HC Deb 06 March 2001 vol 364 cc247-63

7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any Lords amendments, or on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.—[Mr. Mullin.]

10 pm

Mr. Streeter

I am staggered and disappointed that the Minister should have moved this important programme motion formally. It is an affront to democracy. The Bill has been presented under Standing Order No. 50. If we are to debate the motion properly, I hope that the Minister will explain how Standing Order No. 50 interacts with the programme motion. Will he say what the implications are of that for the programme motion? I should be happy to give way to him. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) is speaking.

Mr. Streeter

Does not it beggar belief that a Bill can be presented under Standing Order No. 50 without the Minister explaining its import, and its impact on the programme motion? Is not that another example of the contempt with which the Governimnt treat the House of Commons?

The Government's action is an affront to democracy because the Bill is about international development and supporting democracy around the world. This country invented democracy, and exported it around the world. Over many years, we have taken steps to underpin democracy throughout the rest of the world. The House has been discussing all day ways in which to support democracy elsewhere in the world. Is not it ironic that democracy is coming under threat in this country? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to a hearing.

Mr. Streeter

Shouting down Members in the House of Commons is another affront to democracy. In the two years that I have been in my post, I have visited some central and eastern European countries that used to be crushed by communism. I have visited many African states where there has been no history of democracy. People in those countries know that their new-found democracy is a fragile, precious creature. Many of those countries hold their democracy very lightly and very preciously, because they know that it is easy for it to be snatched away.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the subject under discussion this evening is too important for us to restrict the debate? Why do Labour Members not want to discuss something about which the House in general agrees? Should we not spend more time, rather than less, on such an important subject?

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

Give him a beefburger.

Mr. Gummer

Moreover, does not my hon. Friend think that some hon. Members, who rarely make sensible contributions to debates, should remain quiet in their seated positions?

Mr. Streeter

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is interesting to note that when Labour Members do not want to hear important arguments from Opposition Members, they simply talk among themselves and do not pay attention. They really are an unholy rabble.

Mr. Rogers

The hon. Gentleman wonders why there is some noise from Labour Members. Some of us remember when the previous Government guillotined Bills and rammed them through the House time after time. When Conservative Members complain about this Government, it does more than smack of hypocrisy: it smells of it.

Mr. Streeter

I am rather sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He does not seem to understand that we are talking about an entirely new procedure. We are talking about the programme motions imposed by the Government on the House of Commons, against its better judgment.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Has my hon. Friend noted that a new precedent has been set in the House tonight? Like me, he will remember when gagging motions such as this were introduced by the Leader of the House. That changed, and such motions were proposed by the Secretary of State of the relevant Department. Even the Under-Secretary disdains the House so much that he did not explain the reasons for this gagging motion.

Mr. Streeter

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. The Secretary of State, who is the head of the Department, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, has left the debate, so unimportant is this to the Government.

All around the world people are cherishing their new-found democracy. Is it not ironic that here, in the mother of all Parliaments, the Government are placing our democracy under threat by treating the House of Commons with contempt?

How could the Government decide, even before Second Reading, how long we should spend considering the Bill in Committee? Who will speak in Committee? What arguments will be put? The Government have no idea how long will be necessary for us to scrutinise this important Bill.

Mr. Gummer

Did my hon. Friend hear the Minister say from a seated position that we agreed with the Bill? Is that not an opportunity for us to discuss it properly and not to hold it up, but to be useful? Are the Government frightened that somehow they cannot give vent to normal discussions, as the House has always done down the years of history?

Mr. Streeter

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Many constructive contributions from Conservative Members have been made in this debate and many constructive contributions from Conservative Members will be made in Committee—if there is enough time. Yet the programme motion says—it is almost beyond belief—that the Bill must have finished its Committee proceedings by Thursday 15 March.

Next Monday is 12 March. The Bill was first printed on 15 February. It was presented to the House of Commons out of the blue. No one was expecting it. This morning I met the non-governmental organisations and charities that are expert in this field, and they were not expecting such a Bill. The Government gave no signals that it was coming. It has been introduced for party political pre-election purposes, and has come out of the blue.

