HC Deb 10 January 2001 vol 360 cc1185-96

  1. 1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  2. 2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th February 2001.
This is an important Bill, as was recognised by Members on both sides of the House who spoke on Second Reading. We had a good debate.

The motion proposes that the Committee stage concludes on 8 February. We think that that gives us enough time to debate a Bill of this size, especially as many of its provisions are discreet and manageable.

The Bill delivers the policy commitments of the NHS plan, which was published in July and which is familiar to all.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)

Will the Minister apologise to his right hon. and hon. Friends for the way in which they have been misled over the idea that, under these new procedures, everyone would go home at 10 pm? Does he understand that trying to gerrymander and to force measures through the House in such a despicable way will cause more trouble, more grief and more debate? Would it not be better to go back to doing things by agreement?

Mr. Denham

We are well aware that views on how to ensure logical, sensible and orderly handling of business in the House vary. Not all Members share my opinion that proper programming and timetabling legislation will enhance effective scrutiny. Many of us have, over the years, spent time in Committee experiencing filibusters and debates on timetable motions that last for weeks on end, involving seemingly endless late night debates. I would rather ensure that we can make good progress in Committee, and scrutinise the Bill properly. We will want to make sure that there is sufficient time to debate the key areas of interest properly.

Mr. Swayne

On those key areas of interest, will the Minister give way?

Mr. Denham

Yes, why not.

Mr. Swayne

When the Minister chose the end date in the motion, did he know that all but two speakers from the Labour Back Benches would express reservation or outright opposition to his proposals for community health councils? On that basis, is he absolutely sure that there will be sufficient time in Committee to accommodate the concerns of Labour Members?

Mr. Denham

Yes, indeed. I am confident that there will be time to give particular consideration to the issues that were raised tonight: the scrutiny arrangements for the NHS, including community health councils; the arrangements for dealing with poorly performing doctors; care trusts; the new arrangements for pharmacy; and free nursing care, which 44 Members voted against—their constituents will be interested in that. Those key issues were flagged up, and I am confident that they can be dealt with in some detail and that proper scrutiny will be given to all the other measures.

Mr. Bercow

In addition helpfully to providing the House with an end date for consideration, will the Minister tell us how many hours he envisages being allocated for debate in Committee to cover the 66 clauses and five schedules?

Mr. Denham

Well, that is of course a matter for the Committee. As I understand the proceedings, the Programming Sub-Committee will, subject to the motion being passed, begin consideration on Thursday next week. That will enable us—in Committee and, if it is desired, through the usual channels—to ensure that the proper time is allocated. In particular, and I accept the point entirely, the great bulk of time should be devoted to the more contentious proposals, especially those that Opposition and Labour Members want to scrutinise closely. Whether the Conservatives want to use the usual channels constructively is beyond my control—I understand that they are open for discussion—but, if not, those matters will have to be discussed in the Programming Sub-Committee.

We listened carefully to the opinions expressed tonight and we understand the importance of the views of both sides of the House. That is a key advantage of timetabling, and we want to ensure that the Opposition can use the time allocated by the House to concentrate on the priority areas for scrutiny. The suggested end date of 8 February will provide enough time in Committee, starting with consideration next week. The Programming Sub-Committee will consider the detailed timetable, the frequency of sittings and so on in the usual way.

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

rose—

Mr. Bercow

rose—

Mr. Denham

I was about to finish, but I give way to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery).

Sir Peter Emery

I have listened with care to all that has been said. Does not the Minister agree that, before the Programming Sub-Committee meets, it would be right and proper for the Opposition to make it clear to the Government what time they believe would be necessary to consider the Bill and that all sections should be covered during that time scale?

Mr. Denham

Absolutely. That is the purpose of the discussions through the usual channels. We have invited that input, and I understand that meetings have taken place through the usual channels. However, we have received less information than we would have liked or that the Opposition might have found helpful. My point to the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Swayne

rose—

Mr. Denham

I have not finished my answer yet.

What the right hon. Gentleman says is perfectly sensible, but whether his Front Benchers want to take advantage of the arrangements in the new procedures is beyond our control.

