Orders of the Day — Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill (Programme)

House of Commons, 23 January 2001.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill—

Standing Committee

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

We are just beginning to get properly to grips with the full horrors of this iniquitous new process that the Government have inflicted on the House. These debates play an important part in providing the House with the ability to explore what is now the relationship between the Government and the House of Commons, and to explore how the legislative process is supposed to work under the dispensation that is so wrongly called modernisation. The programme motions and the debates surrounding them have started to provide an important opportunity for the House to consider whether the Government's approach to the legislative process is acceptable or satisfactory. The Minister said that, in his opinion, it would be sufficient for the Standing Committee to have completed consideration of the Bill by 1 February, and that he envisaged four Committee sittings. We do not know whether four sittings will be adequate; we cannot know that at this stage. The big difference that has taken place between the way in which the House used to work and the way in which it now has to work is that the Government take it upon themselves arbitrarily to decide how long a Standing Committee will take.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is another feature to this question? It is that very short Standing Committees make it much more difficult for those outside the House to make representations on the content of the Bill at a time that is relevant to the Committee's consideration of the Bill.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. It is typical that the Government do not care whether right hon. and hon. Members have a proper opportunity to consider a Bill. However, they care even less whether anyone outside the House has an adequate opportunity to make representations or to attend Committee sittings, thus allowing that iterative process, to which we had become used in the past, between members of the Committee and legitimate outside interests who wish to play their part in the Committee's considerations. The Government say that, in their view, the legislative process—the scrutiny of legislation by the House—will be completed within a certain, very short, period of time. That is the new arrangement that we are supposed to accept. It is quite different from the arrangement that we knew before, in which it was assumed that the legislative process would take as long as was properly required for the Bill to be considered and amended before being brought back to the Floor of the House on Report. The Government now say that they know how long Members of the House will need to consider our legislation.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Was not that the most revealing remark by the Minister, to which my right hon. Friend has drawn the House's attention? It was—no doubt involuntarily—an extremely revealing insight into the Government's state of mind. Is it not clear that, in the Government's perception, the legislature will examine legislation only to the extent—and in a form—decided in advance by the Executive? What kind of balance in the constitution does that leave us with?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend is correct. As we proceed down this path—we are still in the early stages of the new dispensation—we see more and more clearly the arrogance of Ministers in taking it on themselves to decide how long scrutinising legislation will take.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My right hon. Friend was present last night when we debated another timetable motion and will remember the justification given by the Minister for Public Health for a time limit that will expire on 8 February. She said that, in her opinion, the House has sufficient time to consider that Bill. Does not that reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Yes. The legislative process is clearly being run on the basis of Ministers' opinions. Worse than that, although the Minister can say, as the motion tells us, that, in the Government's view, the House of Commons can have only until 1 February properly to consider the Bill, we have not even been given full information. We do not know what the secret Programming Sub-Committee—which, needless to say, will be dominated by the Government—will say about the time that the Government will allow the Committee to sit and deliberate. First, the Government tell us the end date for deliberations. Then, the Government-dominated Programming Sub-Committee will decide how long each day and each sitting will last.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the different treatment that we receive from different junior Ministers who represent the Executive? Today, the junior Minister graciously let us into the secret of how many Committee sittings the Government want and even said that there could be another two, according to unspecified criteria. That is a slight improvement on what we usually get, which is no information at all about what the Executive have decided. We now have a little more knowledge of the time available and I am grateful for that, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that this debate should not be taking place because the Executive should not tell the House how long it can debate such matters.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My right hon. Friend is obviously in a generous mood today because he has been much kinder to the Government and the Minister than I am disposed to be. The Minister made the rather casual remark that only two Committee sittings are needed, presumably because these matters are so trivial and his Bill so good that scrutiny is not required. I do not consider that to be a concession; it is a gratuitous insult to the House, the legislative process and the members of the Committee. Of course, we do not yet know who they will be. Another factor is that, given that we do not know who will be a member of the Committee or how much legitimate outside interest there will be, we cannot possibly know how many amendments are likely to be tabled. We do not know how long the sittings will be because the secretive Programming Sub-Committee has yet to meet—dominated as it will be by the Government. All in all, we are being asked simply to accept the Government's view of how their legislation should be scrutinised by the legislature. Surely that is an insult to both the history of the House and its every tradition. As we know, the Government rammed the changes through, though they did not have all-party support by any means, and here we are, living with the results of that process. A lot of the principles behind and the approaches to scrutiny, which most of us have held dear for as long as we have had the privilege of being Members of the House, have simply been thrown overboard and replaced by procedures introduced by a Government who are apparently so afraid of their measures being scrutinised that they want to diminish the scrutiny process to an intolerable extent. That is the inevitable outcome of such motions.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that everybody realises that the Government have an enormous majority and can do exactly what they want in the House? Some of us were Members when another Government had a large majority of 144, which was not as big as the majority of the current Government. None the less, that previous Government recognised that the House had its rights and that the Opposition had theirs. Matters were resolved by agreement, but that has gone out of the window. Does my right hon. Friend recognise a constitutional change here?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Yes, I do indeed. Only by the House taking every one of the few opportunities left to explore those matters—which, fortunately, the motion allows us to do—will we be able to expose that change for what it is. It is part and parcel of a process that we have witnessed for nearly four years—the systematic dismantling of all the mechanisms on which our electors thought they could rely to ensure that legislative proposals were scrutinised.

