1999? He said:

We are disappointed that the proposals for restrictions on donations from overseas differ in Northern Ireland from Great Britain. This is the one area in which legislation for Northern Ireland should be at least as strong as that in Great Britain. He went on to reinforce that point.

I make it clear, and I hope that the Minister will accept, that we have opposed the separate treatment of Northern Ireland. To suggest, as he did, that we indicated a willingness to be treated separately is not accurate. I reinforce the point by saying that the sentence that he quoted was quoted in another place on 10 October and the misleading impression was thereupon immediately corrected in another place. I am amazed that the Minister proceeds to quote the matter in a misleading manner, even though the error—if error it be—had already been corrected.

Mr. George Howarth

If I have in any way misrepresented the position that the right hon. Gentleman's party took on this matter, of course I apologise. I will need to check the record, but my recollection is that there were, subsequent to the events that he describes, further meetings at which a different

point of view made on behalf of his party was put. If I am wrong about that, and I cannot locate the notes quickly to verify my version of events, I will of course put the record straight.

Mr. Trimble

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has behaved honourably in this matter. If anything said subsequent to the publication of the Government White Paper indicated a willingness to treat Northern Ireland separately, that does not represent my views, because they are absolutely clear and have been expressed in our discussions with the Government.

We shall be happy to read the record on the matter, however. I am grateful to have had the opportunity of setting out the matter more fully so soon after statements were made that I consider misleading. I do not want to detain the House longer at this point.

6.30 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I regret both that this is the second timetable motion before the House this week and that it is the second time that I have spoken on such a motion. We should not be doing this. We are guillotining four major Bills this week. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and Disqualifications Bill are measures of real substance.

We are being asked to consider the deletion of new clause 1 of the Disqualifications Bill. That provision is at the heart of the Bill, and to try to deal with the matter in three hours is plain wrong. On the PPER Bill, there are 666 amendments—as has been constantly pointed out. I gather from the Home Secretary that 665 of those amendments were either tabled by the Government or had their approval. The Government are presenting the House with 665 Government-inspired or supported amendments that we shall have to consider for the very first time in between only three or four hours. That is absurd.

Labour Members have argued that many of those amendments are non-controversial or have been tabled in respect of undertakings. That may well be true; I do not challenge the bona fides of hon. Members. However, we need to bear in mind two points: when one considers an amendment, one examines its inherent merits and also the language in which it is encapsulated. Hon. Members may say that an amendment is not controversial, but that does not resolve the problem. The policy content of the amendment may not be controversial, but what about its language? We are in the business of—where we can—trying to improve legislation and trying to avoid nonsense. It is thus extremely important—even in respect of uncontroversial measures—that the House should have an opportunity to scrutinise statutory language.

Mr. Forth

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as at least 500 Members of the House are not part of the Government, it would be difficult to state with certainty whether any measure—big or small—is a priori non-controversial? We are all politicians and we all hold different points of view. Is it not at least likely that someone — somewhere—may regard something as controversial, and that to prejudge that issue is a denial of the parliamentary process?

Mr. Hogg

I agree with my right hon. Friend and in a moment I shall touch briefly on the point he makes.

I was saying that, even if an amendment is genuinely uncontroversial as to its content, we are still in the business of trying to improve statutory language so that we do not send out legislation that is rubbish or imperfect.

I point out to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the former shadow Leader of the House, that I am not wholly opposed to programme motions; I understand the force of them. However, there are certain conditions. First, we should have some agreement as to the overall volume of legislation with which we shall be dealing in any one Session. Secondly, we must ensure that, within the programme, there is sufficient time to address the relevant Bill.

To amplify the point that I made earlier to my right hon. Friend and to the hon. Gentleman, let me say that an agreement between Front-Bench Members as to the key parts of a Bill does not necessarily reflect the views of, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) or indeed myself.

Mr. Tyler

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg

I will give way when I have finished my point.

The danger of consensual agreements between the Front Benches is that the programming will not take into account the views of heavily engaged Back Benchers, who may take a wholly different view of what is important. That is why such a motion has to be amendable, so that people such as my right hon. Friend can argue that we need more time for discussion of one group of amendments and less for another, and we can then divide on the matter. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tyler

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I know that he is especially punctilious about the names of constituencies—with good reason—I point out that my constituency is North Cornwall.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a valid point. I agree that a programme motion may not always meet the case and accept the points he makes on Back-Bench opinion. That is especially true for the PPER Bill; we may not all be experts on agriculture or foreign affairs, but we are all experts on the political process, so the views of Back Benchers have a unique relevance in discussion of the Bill. I agree that a programme motion might have been difficult to construct and that it may well have been necessary to make it amendable, but it would still have been a much better option than a guillotine motion.

Mr. Hogg

I see the merit in what the hon. Gentleman says; I have nothing to add to my remarks on that point. However, I have one or two further points on the guillotine motion.

I acknowledge that I have already spoken on the matter this week. Hon. Members may ask rhetorically—or may even ask me—why I am making the speech again. The reason is that, if this motion is bad in principle, we should not acquiesce in it. If that means repeating oneself, so that one is not seen to acquiesce, then so be it. The principle is bad and I shall explain why, but I think that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) wants to intervene.

Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Hogg

The hon. Gentleman does not want to intervene; I apologise.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I do.

Mr. Hogg

The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will think extremely carefully about his response to my question. In his 20 years in this place, has he ever voted for a guillotine motion on Lords amendments when there were more than 500 amendments?

Mr. Hogg

I cannot answer the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question: I do not know offhand. However, when I was a Minister—and indeed, when I was not a Minister, but we were in government—I supported many timetable motions. As a Minister, I was bound by collective responsibility. That is not a laughing matter—one does not resign over silly matters. I trust that one resigns only over major matters. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, a guillotine motion does not fall into the spectrum of matters on which one resigns—they need to be more substantial than that.

Mr. Salmond

Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider resignation over the many serious matters that he was involved in mucking up?

Mr. Hogg

There certainly were times when I considered resignation—and indeed on serious matters. I went a long way down that road. I should certainly have resigned had I not been asked to stay on.

Mr. Salmond

Tell us more.