Mr. Swayne

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. Can he tell us, on the basis of his experience, how much time the Health Act 1999, which he steered through, took in Committee?

Mr. Denham

I remember that Committee—it is seared on my memory. I remember in particular the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—he is not present tonight, so I assume that he will not be a member of the forthcoming Committee—and the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who told us tonight that he would not be a member of that Committee, as well as a number of others, speaking to the timetable motion for sitting after sitting after sitting, totally pointlessly and aimlessly. That was my experience. [Interruption.] Well, the behaviour must have been in order because the Chairman allowed it to continue. However, in my opinion, it was aimless, if not out of order.

Committee time under different Administrations has often not been used for scrutinising Bills efficiently and effectively. The Health and Social Care Bill covers many issues that are very important for patients. I hope that the Conservative party will use Committee time constructively to scrutinise the Bill effectively. However, we cannot control that; it is in the hands of the Conservative party.

I commend the motion to the House.

10.40 pm
Dr. Fox

I oppose the motion on grounds of principle and of practice. In this Parliament, we have witnessed the rise of an already powerful Executive to new heights. It is the height of arrogance for the Minister to say that, in his view as the Minister who piloted the Health Act 1999 through its Committee stage, the time was not used effectively. Ministers are there to answer questions, to be subjected to scrutiny by the Opposition and—before the Government came to office—by Back-Bench Government Members. It is up to the House to decide whether the time is used effectively, and up to the Committee Chairman to determine whether contributions are in order or relevant. It is not up to the Minister, who seems to want to determine the process as well the measure.

As a former Whip, I believe that we are witnessing a terrible rise in the power of the Whips Office. That is unhealthy for democracy in the House. Doubtless I shall get a black mark from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who is the Whip on duty, for saying that. However, dangerous trends are currently developing in the House. They may have existed for some time, but they are now being exacerbated to an unacceptable extent. Nowadays, the House of Commons is simply Downing street in Parliament, and we have little say in the running of our country.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)

I ask my hon. Friend not to be so critical of the Whips Office. Much more serious is the fact that a Minister claims in the House that the opinions of other hon. Members are not important. All Ministers believe that Opposition Members—and, indeed, hon. Members from their party, too—who disagree with them are taking up time that would be better spent in another way. I admit that after 16 years as a Minister. I too believed that. It was extremely good for me that the House of Commons reminded me that we are in a democracy, and that hon. Members should be there to hold Ministers to account. The procedure that the motion proposes is designed to stop Ministers from ever being held to account.

Dr. Fox

I agree with my right hon. Friend, except on one small point. He may be right to say that, in time, Ministers come to regard the views of other hon. Members as unimportant. The difference with this Government is that they believe that the House is unimportant. That is why we are treated with such contempt.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend, with his beady eye and good ear, will have noted the absurdity of the Minister's claim that there was adequate time for considering the Bill while simultaneously failing to specify—because he does not yet know—how many hours would be available. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be risible and unsatisfactory if the Health and Social Care Bill suffered the fate of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, which requires us to consider 45 clauses, and a potential 100 amendments, over 23 hours in 10 sittings by 23 January? Does my hon. Friend agree that, on the strength of our experience of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, it is important that the Programming Sub-Committee, which considers the total amount of time and the order of consideration, should meet in public, not in private, as the Government have decreed?

Dr. Fox

My hon. Friend makes a helpful suggestion. I would go further; I am sure that wiser and more experienced heads than ours, with the benefit of experience and hindsight, would agree that the quality of legislation is directly proportional to the time that we take to consider it. Some of the Bills that have been rushed through the House in recent years have turned into the legislation that has subsequently required the most change. When the Government force Bills through the House at such a pace, they cannot be considered properly by hon. Members and by outside bodies that wish to comment on them in order to guarantee legislation of the highest possible quality. There will be more flawed legislation from this Parliament than from any in living memory.

We need to ensure time to consider the drafting of the Bill and any changes that the Government may want to make. That is the same point as the argument about quality of legislation. I have been in this House only since 1992, but I can remember many Bills which, following considerable scrutiny over some time, the Government decided were fundamentally flawed and had to amend considerably. By such undue haste, with which they are also treating every other Bill, the Government are denying themselves the chance to look again at the Health and Social Care Bill.