Sir Peter Emery (Conservative, East Devon)

My right hon. Friend should perhaps remind the House that the motion constitutes a guillotine on when a Bill leaves Committee. Not so very long ago, no Government would introduce a guillotine until an issue had been debated in Committee for 90 or 100 hours. There is, I am afraid, no such criterion in the motion that we are discussing.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Memory tells me that in the 1980s, in the case of a substantial Bill, the benchmark was nearer 150 hours in Committee. Indeed, that was reckoned to be barely sufficient before a guillotine could even be contemplated. I can only assume that the Government have introduced the measures with which we are now forced to live because they are both contemptuous of the parliamentary process and afraid of their legislation being properly scrutinised. The motion proposes, rather patronisingly, that The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet. That gives us a flavour of what we now face. In earlier times, a Committee would by convention spend the morning of its first sitting deliberating on future sittings and considering how much time it would need. It would then adjourn in order to give its members time to reflect on the Bill, and perhaps to table amendments. None of that will be possible now, because the Government are in such a rush and are so anxious to push the legislation through to prevent it from being properly scrutinised.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My right hon. Friend has touched on the question of amendments. Should the House not be reminded that, in the week permitted by the motion, the Government will not have time properly to formulate amendments in Committee, as is necessary, and will have to rely on amendments made in the other place—amendments which, inevitably, will not be properly debated in this, the elected Chamber?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That leaves me with a personal dilemma. Part of me naturally wants to ensure that the House of Commons, accountable as it is to voters—probably very soon now—will give the most effective scrutiny to, in particular, Bills with a financial or tax content or connotation. Another part of me, however, is beginning to recognise and almost welcome the fact that—given our increasing inability, under the guillotines that the Government are imposing on our legislative process, to scrutinise legislation fully and allow for amendments—the onus will be transferred to another place. It will be for another place to give even closer and more rigorous scrutiny to legislation, because the Government's constraints have prevented us from scrutinising it in the same way. So there is a glimmer of light. I shall vote against the motion unless the Minister says something to persuade me not to do so, but I shall leave the Chamber with a spring in my step. I feel that there is potential for the other place to be encouraged to exercise its duties and responsibilities even more vigorously than it has in the past, as a direct result of the Government's attempts, through motions such as this, to restrict and limit the power of this House to scrutinise legislation effectively.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I want to focus on what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). This is the second occasion in a week on which we have considered a timetable motion of this kind, and once again the motion is, in my view, an affront. My right hon. Friend presented the arguments against it with great clarity, and I therefore propose merely to summarise them, although I hope to emphasise one or two. For a start, we simply do not know whether an end date of 1 February is in any way appropriate. We cannot know that until we know how long the Committee will sit, what its members will deem to be important, and—perhaps even more significant—what people outside the Chamber will deem to be important, and will seek to communicate to those members. It is arrogant and wrong of the Government to put an end date on the Committee. The measure precludes proper scrutiny. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, this is a complicated Bill with tax and national insurance connotations. It is inevitable that Committee members will look to those outside, constituents and interested bodies to make representations on the Bill so that they can table amendments to address the issues. Being realistic, we know that people take a little time to get moving and an end date of 1 February will make it impossible for people outside properly to address the Bill. A further point is the status of the other place. Governments always amend Bills. I have been responsible for many Bills and I know that it is the practice of Governments to amend Bills in Committee. They must, because no Bill is perfect, particularly a complicated Bill of this kind. Thus the Government will determine that amendments are to be made and will not be able to formulate them within the time scale for the Committee. They will then seek to table amendments in another place, which is an unelected House dealing with quasi-financial matters. That is very unsatisfactory. The Government will come back to this House—probably on another timetable motion—and we, the elected Chamber, will never have a proper opportunity to discuss amendments.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