Mr. Hogg

I shall not continue this dialogue because it will be out of order. However, I was never someone—for example, when I was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to hold on needlessly.

The point that I was making in response to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is that, when one is a member of a Government, one accepts collective responsibility. Yes, I certainly voted for timetable motions—and may even have moved them from time to time. When I was a Government Whip, I certainly bullied my colleagues to support such motions. Incidentally, I had no greater respect for them when they agreed to be bullied than I would otherwise have had, because I want independent-minded people in this place. I shall return to that point, but I hope that I have fully and adequately dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers specifically to timetable motions. I was talking about timetable motions that involve hundreds—indeed 500 or more—of Lords amendments.

Mr. Hogg

I answered the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

No, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered me. If he is opposed in principle, he would say that it had never happened at all.

Mr. Hogg

I answered the hon. Gentleman's question, which was a perfectly fair one to ask. I simply do not remember; how am I supposed to remember whether I supported a particular timetable motion during 18 years? I have not a clue, but were it on the agenda and were I in the House, I am sure that I would have done so, for the reasons that I have given. However, that does not mean that it is right to agree to such a motion, and I shall explain the reasons why I think it wrong to do so.

The first reason, which is important, is that democracy is a fairly fragile institution; we are calling on people to accept law and policy with which they may well not agree. An essential element of the bargain that people make in a political commonwealth is that policy and legislation is scrutinised and considered by their elected representatives. If we strip out the essential process of scrutiny, discussion and consideration, we also strip out the foundation on which the acceptance of law rests, and the electorate will begin to realise that the policies and laws imposed on them are but the will of one party. That cannot be right.

Mr. Robert McCartney

Is it correct to say that the essence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that, if we impose guillotine measures in circumstances in which there is no fundamental consensus, we substitute elective despotism for democracy?

Mr. Hogg

I would indeed say that. I ventured to make that point on Monday in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Workington. In fact, that phrase was used by my right hon. and noble father, who gave a long lecture on the subject in the latter part of the 1970s.

The first point is that we undermine people's respect for democracy. I have alluded to the second point already in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The volume of legislation is very great and we often get the statutory language wrong, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) knows full well from his time in the courts. If we strip out the process of scrutiny, possible defects in statutory language will simply slip through, and we should not allow that to happen.

My next point is that we are in a truly bizarre situation. There are about 181 pages of amendments; there are certainly 666 amendments, most of them made in the other place. As has been willingly conceded on both sides of the House, most of the amendments will not be discussed tonight. In fact, most of them have come not from this House but exclusively from that House—although often in response to undertakings given by Ministers, it is true.

It is truly bizarre that an unelected Chamber should be the source of primary legislation. It is even more bizarre that the unelected House, for which I have great respect, should be the source of primary legislation on political parties and referendums, with which, by definition, they are not so well acquainted as we are. That is an absolute absurdity.

Mr. Bercow

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is leaving the Chamber, but we have more in line for him.

Mr. Hogg

I am always glad to see the hon. Gentleman, whether he is coming or going, so let us not try to detain him.

The remedy is to have elected Members in the other Chamber. We should then be less aggrieved. I would advocate such a policy to the House, but I do not think that I would carry the majority tonight.

I should like to make another point. Debates on amendments are, in the end, often the hook on which hon. Members articulate the views of their electors, with regard either to the amendment or to the circumstances that have given rise to the legislation. If debate is stripped out by timetabling everything or by using the guillotine—a point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall has already made—elected Members are prevented from expressing their constituents' views, either with regard to constituency matters or to the anxieties that they may have about particular amendments. That cannot be right. The effect is to prevent Members of Parliament from articulating their constituents' views or those of interest groups, which seek to influence Parliament through its Members.

Shortly before this debate, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) introduced a ten-minute Bill, which was persuasively argued against by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). One of the questions asked, both explicitly and implicitly, was: why is politics held in such low esteem? Why do not people vote more often? There are many answers—you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I tried to trawl through them—but one of them is a sense that Parliament is not performing its function of scrutinising legislation. The lack of independence among Members is a great problem. I am asking not for more independent Members—

Mr. Martin Bell

Why not?

Mr. Hogg

1 shall not get into that argument. I am asking not for more independent Members, but for more independence among Members—a very different matter. It seems wholly plain that if we allow important legislation to slip through without debate or scrutiny, we shall diminish the country's respect for the statutory, legislative and political process.

Mr. Bercow

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg

Yes, of course I will, but then I shall come slowly to my conclusion.

Mr. Bercow

Cannot Parliament's problem be succinctly encapsulated? By truncating and minimising the consideration of important Bills, are we not demonstrating that we have sacrificed our self-respect? If so, how on earth can we expect anyone else to respect us?

Mr. Hogg

I agree. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I repeatedly hear hon. Members bewailing the difficulties that they face with working practices or whatever, but the truth is that we are the authors of our own misfortune. The solution is within our grasp. Hon. Members should become more independent and tell their Front Benchers and Whips, "We won't put up with this. We do not like the timetable or the policy." I am here to articulate my views and those of my constituents, not those of anyone else. I did not become a Member of Parliament to echo Front Benchers. I want hon. Members to have more independence. If we achieve that, we shall rise in the esteem of the electorate.

Mr. Robert McCartney

Is not the problem that the right hon. and learned Gentleman adumbrates the result of a party system and professional politicians who are determined to maintain their position on the greasy ladder, which involves not behaving independently, but toeing the Whips' line?

Mr. Hogg

The answer is yes. I have been a career politician. I was pleased and privileged to serve in government for 13 years, and I enjoyed doing so very much, but a great vice of this country's political process is that the Executive is part of the legislature and, moreover, parliamentarians are but the creatures of their parties for the most part. Consequently, we talk about parliamentary sovereignty, but that is rubbish; we are really talking about the concluded opinion of the majority party, provided that the majority of Back Benchers support their Whips. That is not parliamentary democracy as it should be. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Down; he goes to the root of the matter.

I shall conclude by reflecting on the fact that we are up against a timetable: the Queen's Speech on 6 December. However, that is an arbitrary timetable and it could be shifted if necessary. That is not really the answer to the question. The answer is that we should not overload the programme—that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire pointed out—which is what happened in this Session. If the programme is overloaded, inevitably, we will end up in the deplorable state in which we have found ourselves this week. That is wrong, and hon. Members who value the parliamentary process and believe in democracy must in our hearts know that that it is wrong.