Mr. Redwood

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Government selected the deadline for the limited scrutiny of the measure before they had been able to hear the views of the House on Second Reading? During that debate, many colleagues made some very powerful points, which will either prompt substantial amendment of the Bill, requiring time for consideration, or prolong difficult discussions in Committee. How can they possibly have chosen the right deadline when they did not know the power and range of the arguments?

Dr. Fox

I hesitate to say to my right hon. Friend that the Government are not interested in the views of the House. They did not care what hon. Members were going to say. Only two Labour Back Benchers supported the Bill on Second Reading; the Government got it through with the usual Lobby fodder and Whips' poodles whom we are used to seeing. The subject and quality of the debate did not matter. It would not have mattered if the Government had introduced fundamental changes; they would have determined the timetable in any case. It is ironic that it took them six months even to arrange a debate in the House on the national plan that the Bill introduces, yet we are to complete the passage of the legislation in an obscenely short period.

I seriously remind the Minister that, as a result of arguments during the legislative process, the Government have often had to table amendments to their legislation late in the day. With such a very short timetable, they are denying themselves the opportunity to do that, and that can only lead to poorer legislation.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

Turning a Government can take a bit of time. I have sat through all three debates on programme motions this week. On the first day, the Minister for Housing and Planning said nothing; he just moved the motion formally. On the second day, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence spoke for about 45 or 50 seconds. Today, the Minister graced the House with a speech of three or four minutes. I think that the penny is beginning to drop. Very slowly, the Government are realising that such matters are important and special, and that we need a reasonable debate. Perhaps what we have done over the past three days is important and is having an effect on the Government.

Dr. Fox

I would love to think that my hon. Friend was right, and that even this Government would have second thoughts—but, hand on heart, I must say that the Government are so completely arrogant and contemptuous of the democratic process that they will almost certainly force through whatever they want, whenever they want, irrespective of any argument, however valid or from whatever quarter.

This is a long Bill. It has 67 pages, 66 clauses and five schedules. It is a complex Bill; it introduces many detailed reforms. It is very centralising legislation which has profound implications for the way in which our health service is run and the process of government is developed. It confers a range of new powers on the Secretary of State, and it is important that we ensure that those powers will be exercised by the Executive reasonably and responsibly, with proper safeguards, transparency and accountability to the elected Parliament of this country.

The Bill will increase Whitehall's influence still further, yet it is Whitehall's influence and the influence of the Executive that are at the root of the problem that we are discussing on this motion. It will not only affect the 1 million or so employees of the national health service, as it varies their terms and conditions and gives further powers to the Secretary of State, but will influence the millions of users of the NHS.

Many outside bodies have already written to hon. Members to give their views, to express their worries, and sometimes to give their support to parts of the Bill. The Bill will inevitably evolve, as changes to one part will affect another part. Those outside groups are not being given a chance to see how the Bill develops. Instead, the Government are telling them that only their views at the outset are valid, and anything after that is irrelevant. That is grossly insulting to the many groups that take a close interest in health matters, to many of our constituents who have written to us on this subject, and to the many interest groups that come to see us, and that inform the all-party committees that take a close interest in the workings of health policy.

On Second Reading, many of the Government's own supporters accused them of undue haste, especially in their proposals to abolish community health councils. They said that the Government's plans had been evolving since they were first published. That tells me that the Government have not finished their thought process, yet we are not to be given time to accommodate any changes in approach to any areas of the Bill.

It is extraordinary that the Government believe that when they publish a Bill it is the apogee of wisdom, and nothing can possibly better what is set down in print—if anything did, it would be given scant consideration. The Minister said that everyone knew about these issues. That is one of the most ridiculous things that I have heard a Minister say in a long time. If everyone knew about the issues, we would not have to debate them in the House of Commons, and we would not have piles of paper from outside bodies advising us on the experience of interested and expert groups in the different areas of policy.