My right hon and learned Friend said that detail would be left to an unelected House, which, by tradition and constitutional convention, has nothing to do with taxation. This Bill is concerned with national insurance, which is extremely close to taxation. Is the other place even entitled to amend such a Bill?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Strictly speaking, it is entitled, as a matter of law and constitutional practice, but it is thoroughly undesirable. My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right about the status of the Bill. When Bills of this House attract substantive amendments, they should be amended in this place and not in the other place, unless it is absolutely essential. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) reminded the House that, when our party was in government, we did not move timetable motions in Committee until a long period of time had elapsed. My benchmark was 100 hours; that is in accordance with my right hon. Friend's recollection, although a little short of that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. However, we recognised that there had to be a long period before that was appropriate. In our minds, we knew that we could not properly timetable a Committee until it had become plain that what was going on was an unreasonable obstruction in Committee. The Government are proposing timetables of but a few hours on matters of great complexity and importance. That is shutting down on the legislative process. If we do that, the country will discover in time that legislation is going through the House of Commons that has never properly been scrutinised. As the acquiesence of the electorate depends, at least in part, on a belief that legislation has been properly scrutinised, we will be tampering with the foundations of accountable government and democracy.

Sir Peter Emery (Conservative, East Devon)

Two or three weeks ago, when the Government proposed the procedure, they gave the assurance that enough time would be given for the Opposition to table amendments and for each clause of the Bill to be properly debated. They are reneging on what they said to the House.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My right hon. Friend is right, although I am bound to say that the fact that the Government are reneging causes me no surprise. We are dealing with an essentially despotic and tyrannical Government, although the country as a whole does not recognise that yet. Our business, as legislators, is to draw to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, through you, to the attention of a wider public, that democracy is being served ill by those on the Government Front Bench. I have no doubt that timetable motions will be put down regularly. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be opposing them on grounds of principle.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

Sophocles was said to have walked around Athens talking to everybody he met and taking note of their opinions. He then sought to regale his fellow Athenians with exactly the degree of veracity that one gets from a wide selection of citizens. What worries me about the increasing habit of timetabling everything is that any Parliament—however it is brought together—must rely on support from the citizenry. I am extremely worried that we are increasingly—for what the managers of Government business probably think are perfectly acceptable reasons—going ahead on the in-built assumption that legislation is simply here to be rolled through the House of Commons and the other place with the greatest speed and the smallest number of alterations that will be acceptable to the Government. I am afraid that I do not take that view, and I do not believe that it can be sustained for any length of time. I do not entirely go along with the emotional and colourful language occasionally used on the Conservative Benches about the iniquities of the Government. While I am prepared to call them all sorts of things, despotic is not one of them. Despots, on the whole, tend to be reasonably efficient. Seriously, it saddens me that we are getting to the point where no Labour Member is prepared to say that the procedures of the House of Commons have been developed because there has to be give and take across the Chamber and an examination of various ideas. Above all, there has to be an examination of laws. We are talking not about union debates or dinner party disagreements but about laws, which not only have the power to carry sanctions but which affect the people who sent us here. I do not want to go on about this matter tonight; I simply want to record that, in the past three weeks, there has been a constant procession of timetable motions. We can call them what we like: guillotines, which is a more accurate description, or timetables. We can say that the House accepted all these "reforms" and suggest that somehow this is an improvement and a modernisation. Some of my colleagues occasionally give me the impression that they would rather there were no debate on any subject at all—[Interruption.] That refers to colleagues on both sides of the House. There are people who, when they are in Government, think that it is a good idea that the House of Commons does not debate the iniquities of the legislation before them. When I listen now to those who protest most about why we are allowing this to happen, I remember what they were like when they were Ministers. Once we let a monster out of the pot it is very difficult to get it back in. I do not believe that there will be a change of Government in the remainder of my parliamentary career, but such changes do happen in this country, and Conservative Members will be very quick to learn from our behaviour and to pick up those habits that they so roundly condemn. That is why I say to my Government colleagues: please think again. Do not assume that God is always in our corner; occasionally he may desert us. Do not assume that we always know right from wrong and always have absolute right on our side. That is not the case. Above all, please remember that legislation that goes through the House like a runaway train frequently comes off the rails at considerable speed and does great damage. The House should bear that in mind. We are increasingly losing sight of the object that a democratic Parliament should keep closest to its heart: legislation works when it is thought about, when it is real, when it represents the views of the ordinary citizen and, most of all, when it is not imposed without real thought and proper consideration.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