The Bill was printed on 15 February and came before the House today. We are asked to finish its consideration in Committee by Thursday 15 March.

Mr. Mullin

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Streeter

In a second. Amendments must be tabled by Friday lunchtime if they are to be considered by the start of Committee proceedings next Tuesday. Tomorrow is Budget day; Second Reading has taken place today. We have precious little time in which to seek expert opinion on some important matters, which I shall cover shortly. What a shocking example of a Government railroading legislation through Parliament and not giving the Opposition an opportunity to scrutinise and improve it. I will now give way to the Minister and I hope that he will explain what Standing Order No. 50 is all about.

Mr. Mullin

I wonder whether I could insert a little killer fact into this discussion. I understand that the timetable was agreed through the usual channels, so if the hon. Gentleman has any complaints, perhaps he should discuss the matter with his Whip.

Mr. Streeter

I am sorry to say that, not for the first time today, the Minister is misinformed. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I still feel that the hon. Gentleman is not getting the hearing to which he is entitled. The House must calm down.

Mr. Streeter

For at least the second time today, the Minister is misinformed. We oppose these programme motions on a point of principle as well as practicality. In no way has the programme motion been agreed through the usual channels.

What are we to take from this motion? A Bill that has had its Second Reading today starts its Committee proceedings next Tuesday and must be finished by next Thursday. There is no time to take expert advice or to consider matters properly, yet important issues have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House in today's debate.

The Bill intends to place at the heart of international development policy-making procedures a focus on poverty reduction. We have asked many probing questions about what poverty reduction entails. Does it preclude the Government from supporting democracy-building measures, or from focusing on good governance? Does it preclude the Government from supporting action against human trafficking? We need to know what poverty reduction means, and we shall need plenty of time in Committee to study that question in depth.

We have discussed the collision course on which the Bill will place the Government as regards European Union aid. The Bill says that international development must all be about poverty reduction, but 30 per cent. of DFID funding goes through the EU. From recent experience, we know that the EU is doing anything but focusing funding on poverty reduction. How will the Government square that circle? How will they reconcile their focus on poverty reduction with their treaty obligation to put 30 per cent. of DFID' s budget through the EU? We shall need plenty of time to consider that point in detail. I should like to take legal advice, but it seems that there will be no time.

We want to explore the money spent by DFID on publications—£2 million over the past four years on glossy brochures. How will that come into the focus on poverty reduction?

We oppose the programme motion on principle, but also for reasons of practicality. It does not give us enough time to do a proper job. I have no doubt that the Government will approach us in a few weeks' time once the Bill has passed through this House; it is unlikely to complete its passage through the other place in time for the almost-certain election on 3 May. They will ask us whether the Bill can be fast-tracked with our support before the House is dissolved for the general election. I want to put down a substantial marker today.

Mr. Tom Clarke

Before the hon. Gentleman says anything rash, will he reflect on two points made on Second Reading? First, the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, which the Bill seeks to bring up to date, was passed in exactly three minutes. Secondly, the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that the Bill is not necessary. If that is so, why is he so excited about the programme motion?

Mr. Streeter

The right hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. The Bill contains many complex issues and we have asked many complicated questions and legal questions that the Government have failed to answer. I asked the Secretary of State—when she was still here—what difference the Bill will make to the way in which she conducts international development, but I had no answer. That is exactly the kind of point that we need to get to the bottom of in Committee.

Mr. Forth

Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that if a premature election meant that the Bill failed to be properly considered or to reach the statute book, it would be the Government's fault for calling an election at a time that truncated the Bill's progress? I hope that my hon. Friend will feel under no pressure or obligation to fall in with an artificial timetable imposed by the Government.