I imagine that all hon. Members have had briefings from the Consumers Association. Notwithstanding its initial support for clause 26, it says: However, we would like clarification on whether or not information on disqualified doctors is automatically referred to the Family Health Services Appeals Authority … or is it only when a health care worker appeals against their disqualification that the FHSAA is notified? This is particularly relevant to locums as due to the transitory nature of this work they frequently move between Health Authorities. It is important that if one Health Authority removes a GP or locum from the list that other Health Authorities are informed. If everyone knew already about these issues, the Consumers Association would not be asking that question.

On pharmaceutical pilots, the association says: there is a need for more information about how these pilots will operate and about the measures that will be put in place to safeguard the interests of patients and the public. For example, what will be the exact status of the pharmaceutical pilots—if they are not NHS bodies will they be governed by the Care Standards Act? If everything was a clear as the Minister says, those questions would not be asked.

The association goes on to say: We also require clarification about patients' right to redress should they have problems with services provided by these pilots. It is our view that these pilots should be part of the NHS and patients should have access to the full range of rights provided by the NHS. If the association knew about those matters, and if the proposals were so simple, why would it bother to write to every Member of Parliament to ask us to raise these matters with Ministers through the proper scrutiny procedures and to have them clarified, so that the rights of patients could be protected? It is complete nonsense for the Minister to dismiss, as he did in his short speech, the interests of those groups by saying. "They should know all about it already, because we know about it. We are bringing forward the Bill. We don't need time." That is deeply insulting.

Such problems occur in many other parts of the Bill. On Second Reading, I said that we agreed with many of the provisions in principle—but we require proper information before we can decide whether to give our support to the Bill in Committee clause by clause. That is not an unreasonable position for any Opposition to take.

On the expansion of prescribing rights, we said that there was a need to use all personnel at the ceiling of their ability, but that there were a number of things that we did not know. We wanted to know what the balance would be between doctors, practice nurses, other nurses and pharmacists after the expansion of prescribing. We wanted to know if any deregulation measures would be brought forward for categories of medicines. Those details are vital to the workability of ideas which are basically sound.

Who carries liability for prescribing? If I write a prescription for an hon. Member, as I do regularly for hon. Members on both sides—I do not do Prozac or Viagra—I carry my own liability. Who will carry liability for nurses who write prescriptions? Who will carry liability when pharmacists prescribe? Those are deeply important matters, which require much debate.

When we explore the clauses in detail in Committee, I am sure that the outside bodies that will be affected will want to speak to the Opposition and the Government, and, being far more expert in these matter than we are, they will want to consider all the implications as they see them. They will be denied that secondary input because of the short time scale.

On Second Reading, we talked about the potential for personal medical services. We welcome the development of personal medical services. We said that GMS had had its day and would gradually disappear; there is no difference between the two sides of the House there. However, it all comes down to the detail. What will a quality agenda mean? How much control will be exercised from the centre? How much autonomy will doctors have?

The British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners will have strong views on such topics, and they will want to tell us what they believe are the implications of any ministerial answers given in Committee. We shall have so little time that the chances are that by the time that they get back to us with their views on any potential flaws, we will be unable to change anything. That is a real tragedy, which could be avoided.

When I was a Government Whip, the Opposition were given adequate time when it was felt that they had a reasonable case. It is far better to carry forward legislation in the House with as much co-operation as possible, yet the Government are intent on using their big parliamentary majority to batter the House into submission, to treat us with contempt and not to give us the chance to scrutinise properly what is being proposed, which is part of our duties as elective representatives.

Another reason for our need for time is the Government's plan to force its model for change on the NHS. I do not have a problem with the progression of primary care groups to primary care trusts, or the establishment of care trusts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said on Second Reading, we have an open mind on the substantive issue, but we have a problem with our ability to trust the Government on the subject.

During consideration of a previous Bill in Committee, the Minister of State said that doctors would not be forced from a primary care group into a primary care trust against their will. But at the very first test case in Southend, the majority of doctors voted against moving to a primary care trust, yet were forced to by the Government. It is hard for us to trust the word of Ministers when we have seen that word broken so quickly in the past. We want time to scrutinise such cases and to look back at precedents to see when Ministers have said one thing in Committee and done something different in practice. That is crucial to our willingness to grant them any powers of discretion in any of the many areas dealt with in the Bill.