In a sense, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is wrong: the Government have moved to a certainty about procedures. The matter is no longer open to debate. The Government are about swank and spin; through their measures on the procedures of the House, they demonstrate their complete contempt for the very existence of the House of Commons. Such measures owe nothing whatever to reasoned thought. How do we know what Back Benchers think about the legislation that the Committee will discuss in what the Minister decides will probably be no more than two sittings? Nevertheless, through the Government's graciousness and their relentless and overweening majority, they may give us four sittings. I have not been consulted; in truth, no Member has been consulted. We have not been asked whether aspects of the measure cause us concern, whether we want to develop any points or to take soundings among interested groups in our constituencies. All the arguments that are being made are old ones. We used to impose guillotines because there was an insuperable blockage in normal procedural matters. During my time as a Member of the House, such motions have moved from being the exception and have become accustomed procedure Before Christmas, at the behest of the Government, the majority party imposed on us these ludicrous and contemptuous arrangements for the review of Bills.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My hon. Friend puts most eloquently the arguments against timetable motions. Will he remind the House that he makes those arguments from the perspective of someone who actually approves of the Bill? Perhaps that adds greater force to his comments.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

In the House, we all know that the matter is not whether an individual approves of a Bill; it is to safeguard the processes whereby a Bill is scrutinised. Other points of view may be brought to bear on measures and that may convince me that my original position was wrong. That is the tolerance in our legislative process. The Government are now so divorced from the House of Commons that they do not need the House at all. They have reduced us to the absurdity of trying to forecast magically the course of a Committee—the amendments that will be tabled and the length of time to be taken up in debate. In truth, they are not interested. Indeed, the process on motions such as this has been truncated from the intolerable length of three hours to 45 minutes for the discussion of the grievances of hon. Members who think that they may not be able discuss a Bill during its proceedings. That is one of the great modernisations and improvements. This procedure is a farce. It is an absurd assertion by an arrogant Government. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made a misjudgment in her comments; the attitude and arrogance of the Executive are beyond redemption. There are many decent Members on both sides of the House. There can be no pleasure in the fact that the House has been dragooned into a 45-minute debate; in essence, to approve the motion. One can see the exasperation on the faces of Ministers and Government Whips—this is all so trivial. They ask: why do we not nod the motion through? Why bother to seek approval? Why do we not conceive, in the brilliant Modernisation Committee, a Standing Order that gives the Government the right—because they have claimed it—to get their business? That was never an historic concept of the House. The House examined and consented to business, but it could also reject it. Such ideas do not even enter the mind of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as he proposes these arrangements without ever having asked for the views of Back-Bench colleagues on either side of the House. That is why I oppose the motion. It crystallises something that I have resented and regretted all my life. From being an occasional necessity, such arrangements have become the instrument of the Executive's dominance over the Chamber and show their contempt for the House.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

This is a very serious matter indeed, and the country needs to understand it. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, and the tone in which she said it. I have a high regard for the Minister and have served with him on a long and carefully thought-through Committee on the financial services. I am sure that he would not propose such measures if they were not being forced on the House from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer downwards, given the Government's attitude. It has been said that the Government are despotic and tyrannical, but those words sound old fashioned and out of date. The Government are certainly arrogant; they are bullying the House. It is unnecessary for them to bully the House. The Government are also bullying the country and the other place, and they are producing very bad legislation. Why have the Government introduced the Bill? There can be no argument about the fact that they are incompetent. They are amending legislation that they introduced only in past year or so, because provisions that were not properly thought through now have to be changed. To some extent, the changes that they propose are sensible and, therefore, we suggested in our reasoned amendment that they needed modifying, but we did not oppose the whole Bill. However, the Bill needs to be carefully scrutinised not only by the House—as can be seen on television around the world, by those with Sky and so on—but by those in the City of London, the CBI and financial services generally, as well as by those in all the places where small businesses congregate and consider such matters. They must have time to propose amendments. Let the country know what is proposed in this small, technical, but important Bill. The Government will ram the Bill through. The Committee is supposed to consider the Bill carefully and constructively, but it must take no more than eight days to do so. This week will be taken up in trying to determine exactly when the Bill will be debated in Committee. That effectively leaves only 30 January and 1 February for the Bill to be considered in Committee. That is five and seven days, or six and eight days ahead, so the small business groups, the City groups or the taxation accountants, who have already helped us on Second Reading, have no chance to consider whether the Government have got it right and to propose constructive amendments. That is very bad government indeed. Let everyone know that the Government are thoroughly unreasonable and that, day after day, they are timetabling—guillotining—every Bill that they introduced in this short Session before the general election. They are throwing aside the traditions that have existed for the 22 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, when my party has had two very large majorities. Let us not consider the proposals blindly. We can modernise sensibly. There have been some suggestions for sensible modernisation. In the past, Committees used to sit for 80 or 150 hours in Committee before a guillotine motion was introduced. Those hours were often used stupidly. The then Opposition felt that they could do nothing but ramble on indefinitely because time was their only weapon, and only the first or second clause of a Bill was debated. However, we have exactly the same amount time available proportionately—there are the same number of days in the weeks and the same hours in the day as there were in the 1980s, when such a Bill would never have needed to be guillotined. We could have used those 80 hours constructively on getting the legislation right. From the top, the Government—from the Chief Whip, the Leader of House and the Prime Minister himself—are unnecessarily denying Parliament the opportunity to give legislation serious scrutiny. That is a disgrace. The country is being misgoverned; the House is being mismanaged; the Government are responsible, and the country should hold them to account for it at the election.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