Mr. Streeter

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. No doubt the Government will tiptoe up to us towards the end of March to ask for help in getting the Bill on to the statute book before the election, which, as my right hon. Friend said, is about to to called 12 months before it is necessary. I must put down a marker for the Minister. Unless the Bill is amended in Committee to place at centre stage our strong belief that we must get behind developing countries on good governance, which must be the main focus of our assistance, and a crackdown on corruption, we shall not support fast-tracking of the Bill. Unless we are satisfied in Committee that the Government have thought matters through and have dealt with the inevitable conflict between EU aid provision of 30 per cent. and the poverty focus that the Bill is intended to introduce, there is no way in which we shall be able to support the Bill on a fast-track procedure. I hope the Minister is listening. That is one of the reasons why the Government are so mistaken in trying to railroad the Bill through the House.

I have said that we oppose the Bill on a point of principle—

Mr. Mullin

The hon. Gentleman said that he did not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Streeter

We oppose the programme motion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am sure that is what I said—[Interruption] I am sure that Hansard will confirm that is what I said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, it will not."' It will when I pop upstairs in a moment.

We oppose the programme motion on a point of principle because it does not give us adequate time to do our job properly—to scrutinise the measure, to improve it, to take expert advice and to move sensible amendments in the Standing Committee next week. The Government have made a terrible mistake. They have taken us for granted, they have taken the House for granted and they have taken our constituents for granted They have shown once again their utter contempt for the House of Commons—it will not do.

10.16 pm
Mr. Rogers

I do not normally speak on programme motions. Obviously, I fully support the motion. I agree with the generosity of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench in giving as much time as possible to Opposition Members so that they can voice their objections to the motion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development on moving the motion formally.

I do not understand why the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), the Opposition spokesman, wants to hold up the Bill, when the Opposition—apparently—support every part of it. He has a point when it comes to European aid, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to resolve the matter in Committee.

I have sat through many debates on programme motions recently and the Opposition's only saving grace lies in the sometimes brilliant tactics employed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whom I admire greatly. When I presided over the European Parliament, I dealt with Members such as Marco Pannela; but the right hon. Gentleman is far better than the Italian anarchists—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Machiavelli."] The right hon. Gentleman is a man of superb ability.

However, that skill is all that I can admire about the Opposition. The hypocrisy of their stance on the measure flabbergasts me. I sat on the Opposition Benches with a bad grace for a long time, while the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) arrogantly scoffed as his Government pushed through Bills—

Mr. Hogg

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers

The right hon. and learned Gentleman can have his chance later.

Mr. Hogg

rose—

Mr. Rogers

Very well, I give way.

Mr. Hogg

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have been Members of the House for a long time. He will be good enough to remind the House that the general practice when the Conservatives were in office was not to timetable a Bill until it had been in Committee for approximately 100 hours. What is different at present is that the Government are timetabling a Bill in advance of consideration and before there is any reason to suppose that its discussion will be artificially extended.

Mr. Rogers

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in government, he shoved legislation through the House on many occasions—

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton)

No, no.

Mr. Rogers

The hon. Gentleman bleats away, but he was not in the House then, so he does not know about it. The Government were ramming things through—

Mr. Gummer

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers

I have given way once—

Mr. Gummer

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers

I will give way when I have answered the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

Measures were pushed through—gas privatisation, transport privatisation, privatisation of the coal mines. The measure on the atomic weapons establishment was pushed through. All those Bills were pushed through and whenever there was any difficulty, they were guillotined. That was why the issue of the modernisation of the House arose. Those guillotines were nothing to do with modernisation; the Conservatives wanted to ram their business through the House.

Mr. Gummer

rose—

Mr. Rogers

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who has done enough ramming in his time.

Mr. Gummer

The hon. Gentleman has the honour to be the Member of Parliament for Rhondda, and I ask him whether he can think of a single one of his predecessors who would have accepted a timetable motion that was introduced before there had been at least 100 hours of debate. I challenge him to mention a single occasion on which I introduced any programme motion on a Bill that had not already been the subject of at least 100 hours of debate. I have been entirely supportive of the Secretary of State for International Development, but will he explain why we must have a timetable motion on the Bill—about which we are agreed, but on which we might be able to help the Government—given that we could have debated it in this Parliament without such a timetable being inflicted?