We want to consider the implications for supplementary lists. We want to consider the Government's plans to reward excellence. We want to explore with Ministers how their proposal fits with the programmes of other Departments, not least the Department for Education and Employment's approach to failing schools, as compared with how the Government intend to deal with failing hospitals. To consider such matters properly will require quite a lot of time. Members of the Select Committee on Health may not have been members of the Committees that considered the other Bills involved, and we shall want to talk to other groups that we have not yet consulted. All those things take time.

Having spent so much time in Opposition, the Minister and his colleagues should know better than anyone else that there is a huge difference in the amount of information that one can assimilate with the help of a full civil service and what the Opposition are capable of assimilating. It is doubly unfair to the Opposition to have their timetable curtailed to this extent. The Government have all the information at their fingertips and the Opposition always have to run to keep up, even on a Bill with a generous timetable, not to mention one that has been so ridiculously concertinaed.

We will want to explore new issues in Committee that we did not raise on Second Reading. For example, we want to see how the Government's proposals for the NCAA fit in with their wider plans for GMC reform, and to consider validation and other associated issues.

We will want to consider whether the Government might look favourably on time limits for disciplinary cases at the GMC, not least because of the manpower considerations of having a large—and ever increasing, it seems—number of doctors under investigation and unable to work. It would be much better if doctors could practise in the national health service. We will want to know Ministers' views on those matters. We could not touch on them on Second Reading, because we would have been out of order.

We will want to explore Ministers' ideas about an independent appointments body. We found it absolutely amazing that the Minister could claim that this was a decentralising Bill giving away his powers, when it is exactly the opposite. We wanted a truly independent body for national health service appointments, free from the influence of the Secretary of State, so that we could avoid the possibility of any party appointing people to the NHS because of the loyalty that they might bring to their political masters rather than the experience that they might bring to the running of the health service.

Mr. Denham

The Opposition had the opportunity to indicate, through the usual channels, how long they wanted to debate the Bill, and they did not do so. They could have tabled an amendment to the programme motion, and they did not do so. I am at a loss to understand how the hon. Gentleman can complain about a lack of time, when he has not at any stage said how long he would like to debate the Bill.

Dr. Fox

There is the rub. The Minister cannot understand that we object on a point of principle. We do not want automatically timetabled Bills. If our argument is that the Government cannot know what will come up in Committee and how much time will be needed, how could the Opposition possibly know in advance how much time would be appropriate? We need to get into Committee and then decide, on the evidence before us and the representations that we receive, how much time is required for proper scrutiny of the legislation. That is our duty towards our constituents, to ensure that Bills are of a proper quality and not fundamentally flawed or pushed through with undue haste by an arrogant and contemptuous Government.

11.4 pm

Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)

For as long as all of us can remember, the House has worked on two conventions: that the Government are entitled to get their business through—none of us would challenge that—and, just as important, that the Opposition are entitled to challenge the Government's proposals. The only mechanism that the Opposition has to do that is time.

Most Conservative Members have served in Committee as Ministers or Back Benchers and we know that the Minister of the day is put up to bat and is challenged by way of amendments. In the past, Government Back Benchers were enjoined to be quiet because Ministers needed to respond to the challenges put up by way of amendment by Opposition Back Benchers and Front-Bench spokesmen. This device is a complete mockery of that system. If an amendment on the Order Paper is inconvenient to Ministers—for example, if Ministers find amendments in relation to community health councils which they would rather not address—they will have every incentive to put up their own Back Benchers simply to wallpaper over time. So in future, Government Back Benchers will make long-winded speeches in Standing Committees, filibustering to fill the time to ensure that Ministers are not obliged to address difficult points and answer difficult questions. It is particularly pertinent in respect of this very technical Bill, which has 66 clauses and five schedules.