I strongly agree with all that has been said so far in the debate, including that by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). However, something she said should perhaps be corrected, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) could have done so, but from personal modesty, which we all know is one of his qualities, he refrained from doing so. It is not true that to say there was no opposition to the introduction of timetable motions under the previous Government. Indeed, such motions were opposed in principle. My hon. Friend courageously opposed the principle of the programme motions introduced by the Administration formed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). However, those motions had been introduced after perhaps 100 or more hours of debate in Committee. Such arrangements have existed since the 19th century, but they were emergency provisions intended to deal with abuse. They were used to timetable Bills that were clearly being obstructed. The Government have turned those emergency powers into a weapon. They were intended to be used exceptional circumstances in response to abuses, but the Executive now use them regularly. Just as Governments around the world have abused emergency provisions to seize power, overthrow democracy and so on, those powers are being similarly turned into a regular, routine procedure, which the Government effectively use to suppress the legislature's rights. Those hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon—indeed, those in the Public Gallery—have been here on an unfortunate, but memorable occasion. I could hardly believe something that the Minister said; I have never heard the like in my 13 and a half years as a Member. Speaking from the Front Bench on behalf of the Government, he suggested that the Committee would need only two sittings to deal with the Bill, but in a moment of generosity, the Government were prepared to concede to four.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber last night, but as I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), such suggestions are becoming the norm for Ministers. During yesterday's timetable motion, the Minister for Public Health said that only two weeks would be sufficient to consider the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill in Committee. It is now the habit of Ministers to form a view on how much time is required in Committee.

Quentin Davies (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford)