Mr. Rogers

I should have thought that it would be pretty obvious, even to the right hon. Gentleman, that the timetable motion has been moved because there will be an election. Although we shall be returned, we obviously want to get the Bill on to the statute book in this Parliament, given its significance for the underdeveloped world. It is a good Bill and it contains—

Mr. Hogg

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are being told that we should hurry our consideration of the Bill because there is to be an election. Would you be good enough to confirm that the fact that we may be facing an election on 3 May relieves us of the obligation to scrutinise legislation properly?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. and learned Gentleman inadvertently seeks to draw me into the debate. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has put his case, and it can be rebutted by any Back Bencher who catches my eye.

Mr. Rogers

I am amazed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his considerable legal background and knowledge of the constitution and make-up of the House, should make such a spurious point of order.

Mr. Bercow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers

The hon. Gentleman is obviously in pain, so I shall give way.

Mr. Bercow

I am certainly not in pain; I am richly enjoying the hon. Gentleman's oration. Is not it extraordinary that he insists with such alacrity that two days' consideration in Committee will suffice, given that he cannot possibly know—assuming that he is not psychic—how many new clauses and amendments will be tabled?

Mr. Rogers

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should assume that I am not psychic. We Welsh have many attributes, and I shall be disappointed if I cannot create a small Celtic aura.

Mr. Forth

Get on with it.

Mr. Rogers

The right hon. Gentleman asks me to move along, but he wants me to do so to create a bit of space for himself. He has spent considerable time honing his special skills, and I shall not go on for too long because I like to listen to his speeches. I hope that you will find it in your heart, Mr. Speaker, to call him so that we can enjoy his speech a little later.

The Bill contains much that is good, and it needs to be passed quickly.

The hon. Member for South-West Devon raised the important issue of the diversion of our aid through the European Union. With the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I spent five years in the European Parliament and I saw the way in which the European Community's aid budget was blatantly used for certain national interests. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister realise, when they negotiate in the European Union, that certain countries have used the aid budget to further their own interests and not necessarily the interests of those who deserve the aid most.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)

The hon. Gentleman has great experience and knowledge of European affairs, so will he explain to us how he expects a Committee of the House of Commons to introduce measures to ensure that European aid is spent on relieving poverty? We know that a huge amount of money goes on graft and corruption, so how is a Committee, with its pathetic limited powers, expected to do anything on the subject in two days?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are now discussing the Bill's substance and not the programme motion. I ask the hon. Member for Rhondda not to reply to that intervention.

Mr. Rogers

I shall certainly do whatever you say, Mr. Speaker. However, the hon. Member for South-West Devon cited the issue of European aid as a fundamental point in his contribution on the programme motion. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) should ask that question, because his Government put through the Maastricht treaty. Baroness Thatcher came back to the House and said what a wonderful—

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see any relevance whatever either to the Bill or to the programme motion—which is the subject of this debate—in the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Speaker

That is the first proper point of order that I have heard for some time. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. We should not be talking about the Maastricht treaty in this debate on a programme motion.

Mr. Rogers

I accept what you say, Mr. Speaker. I would never want to dispute your ruling. Of course it was a proper point of order, but its substance was wrong.

As I understand it, as a result of the Bill, an obligation will be placed on the British Governapnt to channel some aid through Europe. The obligation has arisen out of various treaties that the British Government signed with the Europeans. One was the Maastricht treaty, which was shoved through the House. All we are doing is fulfilling our treaty obligations. I am sure of one thing: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will not sell us down the river as Secretaries of State in the Conservative Government did on issues such as the common agricultural policy in all the years that they were in power. My right hon Friend will defend our interests.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must talk about the programme motion.