I will not embarrass Labour Members by mentioning the empty Labour Benches and saying that they should vote with us tonight. I know that they will not and, in any case, they are not here. People who care about democracy need to watch what is happening. Parliament is falling into disrepute and this sort of measure contributes towards that.

6.50 pm

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

I have two reasons for voting against the guillotine. One is slightly frivolous and one is very serious.

What would happen if the guillotine motion failed? Given the proximity to the end of the Session, I imagine that the Bill would be lost. Would that be an enormous disaster? I do not think so—indeed, I can see one reason why it might be useful. Given the Home Secretary's conduct in the past few days, the extra time would give him a chance to recover some sense of balance and perspective. I am referring not to the fact that this is the second guillotine motion that he has introduced this week but to his remarkable speech last night when he proposed the abolition of the Scotland football team and its merger into a United Kingdom squad. Some people say that the timing was more than coincidental, with Scotland sitting proudly at the top of group 6 while England is propping up group 9. As the wags say in Scotland, England must be the strongest team in the World cup—it is holding up all the other sides.

One thing that is certain is that a Home Secretary who thinks that this is the right time for that spectacular own goal in politics does not seem to be the Home Secretary we should trust to guide through controversial legislation. Earlier today, I was on television with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—the former Sports Minister—who informed me that when he made such a suggestion—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I must bring the hon. Gentleman to order. I am sure that he intends to move on to the allocation of time motion soon.

Mr. Salmond

I am talking about the allocation of time, and the time that the Home Secretary requires to recover his sense of political judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely going to say that the hon. Member for West Ham told me that Alastair Campbell had been on the phone to him. I suspect that that must be why the Home Secretary is absent from our proceedings now—Alastair Campbell is telling him off for announcing such a policy on the day of the launch of the Scottish by-elections.

The substantive reason why the guillotine motion should be rejected is that the Home Secretary sought to give the impression in his introduction that the Bill is uncontroversial and that the 666 amendments are uncontroversial and do not deal with points of substance.

Mr. Forth

Wrong.

Mr. Salmond

The Home Secretary tried to give that impression. That is my clear understanding of what he had to say. The Bill started off as a measure that commanded support across the parties—there was remarkable consensus, as there was on the Neill committee—but it no longer commands that consensus. The Home Secretary was kind enough to remind the House that my party and I have long favoured statutory disclosure of donations, statutory provisions on campaign finance and a statutory limit not only on campaign expenditure but on donations, which is absent from the Bill.

We have long believed in all those measures, but we now find ourselves totally opposed to a part of the Bill that contains the most extraordinary anomaly that I can think of in any Bill of recent times. It is a sign of the extent to which Ministers are distant from the reality of that loss of consensus that when I raised the matter with the Home Secretary, rather than realising that I was talking about the Northern Ireland exemption in part IV of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman thought that I was talking about chapter IV, which deals with referendums.

The Home Secretary does not understand the anxieties of the Scottish National party, which sees that, as a result of the Bill, an expatriate Irish person will be allowed to give money to a political party that has been associated with violence for a generation or more, whereas an expatriate Scot will not be allowed to give money to the SNP, which has espoused a peaceful, constitutional road to change for 70 years. If the Home Secretary does not realise that that is grossly offensive to many people of all political parties in Scotland, as well as in Northern Ireland and Wales, and that it is a source of major political controversy in the Bill, and if he justifies the guillotine on the basis of an all-party consensus that no longer exists, I seriously doubt his judgment.

Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry)

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is not merely an expatriate Irishman who can send money back? Someone who is expatriate four or five generations down the line, who still calls himself an Irish American or an Irish Australian can do so.

Mr. Salmond

I was interested when the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland quoted the late president of the Ulster Unionist party, who was on to a strong point when he seemed to argue—I have checked the evidence of the Neill committee—that it would inconvenience the UUP, which is a peaceful and democratic party, to turn down donations from expatriate supporters, and wanted that provision to be universally applied. Legislation to stop such donations will not inconvenience the men of violence. The last thing that people who engage in violent activities will be concerned about is what is in a Bill in this House. They are already pursuing illegal activities; they will not be legalised by a House of Commons measure.

The provision will substantially inconvenience democratic and peaceful political parties. That is the anomaly on which the Government are riding in part IV of the legislation. Furthermore, a Northern Ireland Minister—apparently in all innocence—could not cite with any certainty the views of the Northern Ireland parties on that section of the Bill. That should tell the House that the Bill is not in a condition to be guillotined. Indeed, it is not in a condition to be enacted.

What would happen if the guillotine failed and the measure were lost? We read in the Evening Standard today that the Government are considering an April, as opposed to a May, election. Are they saying that they intend to invoke the full provisions of the Bill before an election in the spring of next year? Or are they suggesting that they will be invoked for the following election? If it is the election after next—I suspect that it is and, judging from the detail of the Bill, one must conclude that it is bound to be—why not carry the Bill on to the next Session and regain the all-party consensus with which the Government started the process but which they have lost, as is well understood from the debates in another place?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)

On a point of information, we have made it clear that we hope that some, although not all, of the key provisions of the Bill will come into effect—depending on what is decided today—on 16 February 2001. The time scale that the hon. Gentleman is discussing is obviously important. It is important that the Electoral Commission should be able to get on with its job.

Mr. Salmond

I thank the Minister. That makes the point. If the provisions are to be implemented in

mid-February, it is an open invitation to rush through whatever needs to be rushed through on political parties before a campaign that could start as early as next March. If the Bill is primarily aimed at general elections and fairness, it should be introduced for the following election, when its provisions can be properly understood and implemented.

As it stands, the Bill is certainly discriminatory and unfair. I believe that it is undemocratic. It may also be unlawful and may have to be tested elsewhere. Rather than turn down the arguments against the guillotine, the Government would be well advised to think again about the discriminatory aspects of part IV.