The Secretary of State made a perfectly competent Second Reading speech, which was in broad terms, as one would expect. He did not deal with any of the detail of the Bill or any of the new organisations; nor did he explain why community health councils are being abolished or what they have done wrong. He did not deal with the new health authorities, organisations and statutory bodies. Those are all perfectly proper issues on which the Opposition could challenge the Government by way of amendment. I am prepared to lay money on it that, on every inconvenient amendment, the Government Whips will say to their Back Benchers, "Please speak on previous amendments to squeeze out the Opposition amendments that are inconvenient." So not only is the time allocated to these Bills ridiculously short—the idea that we can deal with a Bill of 66 clauses and five schedules by 8 February is frankly absurd—but the time allocated to Opposition Members will be substantially reduced. That is a perversion.

I have been fortunate enough to have been in the House for 18 years and I hope to be here for a few more. Many of us will have sat on both sides of the House during our time here. This place can work only if the Opposition respect the fact that, at the end of the day, the Government are entitled to get their business through—I do not think that any Opposition Member challenges that—and the Government recognise that the Opposition are entitled to challenge their proposals. If the Government of the day do not give the Opposition sufficient opportunity to challenge their proposals in detail by amendments, the system becomes a perversion and that results in far poorer legislation and public policy. The Government, the country and public policy are far weaker for that.

11.8 pm

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who speaks with considerable experience. I have been in the House twice as long as he has and a factor in the whole of that time has been the major criticism that Governments introduce guillotines to cut Bills in half so that massive parts of them are never discussed in Committee. The Opposition never have the chance of doing what my hon. Friend says and challenging the Government on particular questions. In the past, we were stopped by the old-fashioned guillotine structure. This motion attempts to make public what my hon. Friend and I knew as Ministers.

When I started in Committee, the Whips Office, which used to be at the end of the Corridor, knew exactly what day they would demand that a Bill was out of Committee. That was something between the Whips and the Minister. If, in fact, we were nowhere near the date when it should have left Committee, there was a guillotine and parts of the Bill were never even discussed.

The motion is at least an attempt—I am not certain whether it will work—to ensure that the whole House is told about the date, which the Government know. The Committee is told that, in order to debate all parts of the Bill, it can decide the amount of time and the way in which that time will be orchestrated in Committee. That is the concept of a Programming Sub-Committee of the Committee. The matter will thus not be decided by the Whips in a guillotine motion, but settled by the people who should debate it and who should know what it is about.

It is important—this is the crux of the matter—that the Opposition's demand for time should be accepted by the Government in order that that can be delivered. If the Government refuse that, we have every right to object. Whatever the Programming Sub-Committee decides should be recorded, as would occur in a Standing Committee, so that everyone can know what went on.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery

May I finish my speech? There is very little time for the debate.

We need to ensure that the Government behave as the Modernisation Committee expected them to do. If that can be achieved, there is an advantage for the Opposition because we shall be able to programme matters during Committee. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will apply just as much whether we have a Programming Sub-Committee or whether we return to the previous situation when the Government spoke up to stop amendments being introduced. There is nothing new in that and I am not positive that we shall have got rid of that system.

The proposal would achieve at least two results, however. It would ensure that every part of a Bill is considered and that the Government give the necessary time for that in Committee. If that is the case, there will be an improvement in the procedures of the House.

11.13 pm
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). However, our experience is not as has been described. Our experience is that the Committees that consider such matters have not listened to the Opposition. The reason is clear: under the old system, the Opposition had some power. They could refuse the time that the Government wanted—they could use the time—but that is no longer true.

The Opposition have no power. They depend entirely on the Government's willingness to behave in the civilised way to which my right hon. Friend referred. Some members of the Government want to be civilised, but the actions of their Whip during this debate do not suggest much civilisation—the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) has giggled throughout the whole debate. He has not actually listened to any of the comments that have been made, so I do not believe that there is much willingness to listen.

If the Government were willing to say that they were prepared to provide as much time as is necessary for the Opposition to propose their various views between now and that date, we should have a timetable motion. However, we do not have a timetable motion; we have a guillotine. The one thing we know is the end date. The Government are perfectly able to say that we will hold one meeting every week and that it will last an hour. We have to rely on them all down the line to allow the time needed.