Mr. Rogers

The hon. Member for South-West Devon gave such examples to support the Conservative party's opposition to the programme motion. However, because you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that I am out of order by repeating his points, I shall not proceed any further.

10.29 pm
Mr. Gummer

A real issue is at stake, and I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will accept that I am being serious about it. This is an important Bill and I support almost every part of it. The right hon. Lady has had an exemplary period as Secretary of State and I want to help her on a couple of issues.

Conservative Members support much of what the right hon. Lady has done and we want to help her with other matters. However, there is little discussion in this country about the issues with which she is concerned. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Scotland Office, has commented from a sedentary position throughout this short debate. He must accept that overseas development and its relationship with the environment and so on have occupied my mind for a long time. They should be discussed more widely.

The right hon. Lady should think about whether it would have been better to give us longer to discuss those issues. The Opposition would not try to stop the Bill, because much of it is good, but this country needs to have a more serious debate about the nature of overseas aid and the way in which we redevelop and recreate the economies of countries that are in great poverty.

I agree with the need to concentrate on the eradication of poverty. Anyone who lives in a rich country must be worried about that fundamental issue. It is important to engage the Government and the Opposition on those issues on which we can work together, such as the environment. Overseas aid is another part of what should be a common agenda among rich countries that deal with those for whom justice cries out to be done.

Some of us had hoped that the right hon. Lady would tell her Government that we do not need a timetable motion on the Bill because the whole House can genuinely engage on it. The issue is important. Some of my hon. Friends go on about the European Union, but I believe that with proper leadership from this country, we can much improve EU aid. A great deal of what we are able to do through that organisation we could not do individually. However, I am not happy with the procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has made a criticism, but we do not have time to discuss the issue that concerns him. I suspect that the right hon. Lady and I might agree on that aspect of the Bill, but it is difficult to understand why our time for debate needs to be restricted.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

The Opposition did not vote against this Bill or the Criminal Justice and Police Bill on Second Reading. However, I have just come from the Committee on that Bill, and 24 clauses, one new clause, two schedules and 44 amendments received no attention at all.

Mr. Gummer

I share my hon. Friend's concern, but this Bill involves a stronger issue, which I hope the right hon. Lady will take seriously. It is important to discuss such issues even if we agree with the principles, because they are not widely discussed in this nation. If I go banging on doors in my constituency and elsewhere, overseas aid is not often raised in a friendly and proper way. Unattractive comments are sometimes made, and the subject is not usually discussed in the way in which we in the House would want to debate it. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady finds that.

Clare Short

I find that traditional political meetings are crumbling across the country and that development meetings are growing and flourishing and are widely attended. I respect the right hon. Gentleman's interest in the environment, but he was not present for the Second Reading debate. However, he is always here to oppose programme motions. I do not think that it is development that concerns him tonight.

Mr. Gummer

I know that the right hon. Lady is present in Chamber a great deal. I am not always present to oppose timetable motions, although I disagree with them in principle. On no occasion have I discussed a Bill in the terms in which I am discussing this one, and I do so because the Department for International Development is crucial and says something about this country's moral attitude to the rest of the world. If I have a criticism of the Governments in which I served—and I say this clearly—it concerns their behaviour towards the rest of the world. I have a similar criticism of this Government. However, this is an issue on which we ought to try to engage the whole House.

If I may say so, the right hon. Lady is a woman of great strength and is perfectly able to stand her corner. I want to take this opportunity to tell her that this could have been an occasion on which she told the rest of the Government, "I can manage without a timetable motion. I can have the debate and, what is more, I know that we will get this through in time and we will have engaged the whole House of Commons."

I shall conclude by referring to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). 1 have close connections with Wales.

Mr. Rogers

The right hon. Gentleman used to call himself John Selwyn Gummer.

Mr. Gummer

Exactly. May I tell the hon. Gentleman that Members from Wales have always been entirely in favour of free speech and the involvement of the whole House? Frankly, although some Members laughed at his speech, I was saddened by it because, to be direct, he betrayed his predecessors, none of whom would have spoken in that way about free speech in the House. I can think of several of my relations who would turn in their graves if they heard his words on that subject in the House. Together, those two things are not worthy of him, and I am sorry that he spoke like that.