6.59 pm

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

This is the first time that I have spoken on a guillotine motion. It is also the first time that I have spoken in the Chamber since you were appointed to your present post, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I sincerely congratulate you. I hope that you will indulge me slightly if I speak not about the general principle of guillotining but about why I am sad that this Bill will be guillotined. I am sure that you will correct me if I stray into too much detail. I shall try to avoid doing so.

I moved in Committee and on Report in this House an amendment on which some of the Lords amendments have a bearing. My amendment related to a provision in the Representation of the People Act 1983 that makes it a criminal offence deliberately to tell lies about the character and conduct of a candidate for an election with a view to damaging his or her vote in that election.

As I explained at the time—I shall not do so in any detail now—I was the victim of deliberate lies and someone was criminally convicted on seven charges for making gross, lying accusations about my private life and my sexuality. Even to this day, I believe that they damaged at least one relationship that was particularly important to me. More relevantly to the Bill, which will be guillotined, the accusations remained in circulation throughout the election campaign because they were on the internet. Indeed, they remained in circulation on the internet even after the perpetrator had been convicted, having admitted in court that he had no evidence for the lies, and even after he had died.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman sought my indulgence, and I think that he has had that. However, I must remind him that this is not a general debate about the Bill, but a debate about the timetable motion. I ask him to return to that subject.

Dr. Lewis

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is a matter of great concern that a loophole that was identified in Committee and on Report will not be discussed because of the proposed guillotining of the Bill. The fact is that, in trying to close the loophole that enables such allegations to circulate even though their perpetrator is no longer alive, I had the support of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) from the Government Back Benches, and I received exceptionally kind consideration from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who I am delighted is here now.

When referring to the problem on Report, the Under-Secretary said: The Government note the broad support on both sides of the House for dealing with this issue, and the strong sympathy that exists for the proposition made, on this occasion, by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).—[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 263–4.] My proposition was that material uploaded on to the internet before an election campaign should count as an act of publication if it remains on the internet while the election campaign continues.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I regret having to say this, but the hon. Gentleman must now direct his remarks to the timetable motion.

Dr. Lewis

I have almost concluded my remarks. The debate will be truncated in such a way that we shall not be able to consider this and many similarly important issues that relate directly to the democratic process and the effect that abuses of that process can have on the lives and electoral possibilities of candidates for membership this House. I have raised the issue because I hope to elicit from the Under-Secretary a commitment that the Government will seek to deal with this problem in the future.

7.5 pm

Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton)

I shall, as always, give the shortest speech in the debate. It is in my nature to give short speeches, but I fear that my campaign for shorter speeches has not caught on; if it had, there would be no need for this debate.

There are measures and there are times when guillotine motions are appropriate. I do not think that this is the right time or the right measure. This is not a technical or non-controversial Bill. It goes to the heart of our democracy and relates to how people vote and how we are chosen and to public perceptions of the Chamber. In many respects, it is profoundly undemocratic and militates against the independent and independent-minded. It will allow vast sums of money to be thrown at the electoral process and it will take us further down the American path. The Bill needs more scrutiny than will be allowed given all the amendments that have been back-loaded on to it.

When I arrived in this place rather unexpectedly in May 1997, I thought that I was joining the free Parliament of a free people. Increasingly, it seems to be more of a rubber-stamp assembly. I am worried by what we are doing tonight. We shall vote in haste and repent at leisure.

7.6 pm

Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down)

I shall speak against the guillotine motion. Although in some circumstances such motions may be justified, Bills to which a large number of amendments have been tabled—technical, consequential or otherwise—and which include provisions that affect the fundamental principles of democratic government and go to the fundamentals of our constitutional process should not be rushed through without scrutiny. They should be considered for their content and language and they should be subject to careful assessment. As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said in his succinct fashion, this place should be a democratic assembly where the principles of democracy and liberty are given the fullest, unrestrained rein when fundamental issues are at stake.

Recently, I read a quotation from Judge Learned Hand, one of the most distinguished jurists of the 20th century. He said this about liberty:

What then is the spirit of liberty?…The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weights their interests alongside its own without bias. Can anyone, for one moment, suggest that, in the circumstances of this Bill, any of those fundamental principles has been observed?

Earlier speakers have said that the House is increasingly becoming the creature of parties. There is no question but that the party system and the increasing emphasis in the life of a parliamentarian on having a structured career that leads to office have both militated against the independence of Members. There is perhaps an air of unreality to the debate. We all know that the Whips will give their directions regardless of what any of us say.

Mr. Hogg

May I amplify the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument? In this debate, the majority of hon. Members have supported the views that he is articulating. We all know that in 40 minutes or so, 320 or 330 hon. Members who know nothing about the debate, have not been present and have not taken part in the argument will flock in.

Mr. McCartney

I could not agree more with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When the Division Bells ring, I often think of the analogy of the Pied Piper of Hamelin: "All they come from their various places—fat ones, thin ones, scrawny ones and tawny ones," making their way to their new lodgings at the direction of the respective pipers, and no doubt hoping to benefit later from the cheese.

Mr. Winnick

It is true that when the Division Bells ring, hundreds of hon. Members—on both sides, incidentally—will come into the Chamber. That has always been the practice, whichever Government were in office. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the fact that when Government Members have strong feelings against a Government measure or a certain aspect of a Bill, as was the case last night, we are present in the Chamber? Many of us listen closely to the debate and usually we know precisely what we will do: vote against our own Government, as a number of us did last night. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not be too cynical. In the main, my colleagues believe that the Government's proposed guillotine is justified. That is why they are not in the Chamber now.

Mr. McCartney

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not think that I had made a generalisation so overriding as to apply to each and every hon. Member or to groups of hon. Members in parties. In the relatively short period that I have been in the House, I have observed nothing that detracts from the principle that I outlined.

When the Whips give their indication, hon. Members pile in and, broadly speaking, do their bidding. We can all say what we like, but elected despotism will be at work. When the Whips call the tune, the matter will be disposed of.

I shall deal briefly with some of the points that are of particular significance to Unionist Members from Northern Ireland. One is the exemption which has been so eloquently dealt with by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), relating to the special dispensation that is to be given to parties in Northern Ireland. It will benefit only two parties, both of them part of the pan-nationalist front: Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party, which both claim that a large part of their revenue comes from abroad, principally from the Republic and the United States.