Many Conservative Members would be happy with a system that enabled these matters to be debated in a civilised manner. That cannot be so unless the Government show a willingness to give all the time necessary and to listen to the arguments advanced. If the Government are able to use their Back Benchers to block discussion of particular amendments or if they prove unwilling to provide the necessary time, we must always oppose guillotine motions.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

If the new system, of which the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) is, as much as anyone, the godfather, is to work, we must be given some assurance that when Conservative Front Benchers agree to a programme motion, the undertaking will be held to right across the House, even by the mavericks on the Conservative Back Benches.

Mr. Gummer

There is no question of an undertaking being given. The motion is a timetable motion—a guillotine—tabled on the basis that there is no alternative. No one asked Conservative Front Benchers whether they wanted an agreement. I shall vote against the proposal because I am not Prepared to support Bills that are guillotined unless there are changes to the system.

The Bill, in fact, is supported, not opposed, by our Front Benchers. In such circumstances, in a civilised society, agreement would be reached between the two sides, but that has not happened. The Government have produced an end date and told the Opposition that that is it. That is not agreement [Interruption.] The Minister can say what he likes, but there can be no agreement when he has not told our spokesmen how many hours of debate he will allow. Until he is prepared to do so, and until he agrees to allow us every hour that our Front Benchers want, no agreement can he reached.

I am not prepared to agree to a guillotine motion—either as a Back Bencher or, perhaps, as a maverick—until those who seek good legislation are given enough time to achieve it and to represent their constituents.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 118.