10.37 pm
Mr. Wells

It makes me sad to take part in this debate on the programme motion, because I am sure that the Government and Opposition could easily have agreed how much time we needed in Committee.

The issues that we must discuss in Committee are of great importance and need proper exploration. Clause 1, which is the essence of the Bill, enshrines the principle of applying all international development aid to the reduction of poverty. The definition of the reduction of poverty needs exploration through the normal means of amendment and discussion, so that we are entirely clear what it means and what the Secretary of State's intention is.

That definition is not easy, and it is not intended to be, because the Secretary of State needs flexibility to administer her budget, which cannot be examined in a court of law. We accept that. On the other hand, does poverty reduction mean that, for example, we concentrate only on the poorest of the poor? Or do we mean to look at comparative poverty within certain countries? What is the upper limit of that kind of flexibility? That kind of thing should be discussed and needs to be discussed, which may take some time.

Mr. Hogg

My hon. Friend clearly makes an important point. Would he care to remind the House that in Committee, there will be only a small number of Opposition Members? The Report stage is the only occasion on which the House as a whole has an opportunity to address those important questions. Consequently, is it not extremely undesirable that debate should be truncated in the way the Government propose?

Mr. Wells

The motion is entirely unnecessary, and it is detrimental to the reputation of the House that we should push it through. I shall not go through all the clauses, as that would be wasting time, but in the debate I raised the question of whether humanitarian aid should be closely defined, so that it will be clear that such aid will not be used for spurious political purposes. There needs to be a debate on that, and an amendment. The matter requires thorough exploration. That would not be wasting time; it is what we should do.

We must examine how a poverty-focused Bill will work in relation to the overseas territories. As I understand it, the Bill exempts the overseas territories from the poverty reduction focus, but why should the overseas territories be in that position? They have traditionally had first call on the overseas development budget, but that is not reflected in the wording of the Bill.

Clare Short

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is possible, as was said earlier, that this might be the last exchange that he and I have on the Floor of the House about international development. On behalf of everyone on the Government side, and probably the whole House, may I say that the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the subject has been enormous?

This is a small Bill and we want to get it right. Is it not striking that there are far more hon. Members present for the timetable motion debate than were present for the Second Reading debate? When I was in opposition, I liked to use time to hold the Government to account, but on the Bill there is not an issue. We have enough time to scrutinise the Bill properly and get it through the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to make time the last issue on which he speaks, in relation to a subject that has honoured the whole of his political career and to which he has made such a great contribution.

Mr. Wells

I thank for the Secretary of State for the generosity of her remarks, which I deeply appreciate. However, I am not speaking to waste time. I am genuinely concerned that we should have enough time to debate the issues, which I am sure she wants to explain. No doubt she wants to listen to other points of view and possibly accept them.

I am not trying to waste time, and I shall not go on much longer. I appeal to the right hon. Lady, in return, to give us an undertaking that, should we need more time, she will persuade the Government to give the Committee more time to explore all the issues properly, without endangering the Bill by holdng it up.

10.41 pm
Mr. Hogg

With two minutes left, I shall necessarily be brief. It was with great sadness that I heard the Under-Secretary proposing the motion formally. He used to be a custodian of the liberty of the House, yet he moved a motion of some importance formally, did not try to defend it, and has now gone.

When I first came to the House, as I reminded hon. Members in an intervention—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary is back. He has betrayed his own reputation. He used to be a guardian of liberty, yet he moved a gagging motion without even troubling to tell the House the justification for it.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a bizarre speech, probably the last that he will make in the House. That is probably no bad thing. He accused the Government of which I was member of ramrodding legislation through. We never, ever timetabled in advance. We never timetabled Committee stages until a Committee had sat for about 100 hours. We never timetabled unless there was evidence of an attempt arificially to prolong discussion, but the present Government do so as a matter of course.