What is baffling to most democrats in Northern Ireland is the vacillating and cowardly policy of appeasement that is afforded to those parties. Sinn Fein has been described by the Prime Minister and successive Secretaries of State as being inextricably linked with the IRA. They are two sides of the same coin. It is a matter of common knowledge in Northern Ireland that all the highest offices in Sinn Fein and the IRA are occupied by the same people, and that the personnel of Sinn Fein almost wear as campaign medals some conviction for a terrorist offence.

It has also been the subject of comment on both sides of the Atlantic—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are debating the timetable motion, not the Bill itself.

Mr. McCartney

I agree entirely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall give the argument some focus.

I have been forced to stress some of the substance of the argument in order to highlight the circumstances in which matters of fundamental constitutional and democratic principle will be swept to one side and afforded inadequate treatment and scrutiny because of the guillotine. Were it not for the guillotine, many matters that are of the most fundamental importance could be considered.

As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out, why should parties which observe the democratic process, eschew violence and attempt to achieve their political goals in peaceful and non-violent ways be penalised by special concessions made to parties which the Government admit are inextricably linked with terrorist organisations?

I finish by saying that this evening, when the Division Bells ring, when the guillotine motion is carried in favour of the Government, and when, after inadequate discussion and scrutiny of both its content and its language, the Bill is blitzed through the parliamentary process, people in Northern Ireland will have to live with the consequences. Their belief in democracy will be shattered. They will see those who rely on violence raised up and financially fed. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office may smile, but that is what people in Northern Ireland will see.

7.16 pm

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

The Secretary of State was disappointed that his benign intent in moving the guillotine motion on Monday night was defeated by the wilful nature of the Opposition, who, in his estimation, subsequently discussed all the wrong amendments.

That is a measure of the Government's arrogance when they introduce such motions. They decide in their own minds what it is proper for the Opposition to discuss. They tell us that under the terms of their motion, there was time to discuss what in their opinion ought to have been discussed. That was precisely the point made by the Secretary of State—the Government should be scrutinised on their own terms, not according to the estimates of the Opposition.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to even greater arrogance when he said that the Government, when in opposition, had learned from the process when they began to co-operate with the then Government. We have heard that theme several times this week. No wonder this week has been characterised as national guillotine week.

Let me make a point that I made earlier this week about what such co-operation means. I recall, as do other Opposition Members, that the Scotland Act 1998 passed through the House with some measure of co-operation. That is exactly the sort of co-operation that was lauded this evening by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). An agreement was reached between the two Front Benches, so that the right things, according to the estimation of both sides, would be debated.

Again and again, that was used to silence dissent on the Government Benches. What those on my Front Bench thought it proper to discuss was not entirely consistent with what I thought it proper to discuss but, much more important, given his role in that debate, what was discussed was not what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) considered it important to discuss. Again and again, amendments that he considered important were never discussed.

Mr. Salmond

The hon. Gentleman is far too modest. I recall that exactly. The target was not the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Swayne

I thank my hon. Friend, if I may call him that as he approaches his swan song in the House.

The Secretary of State closed his remarks earlier by saying that he deserved to be kissed. In my estimation, given the damage that the guillotine motion does to the very substance of democracy, those who introduce such motions deserve not to be kissed. Rather, they deserve to be garotted with their own intestines.

7.19 pm

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Unless provoked, I shall be brief. Before dealing with a couple of particular concerns, I want to refer to the important issue highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who raised the subject of character assassination on the internet during an election campaign. It was my impression that he was genuinely aggrieved that, as a result of the timetable motion, there would be inadequate time properly to consider that matter. I also had the impression that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), had some thoughts on it.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I do not know whether the timetable will allow us to discuss the points raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), but I can tell him that although we were unable to deal with his serious concerns in the Bill, the Government do not have a closed mind on such matters, and I shall be happy to discuss them with him if an opportunity arises

Mr. Bercow

I am grateful for that observation. It reassures me and, I imagine, is even more reassuring to my hon. Friend.

I want to address two points made respectively by the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The Home Secretary appeared to advance the novel and pernicious parliamentary doctrine that the greater the amendment of a Bill in the other place, the more compelling the argument for its truncated consideration in this place.

I utterly reject that spurious doctrine. The rationale behind it would allow all sorts of Bills—ill-conceived, badly drafted, hastily introduced by the Government and duly amended, in a draconian manner, in the other place—to be rushed through the House. That is unacceptable. I hope that the Home Secretary will ponder that doctrine again. I do not know whether he planned to come to the House to defend and advance it, or whether he simply made an off-the-cuff comment that he dreamt up in response to criticism. Either way, it was unsatisfactory and indefensible.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

rose—

Mr. Bercow

The hon. Gentleman is quivering in his seat, as well he might, but he must exercise what self-restraint he can muster in the circumstances. I want to deal with him briefly, but with relish.

The hon. Gentleman provided a charge sheet of alleged parliamentary sins, culled from the historical record of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as though that justified the vicious assault on the rights of Members of Parliament which the Government are perpetrating today. For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that I could not give a tinker's cuss whether my right hon. Friend has a sinful track record or whether he is the epitome of parliamentary virtue, as I have always imagined him to be. The issue is not how many guillotines there have been in the past, or whether consideration of Bills was truncated in the 1970s, 1980s or the 1990s, but what is proposed now. If the hon. Member for Workington has a half defence of his earlier utterance, I shall readily give way to him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

The hon. Gentleman is a very young man. Will he give an undertaking that if there were a Tory Government in 15 or 20 years' time, there would be no circumstances under which he would go into the Lobby to guillotine a substantial number of Lords amendments?

Mr. Bercow

No, I will not give that undertaking, and for two reasons. First, it is unwise to say never; secondly, one has to consider particular circumstances. The hon. Gentleman has helpfully brought me on to the relevant matter.

Dr. Julian Lewis

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bercow

Not just yet.

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that we are dealing with the issue of 666 amendments that were made in the other place to this incredibly poor legislation—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. In practice, that amounts to something like 21.6 seconds for the consideration of each amendment if there are no votes, which is, of course, an unrealistic assumption.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

If the number of amendments were cut by 75 per cent., leaving us with 150 to discuss, the hon. Gentleman would have one and a third minutes for each one. Would that enable him to give the undertaking that I requested?