Division No. 47] [11.18 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Blizzard, Bob
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Alexander, Douglas Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Allan, Richard Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Allen, Graham Brand, Dr Peter
Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E) Brinton, Mrs Helen
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Browne, Desmond
Ashton, Joe Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Atkins, Charlotte Buck, Ms Karen
Austin, John Burden, Richard
Bailey, Adrian Burgon, Colin
Banks, Tony Burstow, Paul
Barnes, Harry Butler, Mrs Christine
Barron, Kevin Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Battle, John Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Bayley, Hugh
Beard, Nigel Campbell-Savours, Dale
Begg, Miss Anne Cann, Jamie
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) Caplin, Ivor
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) Casale, Roger
Bennett, Andrew F Caton, Martin
Bermingham, Gerald Cawsey, Ian
Berry, Roger Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Best, Harold Chaytor, David
Betts, Clive Chidgey, David
Blears, Ms Hazel Clapham, Michael
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Hanson, David
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Harris, Dr Evan
Harvey, Nick
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Healey,.John
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clarke,Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Hendrick, Mark
Clelland, David Hepburn, Stephen
Clwyd, Ann Heppell, John
Coaker, Vernon Hesford, Stephen
Cohen, Harry Hill, Keith
Coleman, Iain Hoey, Kate
Colman, Tony Hope, Phil
Connarty, Michael Hopkins, Kelvin
Corbett, Robin Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Corbyn, Jeremy Howells, Dr Kim
Cotter, Brian Hoyle, Lindsay
Cousins, Jim Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Cox, Tom Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cranston, Ross Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Crausby, David Humble, Mrs Joan
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Hurst, Alan
Cummings, John Hutton, John
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) Iddon, Dr Brian
Illsley, Eric
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Darvill, Keith Jamieson, David
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Jenkins, Brian
Davidson, Ian Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H) Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Dawson, Hilton Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Denham, John Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Dismore, Andrew Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Dobbin, Jim Joyce, Eric
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Donohoe, Brian H Keeble, Ms Sally
Doran, Frank Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dowd, Jim Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Keetch, Paul
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Kemp, Fraser
Edwards, Huw Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Ellman, Mrs Louise Khabra, Piara S
Ennis, Jeff Kidney, David
Etherington, Bill Kilfoyle, Peter
Fearn, Ronnie King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Field, Rt Hon Frank Kirkwood, Archy
Fisher, Mark Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Flint, Caroline Laxton, Bob
Flynn, Paul Lepper, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek Levitt, Tom
Foster, Don (Bath) Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester) Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Galloway, George Linton, Martin
Gapes, Mike Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Gardiner, Barry Lock, David
George, Andrew (St Ives) Love, Andrew
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S) McAvoy, Thomas
Gerrard, Neil McCabe, Steve
Gibson, Dr Ian McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Godsiff, Roger McDonagh, Siobhain
Goggins, Paul Macdonald, Calum
Golding, Mrs Llin McDonnell, John
Gordon, Mrs Eileen McFall, John
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) McIsaac, Shona
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Mackinlay, Andrew
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Grocott, Bruce McNamara, Kevin
Grogan, John McNulty, Tony
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) MacShane, Denis
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) Mactaggart, Fiona
Hancock, Mike McWalter, Tony
McWilliam, John Shipley, Ms Debra
Mallaber, Judy Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) Singh, Marsha
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Skinner, Dennis
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Martlew, Eric
Maxton, John Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Meale, Alan Soley, Clive
Merron, Gillian Southworth, Ms Helen
Michael, Rt Hon Alun Spellar, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) Steinberg, Gerry
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan Stevenson, George
Miller, Andrew Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Moffatt, Laura Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Moonie, Dr Lewis Stoate, Dr Howard
Moore, Michael Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) Stringer, Graham
Morley, Elliot Stuart, Ms Gisela
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) Stunell, Andrew
Naysmith, Dr Doug Sutcliffe, Gerry
Norris, Dan Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
O'Hara, Eddie Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
O'Neill, Martin Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Öpik, Lembit Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Organ, Mrs Diana Temple-Morris, Peter
Pearson, Ian Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Perham, Ms Linda Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Pickthall, Colin Tipping, Paddy
Pike, Peter L Todd, Mark
Plaskitt, James Trickett, Jon
Pond, Chris Truswell, Paul
Pope, Greg Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Pound, Stephen Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Prosser, Gwyn Tyler, Paul
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce Tynan, Bill
Quinn, Lawrie Vis, Dr Rudi
Rammell, Bill Walley, Ms Joan
Rapson, Syd Ward, Ms Claire
Raynsford, Nick Wareing, Robert N
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) Watts, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) White, Brian
Rendel, David Whitehead, Dr Alan
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland) Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Roche, Mrs Barbara Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Rooney, Terry Willis, Phil
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Winnick, David
Rowlands, Ted Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Ruane, Chris Wood, Mike
Russell, Bob (Colchester) Woodward, Shaun
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) Worthington, Tony
Salter, Martin Wray, James
Sanders, Adrian Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Sarwar, Mohammad Wyatt, Derek
Savidge, Malcolm
Sawford, Phil Tellers for the Ayes:
Sedgemore, Brian Mr. Mike Hall and
Shaw, Jonathan Mr. Don Touhig.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Body, Sir Richard
Amess, David Boswell, Tim
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Brady, Graham
Baldry, Tony Brazier, Julian
Beggs, Roy Browning, Mrs Angela
Bercow, John Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Blunt, Crispin Burns, Simon
Butterfill, John McIntosh, Miss Anne
Cash, William Maclean, Rt Hon David
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) McLoughlin, Patrick
Malins, Humfrey
Chope, Christopher Maples, John
Clappison, James May, Mrs Theresa
Collins, Tim Moss, Malcolm
Cormack, Sir Patrick Nicholls, Patrick
Cran, James O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham) Ottaway, Richard
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) Page, Richard
Day, Stephen Paice, James
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen Pickles, Eric
Duncan, Alan Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, Nigel Prior, David
Flight, Howard Randall, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Redwood, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam Robathan, Andrew
Fraser, Christopher Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Gale, Roger Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Garnier, Edward Ruffley, David
Gibb, Nick St Aubyn, Nick
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Sayeed, Jonathan
Gray, James Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Green, Damian Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Greenway, John Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Grieve, Dominic Spicer, Sir Michael
Spring, Richard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Swayne, Desmond
Hammond, Philip Syms, Robert
Hawkins, Nick Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hayes, John Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Heald, Oliver Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Horam, John Taylor, Sir Teddy
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Thompson, William
Jack, Rt Hon Michael Tredinnick, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Tyrie, Andrew
Jenkin, Bernard Waterson, Nigel
Key, Robert Wells, Bowen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) Whitney, Sir Raymond
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Whittingdale, John
Leigh, Edward Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Letwin, Oliver Wilkinson, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) Willetts, David
Lidington, David Wilshire, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Yeo, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Liwyd, Elfyn
Loughton, Tim Tellers for the Noes:
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Mr. Peter Luff and
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingy agreed to.