I know that you are about to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that we are running out of time. Suffice it to say that I regard the motion as shameful. We will consistently and continually oppose these gagging measures, as they are simply wrong in principle.

10.44 pm
Mr. Forth

Apart from anything else, the Bill contains several provisions that will require extremely close consideration and perhaps rather lengthy scrutiny.

Mr. Bercow

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth

Yes, of course—

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 303, Noes 138.

Division No. 141] [10.45 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ainger, Nick Campbell—Savours, Dale
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Cann, Jamie
Allen, Graham Caplin, Ivor
Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E) Casale, Roger
Caton, Martin
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Cawsey, Ian
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Ashton, Joe Chaytor, David
Atherton, Ms Candy Clapham, Michael
Atkins, Charlotte Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Austin, John Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Bailey, Adrian
Barnes, Harry Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Barren, Kevin Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Battle, John Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Bayley, Hugh Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Clelland, David
Begg, Miss Anne Clwyd, Ann
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) Coaker, Vernon
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) Cohen, Harry
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) Colman, Tony
Bennett, Andrew F Connarty, Michael
Benton, Joe Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Bermingham, Gerald Corbett, Robin
Berry, Roger Corbyn, Jeremy
Best, Harold Corston, Jean
Betts, Clive Cousins, Jim
Blackman, Liz Cox, Tom
Blears, Ms Hazel Cranston, Ross
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul Crausby, David
Borrow, David Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Cummings, John
Brinton, Mrs Helen Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Browne, Desmond Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Buck, Ms Karen Dawson, Hilton
Burden, Richard Dean, Mrs Janet
Burgon, Colin Denham, Rt Hon John
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen Dismore, Andrew
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Dobbin, Jim
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Donohoe, Brian H Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Doran, Frank Lammy, David
Dowd, Jim Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Drew, David Laxton, Bob
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Lepper, David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Leslie, Christopher
Edwards, Huw Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Efford, Clive Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Ellman, Mrs Louise Linton, Martin
Ennis, Jeff Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Field, Rt Hon Frank Lock, David
Fitzpatrick, Jim Love, Andrew
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma McCabe, Steve
Flint, Caroline McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara McDonagh, Siobhain
Foster, Rt Hon Derek Macdonald, Calum
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) McDonnell, John
Foulkes, George McFall, John
Gapes, Mike McGuire, Mrs Anne
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S) McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Gerrard, Neil Mackinlay, Andrew
Gibson, Dr Ian McNamara, Kevin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda McNulty, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A MacShane, Denis
Godsiff, Roger Mactaggart, Fiona
Goggins, Paul Mahon, Mrs Alice
Golding, Mrs Llin Mallaber, Judy
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Grogan, John Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hain, Peter Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) Martlew, Eric
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) Meale, Alan
Hanson, David Merron, Gillian
Healey, John Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) Michie, Bill (Shef?ld Heeley)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) Miller, Andrew
Hepburn, Stephen Mitchell, Austin
Heppell, John Moffatt, Laura
Hewitt, Ms Patricia Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hill, Keith Moran, Ms Margaret
Hinchliffe, David Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hodge, Ms Margaret Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Hoey, Kate Morley, Elliot
Hood, Jimmy Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Hopkins, Kelvin Mountford, Kali
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E) Mudie, George
Howells, Dr Kim Mullin, Chris
Hoyle, Lindsay Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Iddon, Dr Brian Naysmith, Dr Doug
Illsley, Eric O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jenkins, Brian O'Hara, Eddie
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) Olner, Bill
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield) Organ, Mrs Diana
Osborne, Ms Sandra
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn) Palmer, Dr Nick
Jones, Helen (Warrington N) Pearson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) Perham, Ms Linda
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) Pickthall, Colin