Mr. Bercow

It is extremely unlikely that I would want to support such a proposition. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hold me to account in future years to judge whether I have stood by the pledge that he believes me to have given, I shall be happy to see what the record demonstrates. The House will have detected that he is keen to divert attention away from the parliamentary vandalism in which the Government are engaged.

It is offensive that the Government should suggest that the matters for consideration are minor, trivial, insignificant or piddling. They are nothing of the kind. They involve the transfer of functions from boundary commissions to the Electoral Commission and the creation of the parliamentary parties panel. We do not know how that new body, previously not mentioned, will work, who will be involved in it or what level of accountability it will attain. This is a proper time to consider such matters. Another consideration is the obligation of the Secretary of State to consult on the wording of questions in future referendums. Those matters cannot be lightly cast aside.

We are also dealing with the Disqualifications Bill. I believe that it is an odious, repulsive and disgraceful measure. It is an affront to the rights and integrity of the House that the Government should seek to justify the circumscription of debate on a matter that is so repugnant to so many people. It is especially repugnant when we reflect on the fact, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) suggested, that the debate is being truncated to curry favour with, to appease and to suck up to an unrepresentative minority called Sinn Fein.

We can learn from some of the great figures who made this place great. Edmund Burke was one of the finest parliamentarians in the history of this country and, as it happens, the father of modern conservatism. What did he have to say about unrepresentative minorities? He said:

Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the most noise are the only inhabitants of the field. The Government are sucking up to a minority; they are praying in aid a minority; and they are seeking to appease a minority. It might be a noisy minority, but it remains a minority; it is not a majority. What they are proposing is in the face of the opposition of the majority of decent, right-thinking, law-abiding people of this country. If the House is not prepared to stand up to such barbarity, but is party to its own castration, it deserves its own fate.

7.28 pm

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

The debate has been varied, but one point of view has been overwhelmingly expressed, and not just by Conservative Members. Other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have also said that the decision to guillotine this legislation is a serious mistake.

Ministers on the Treasury Bench have missed the point that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill creates 69 criminal offences. They are being justified by the need to regulate what previously was an unregulated activity. When the Bill was before the other place, the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Bassam, said:

I readily admit that the Bill is cumbersome and bureaucratic.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 272.1 A piece of legislation which started out in the House to universal acclaim, with the desire to see it properly executed and enacted, has gradually deteriorated under scrutiny.

That need not have mattered. I found the period that I spent on Committee on the Bill one of the most rewarding that I have had in the course of the three and a half years that I have been in the House. It was an opportunity to look logically and straightforwardly, on a cross-party basis, at difficult issues and to examine them. The difficulty was that, at the end of the process, the theory that had appeared to be so good appeared in practice to be sadly wanting in many areas.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, had the decency to say that the Government would go away and think about that and do their best to remedy the matter, that the matter would be considered carefully in another place, and that every effort would be made to improve it. The sad fact is that that did not happen. Not only did that not happen, but I regret that the Government started to look around for someone else to blame for the fact that the Bill was not working.

In late May, there was a wonderful exchange of correspondence in which the Minister of State, Home Office sought to suggest, on the letter paper of the Labour party press office over the House of Commons logo, that in some way the Opposition parties were to blame for the difficulties that had come about. He even went so far as to suggest that in some way the Opposition parties were seeking to obstruct the Bill.

That is far from being the case. We have glowing testimony from Lord Bassam, and Lord Carter said: I should like to offer my sincere thanks to the Opposition Chief Whip, the Opposition Front Bench, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and the Back Benches of all parties. We reached the target that we were hoping for…I am truly grateful for the co-operation that has been demonstrated by the whole House.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 273.] That is how the Opposition, and I think that I can speak also for the Liberal Democrats, have approached the issue.

However, at the end of the day we have ended up with 666 Government amendments and the Bill is a shambles. In the time available, I cannot do justice to explaining the need for time to consider what we are about to do. However, I shall select a couple of amendments which we shall never reach in our consideration of the Bill in a month of Sundays.

First, it may surprise some Government Back Benchers to learn that if, during the course of the next general election, a person in their constituency nominates them as a candidate, even if they have not been consulted, as the Bill is currently drafted the election clock will start to tick against their expenses. That is a matter that I should like to address in today's debate, but I cannot because it arises under amendment No. 294, and there is no possibility that that will be reached.

Then we have the extraordinary fact that, whether one is a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, if one's local association treasurer drops dead and one is worried or saddened and wants to visit the widow or widower with regard to the funeral arrangements, if the Electoral Commission is not notified of a replacement within 14 days, a criminal offence is committed. The law will be draconian. There is a sentence of up to one year's imprisonment for failure to comply with the regulations that we are introducing in this gross and cavalier fashion.

All we ask of the Government is some time for reasoned debate. It is unbelievable that the Representation of the People Act 1983 should be reworded in serious and major ways entirely in the other place, not by ourselves. The Parliamentary Secretary admitted how rewarding it was that Members of Parliament, Back Bench and Front Bench, could attend the Committee and present reasoned arguments based on personal experience. There may be a lot of personal experience in the other place on these matters, but our experience of the practical requirements of running political parties, which are ultimately voluntary organisations—we hope for the public good—means that we can address the practical problems in a way that cannot be done elsewhere. Yet that is the tone of the entire way in which we are approaching the matter.

We are simply told that we should not worry about all this and that four hours of debate will be sufficient. The fact that we are about to take dangerous and rotten steps—as pointed out by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), eloquently and in short form, by the Liberal Democrats and by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and even by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who made a perfectly valid point about the iniquities and inequalities that we are introducing by not having a single United Kingdom regime—is ignored.

A Bill that started off as gold has not just ended up as brass but as really base metal. That is a tragedy. The guillotine motion is a reflection of the fact that the Government, when confronted with those difficulties, have simply buried their head in the sand. The motion is unacceptable and I hope that all hon. Members will consider the issue and vote against it.

7.36 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth)

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) knows—the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), made the point in earlier debates—that the Government respect the way in which the hon. Gentleman came to the Bill, giving it much thought and making constructive suggestions. Not only that, but some of those suggestions ended up as amendments. He rightly said that there was a spirit of co-operation on the Bill between those on the Front Benches and all Members of the Committee. Given that spirit, I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman suddenly manages to work himself up into—something of a rage is probably a slight exaggeration, but certainly he seems much exercised by the fact that he feels that there is much still to be resolved.

The reason why there has been a great deal of debate is that the issue is sensitive and difficult. The reason why people listened intently not only to the hon. Gentleman but to others is that if there is one thing on which hon. Members have a collective expertise, it is elections. For that reason, all contributions were taken seriously and amendments resulted from that.

The second argument that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) have advanced is the large number of amendments. They have repeatedly and correctly quoted the figure of 666. During the course of the debate, I took the trouble to re-read some of those amendments to try to understand why there should be such concern about their number. What do the amendments do? It is evidently true that there are a large number of amendments.

I opened a page at random and tried to work through the consequences of the amendments on that page. Amendments Nos. 152 to 156 on page 32, Nos. 193 to 197 on page 38, and Nos. 239 to 243 on page 44–15 in all—all have the same effect. They change the requirement for political parties to produce receipts for expenditure from a sum of £100 to a sum of £200. The perfectly reasonable purpose behind those amendments was that, given our wide experience as members of political parties and of fighting elections, it was felt that to increase the sum to £200 would reduce the administrative burden on political parties.

Mr. MacKay

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth

I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but he will realise that I do not have much time.

Mr. MacKay

No one in the Opposition has suggested that the majority of the 666 amendments are controversial and need much debate. However, there are certain groups of amendments that require substantial debate, including those on Northern Ireland. Does the Minister accept that four hours is not enough time to debate those substantial issues? It is irrelevant to talk about non-controversial and consequential amendments, as he has been doing.

Mr. Howarth

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of the amendments are non-controversial. However, that is not the tone of contributions from several of his Back-Bench colleagues.

Mr. Salmond

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth

No, I simply do not have time.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell raised the issue of clause 65. For obvious reasons, I do not want to get into a convoluted discussion, but it is fair to say that the clause generated controversy. However, after coming back from the House of Lords, the clause is in almost entirely the same form as it was when it left the House. Therefore, it cannot have generated the amount of controversy that the right hon. Gentleman claimed.

Finally, I want to say a word about the Disqualifications Bill which, I accept, has generated controversy. The right hon. Member for Bracknell and others said that they do not like the Bill and that it should not be enacted. Indeed, they feel that it is a constitutional abuse. That is a fair summary of their argument—

Mr. MacKay

Very fair.

Mr. Howarth

Fine, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to the Bill's Second Reading on 24 January 2000. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said: As we recognise that the aim of the Bill is to build on what has already been achieved in Northern Ireland, we will not oppose its Second Reading.—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 34.]

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth

No, there is not time.

The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald continued—

Sir Patrick Cormack

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a fact that the Opposition voted against the Bill unanimously on Third Reading.

Madam Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Howarth

I was not referring to what happened on Third Reading. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald went on to refer to amendments that had been tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). As I remember, he tabled three amendments, which were mostly to do with extending the disqualification to serving Ministers, Committee Chairmen and one other category. On Second Reading, I gave the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald an undertaking that we would consider those amendments carefully. As the Bill has progressed, we have taken the amendments into account and incorporated them in the Bill.

When the Opposition started off, they shared certain concerns with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. We took those concerns into account and have acted on them. However, the Conservative Front Bench simply lost control of events at that time—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the Standing Order.

The House divided: Ayes 358, Noes 177.

Division No. 362]	7.44 pm
Ayes
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Ainger, Nick	Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Cooper, Yvette
Alexander, Douglas	Corbett, Robin
Allen, Graham	Corston, Jean
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Cousins, Jim
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Cranston, Ross
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Crausby, David
Ashton, Joe	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Atherton, Ms Candy	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Atkins, Charlotte	Cummings, John
Austin, John	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Bailey, Adrian	(Copeland)
Banks, Tony	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Barnes, Harry	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Barron, Kevin	Dalyell, Tam
Battle, John	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Bayley, Hugh	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Beard, Nigel	Davidson, Ian
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Begg, Miss Anne	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	(B'ham Hodge H)
Bennett, Andrew F	Dawson, Hilton
Benton, Joe	Dean, Mrs Janet
Bermingham, Gerald	Denham, John
Berry, Roger	Dismore, Andrew
Best, Harold	Dobbin, Jim
Betts, Clive	Donohoe, Brian H
Blackman, Liz	Doran, Frank
Blears, Ms Hazel	Dowd, Jim
Blizzard, Bob	Drew, David
Blunkett, Rt Hon David	Drown, Ms Julia
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Borrow, David	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Edwards, Huw
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Efford, Clive
Bradshaw, Ben	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Ennis, Jeff
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Browne, Desmond	Flint, Caroline
Buck, Ms Karen	Flynn, Paul
Burden, Richard	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Burgon, Colin	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Butler, Mrs Christine	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Galloway, George
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Gapes, Mike
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Gardiner, Barry
Campbell—savours, Dale	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Caplin, Ivor	Gerrard, Neil
Casale, Roger	Gibson, Dr Ian
Caton, Martin	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Cawsey, Ian	Godman, Dr Norman A
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Godsiff, Roger
Chaytor, David	Goggins, Paul
Clapham, Michael	Golding, Mrs Llin
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Clark, Dr Lynda	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
(Edinburgh Pentlands)	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Grocott, Bruce
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Grogan, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clelland, David	Hanson, David
Clwyd, Ann	Healey, John
Coaker, Vernon	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Coffey, Ms Ann	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Cohen, Harry	Hendrick, Mark
Coleman, Iain	Hepburn, Stephen
Colman, Tony	Heppell, John
Connarty, Michael	Hesford, Stephen