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa Pike, Peter L
Joyce, Eric Plaskitt, James
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Pond, Chris
Keeble, Ms Sally Pope, Greg
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) Pound, Stephen
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) Powell, Sir Raymond
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Khabra, Piara S Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Kidney, David Prosser, Gwyn
Kilfoyle, Peter Purchase, Ken
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Kumar, Dr Ashok Quinn, Lawrie
Rammell, Bill Sutcliffe, Gerry
Rapson, Syd Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Raynsford, Nick
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland) Temple—Morris, Peter
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Roche, Mrs Barbara Timms, Stephen
Rogers, Allan Tipping, Paddy
Rooney, Terry Todd, Mark
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Touhig, Don
Rowlands, Ted Trickett, Jon
Roy, Frank Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Ruane Chris Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Ruddock, Joan Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Salter, Martin Tynan, Bill
Savidge, Malcolm Vis, Dr Rudi
Sawford, Phil Walley, Ms Joan
Shaw, Jonathan Ward, Ms Claire
Short, Rt Hon Clare Wareing, Robert N
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) Watts, David
Skinner, Dennis Whitehead, Dr Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Smith, John (Glamorgan) Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Soley, Clive Wills, Michael
Spellar, John Wilson, Brian
Squire, Ms Rachel Winnick, David
Starkey, Dr Phyllis Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Steinberg, Gerry Woodward, Shaun
Stevenson, George Woolas, Phil
Stewart, David (Inverness E) Worthington, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles) Wray, James
Stinchcombe, Paul Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Stoate, Dr Howard Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack Tellers for the Ayes:
Stringer, Graham Mr. David Jamieson and
Stuart, Ms Gisela Mr. Kevin Hughes.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Amess, David Evans, Nigel
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael Fabricant, Michael
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James Flight, Howard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Beggs, Roy Fox, Dr Liam
Bercow, John Fraser, Christopher
Beresford, Sir Paul Gale, Roger
Blunt, Crispin George, Andrew (St Ives)
Boswell, Tim Gibb, Nick
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Gidley, Sandra
Brady, Graham Gill, Christopher
Brazier, Julian Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Gray, James
Browning, Mrs Angela Green, Damian
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Greenway, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Grieve, Dominic
Burnett, John Gummer, Rt Hon John
Burns, Simon Hammond, Philip
Butterfill, John Hancock, Mike
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) Harris, Dr Evan
Hawkins, Nick
Cash, William Hayes, John
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) Heald, Oliver
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Chidgey, David Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Chope, Christopher Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Clappison, James Horam, John
Cran, James Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Day, Stephen Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Donaldson, Jeffrey Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Duncan, Alan Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Duncan Smith, Iain Jenkin, Bernard
Keetch, Paul St Aubyn, Nick
Key, Robert Sanders, Adrian
Kirkbride, Miss Julie Sayeed, Jonathan
Kirkwood, Archy Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Lansley, Andrew Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Leigh, Edward Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Letwin, Oliver Spicer, Sir Michael
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) Spring, Richard
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Loughton, Tim Steen, Anthony
Luff, Peter Streeter, Gary
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Swayne, Desmond
McIntosh, Miss Anne Syms, Robert
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Maclean, Rt Hon David Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
McLoughlin, Patrick Taylor, Sir Teddy
Madel, Sir David Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Malins, Humfrey Tonge, Dr Jenny
Maples, John Tredinnick, David
May, Mrs Theresa Trend, Michael
Moss, Malcolm Tyler, Paul
Nicholls, Patrick Viggers, Peter
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) Walter, Robert
Öpik, Lembit Webb, Steve
Page, Richard Wells, Bowen
Paice, James Whitney, Sir Raymond
Paterson, Owen Whittingdale, John
Pickles, Eric Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Prior, David Wilkinson, John
Rendel, David Willis, Phil
Robathan, Andrew Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) Yeo, Tim
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Ross, William (E Lond'y) Tellers for the Noes:
Ruffley, David Mr. John Randall and
Russell, Bob (Colchester) >Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the International Development Bill:

    c262
  1. Sanding Committee 51 words
    2. c262
  2. Consideration and Third Reading 107 words
    3. cc262-3
  3. Lords amendments and further messages from the Lords 72 words