Hewitt, Ms Patricia	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hill, Keith	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Hinchliffe, David	Martlew, Eric
Hodge, Ms Margaret	Meale, Alan
Hood, Jimmy	Merron, Gillian
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey	Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Hope, Phil	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hopkins, Kelvin	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)	Miller, Andrew
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Mitchell, Austin
Hoyle, Lindsay	Moffatt, Laura
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Moran, Ms Margaret
Humble, Mrs Joan	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hurst, Alan	Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Hutton, John	Morley, Elliot
Iddon, Dr Brian	Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Illsley, Eric	(B'ham Yardley)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam	Morris, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	(Aberavon)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Mountford, Kali
Jenkins, Brian	Mudie, George
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Mullin, Chris
Johnson, Miss Melanie	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
(Welwyn Hatfield)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Jones, Ms Jenny	Norris, Dan
(Wolverh'ton SW)	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	O'Hara, Eddie
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Olner, Bill
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	O'Neill, Martin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Organ, Mrs Diana
Keeble, Ms Sally	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	Palmer, Dr Nick
Kemp, Fraser	Pearson, Ian
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Pendry, Tom
Khabra, Piara S	Perham, Ms Linda
Kidney, David	Pickthall, Colin
Kilfoyle, Peter	Plaskitt, James
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Pollard, Kerry
Kingham, Ms Tess	Pond, Chris
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Pope, Greg
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Pound, Stephen
Lammy, David	Powell, Sir Raymond
Laxton, Bob	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Lepper, David	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Levitt, Tom	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Primarolo, Dawn
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Prosser, Gwyn
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Purchase, Ken
Love, Andrew	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
McAvoy, Thomas	Quinn, Lawrie
McCabe, Steve	Radice, Rt Hon Giles
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Rapson, Syd
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian	Raynsford, Nick
(Makerfield)	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
McDonagh, Siobhain	Robertson, John
Macdonald, Calum	(Glasgow Anniesland)
McDonnell, John	Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
McFall, John	Roche, Mrs Barbara
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Rogers, Allan
McIsaac, Shona	Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Rooney, Terry
Mackinlay, Andrew	Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
McNamara, Kevin	Rowlands, Ted
McNuity, Tony	Roy, Frank
MacShane, Denis	Ruane, Chris
Mactaggart, Fiona	Ruddock, Joan
McWalter, Tony	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McWilliam, John	Ryan, Ms Joan
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Salter, Martin
Mallaber, Judy	Sarwar, Mohammad
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Savidge, Malcolm
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Sedgemore, Brian

Sheerman, Barry	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Sheldon,Rt Hon Robert	Timms, Stephen
Shipley, Ms Debra	Tipping, Paddy
Short, Rt Hon Clare	Todd, Mark
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Touhig, Don
Singh, Marsha	Trickett, Jon
Skinner, Dennis	Truswell, Paul
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Smith, Miss Geraldine	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Tynan, Bill
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Vis, Dr Rudi
Snape, Peter	Walley, Ms Joan
Soley, Clive	Ward, Ms Claire
Southworth, Ms Helen	Wareing, Robert N
Spellar, John	Watts, David
Squire, Ms Rachel	White, Brian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Steinberg, Gerry	Wicks, Malcolm
Stevenson, George	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)	(Swansea W)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Stinchcombe, Paul	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Stoate, Dr Howard	Wills, Michael
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin	Wilson, Brian
Straw, Rt Hon Jack	Winnick, David
Stringer, Graham	Woolas, Phil
Stuart, Ms Gisela	Worthington, Tony
Sutcliffe, Gerry	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
(Dewsbury)	Wyatt, Derek
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Temple-Morris, Peter	Mr. David Jamieson and
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)	Mr. Mike Hall.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Allan, Richard	Collins, Tim
Amess, David	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Cotter, Brian
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Cran, James
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Curry, Rt Hon David
Baker, Norman	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Ballard, Jackie	Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Beggs, Roy	Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Day, Stephen
Bercow, John	Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Blunt, Crispin	Duncan, Alan
Boswell, Tim	Duncan Smith, Iain
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Fabricant, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Fearn, Ronnie
Brady, Graham	Flight, Howard
Brake, Tom	Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Brand, Dr Peter	Foster, Don (Bath)
Brazier, Julian	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Breed, Colin	Gale, Roger
Browning, Mrs Angela	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Gibb, Nick
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Gidley, Sandra
Burnett, John	Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Burns, Simon	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Burstow, Paul	Greenway, John
Butterfill, John	Grieve, Dominic
Cash, William	Gummer, Rt Hon John
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
(Chipping Barnet)	Hammond, Philip
Chidgey, David	Hancock, Mike
Chope, Christopher	Harris, Dr Evan
Clappison, James	Harvey, Nick
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Hawkins, Nick
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth	Hayes, John
(Rushcliffe)	Heald, Oliver

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Horam, John	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Ruffley, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Hunter, Andrew	St Aubyn, Nick
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Salmond, Alex
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Sanders, Adrian
Jenkin, Bernard	Sayeed, Jonathan
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Keetch, Paul	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Key, Robert	Soames, Nicholas
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Kirkwood, Archy	Spicer, Sir Michael
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Spring, Richard
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Lansley, Andrew	Steen, Anthony
Leigh, Edward	Streeter, Gary
Letwin, Oliver	Stunell, Andrew
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Swayne, Desmond
Lidington, David	Syms, Robert
Livsey, Richard	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Llwyd, Elfyn	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Loughton, Tim	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Taylor, Sir Teddy
McCartney, Robert (N Down)	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Thompson, William
McIntosh, Miss Anne	Tonge, Dr Jenny
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew	Townend, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Tredinnick, David
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert	Trend, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick	Trimble, Rt Hon David
Malins, Humfrey	Tyler, Paul
Maples, John	Viggers, Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian	Walker, Cecil
May, Mrs Theresa	Wafter, Robert
Moore, Michael	Waterson, Nigel
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)	Webb, Steve
Moss, Malcolm	Wells, Bowen
Nicholls, Patrick	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Norman, Archie	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Oaten, Mark	Willetts, David
Öpik, Lembit	Willis, Phil
Ottaway, Richard	Wilshire, David
Page, Richard	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Paice, James	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Pickles, Eric	Yeo, Tim
Prior, David	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Randall, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Tellers for the Noes:
Rendel, David	Mr. Peter Luff and
Robathan, Andrew	Mr. James Gray.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and the Disqualifications Bill:—