Unfortunately, I have been aware for some time that the procedure has been abused and that timetable motions are not the exception but the rule. However, until this afternoon, I had not heard a Minister say, with such brutal frankness, that he would determine exactly how long a Committee needs to do its job. Let us briefly examine the statement that the Committee will need only two sittings, or perhaps four if it wants. What does that mean? How can the Minister possibly know that the Committee requires two sittings, rather than any other number? The Minister is responsible for introducing the Bill, so he presumably thinks that it is perfect. If he had been aware that something was wrong with it, that it had some shortcomings or that it contained inadequacies or contradictions, presumably his duty would have been to get those points right before presenting it to the House. So, in his mind, the House needs no time at all to consider the Bill. He certainly cannot determine how long it needs, but he has said that it needs two days. Let us suppose that, in his modesty, he accepts that the House needs time to consider the Bill, that the job that he and the Executive have done cannot be perfect, that we should not live under an elective dictatorship, that there should be a balance between the Executive and legislature and that the legislature still has a role. If he accepts all that, how can he possibly determine whether the Bill should have two, four or 24 days in Committee? The Minister cannot anticipate the Bill's shortcomings. If he could do, it would not have those shortcomings. If there are other difficulties that he has not anticipated, how can he possibly determine the time frame that Parliament will need to consider the issues? Therefore, his remarks on behalf of the Executive were not only arrogant and unacceptable, but they were meaningless. They just show that he had not begun to think through the issues before he tried to impose the timetable motion on us. That is extremely sad. The Government have shown contempt not only for Parliament, but for the 56 million people of this country who still believe that Parliament has a role in the legislative process. If members of the public have a point to make about impending legislation, they look forward to the Committee stage as the only moment when they will have an opportunity to express their ideas to Committee members. The public hope that the Committee will take those ideas seriously and that they will be examined and debated. Clearly, that process is dead; it no longer takes place. All the people with faith in Parliament are under a childlike and naive illusion. That is a sad fact, but we must recognise it.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am glad that I shall have more than 10 seconds to speak, which is how long I had when I spoke in the debate on the programme motion on the Armed Forces Bill. I agree with the arguments put by my right hon. and hon. Friends and particularly with those put by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The Executive simply sees Parliament ramming legislation through without any amendments of worth being tabled by Members of the legislature. I sometimes wonder whether we are a legislature at all. The way in which the Government have used the programme motions illustrates that. I want to consider the position of individual Members of Parliament. I wanted to be on the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill, because I know something about the subject and wanted to make a contribution in such a Committee. I have no idea whether I will be appointed to the Standing Committee considering this Bill, but I could be. I am not an expert on social security and national insurance contributions, so it is quite likely that I will be appointed, particularly given the way in which the Government carry on. They are likely to appoint Labour Back Benchers with no knowledge of the subject, because that is precisely what they did on the Armed Forces Bill. The Select Committee on that Bill for which Government Members, in particular, voted comprises seven Members from the governing party and none of them has served in the armed forces or on the Select Committee on Defence. Only two Opposition Back Benchers will be on the Committee considering the Bill. The Committee structure for the Armed Forces Bill provides one occasion in which a Select Committee can take evidence, go on visits and, to a degree, hold the Government to account. That Bill is different from other Bills. However, the arrangements for this year's Bill show the Government's arrogance. If a Back Bencher were appointed to the Standing Committee considering this Bill, he would presumably be appointed tomorrow. Therefore, if he is not an expert on the subject, he would have a short time in which to be able to understand the complicated issues involved. I served on the Committee considering the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000. Even though I was familiar with military law, I had to sit down with a wet towel on my head to work out my own amendments. I tabled about 100 amendments that were not suggested by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. It took a great deal of work and concentration for me to be able to contribute meaningfully in Committee. I am a not an expert on the subject covered by this Bill and to invite me to sit on a Committee that would have to complete its consideration by 1 February would be a disgrace. It would be a contempt of the House and its individual Members. The motion should be opposed.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

With the leave of House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not recognise the characterisation of our procedures that has been so passionately denounced by — It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Business of the House

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I beg to move, That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July. The motion is necessary to enable paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 14 to function properly. That provision states: Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on thirteen Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House. The motion to appoint those days has been on the Order Paper for some time. Clearly, some right hon. and hon. Members want to debate the matter. It is an important principle that private Members have time on the Floor of the House specifically for their business. The dates allocated by the motion are designed to give private Members' Fridays a similar pattern to those in preceding Sessions: seven Fridays for Second Readings, followed by a gap and a more leisurely series of dates for remaining stages. It is important that that time is available. Although private Members' Bills can be derided as ineffective, a surprising number ate enacted each year. In the years between 1964 and 1993, 10 to 15 private Members' Bills, on average, were passed each Session. Twenty-one such Bills were passed in 1996 –97, when some were given Government time, and even in recent years, six or seven private Members' Bills have reached the statute book each Session. Private Members' Bills have tidied up the statute book. The Lord Chancellor (Terms of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 made it possible for the post of Lord Chancellor to be held by a Catholic. Private Members' Bills have dealt with matters that affect small groups. The Motorcycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 permits Sikhs to wear turbans, rather than helmets. When we drive past a gaggle of riding school children all securely helmeted, we see the results of the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990. Private Members' Bills have extended the effectiveness of the House. The National Audit Office owes its existence to the National Audit Act 1983—a private Member's Bill.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving way. Will he explain to the House why then are not more dates earlier, when they might not be damaged by an election, and more dates later, which would not be available if the most likely election date, early May, materialised?

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I have learned one thing during my time in the House: never to speculate on the date of an election. There is every possibility that the House could sit for another year and more. There is an honourable tradition whereby private Members' Bills have been used to force Governments to face social issues that they would rather duck. The book "How Parliament Works" notes: Private Members' Acts have brought about the abolition of the death penalty, the legislation on abortion and homosexuality and the end of theatre censorship. Even when they are defeated, private Members' Bills can have huge influence. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill may have been defeated in the 1993 –94 Session, but the Government were forced to introduce their own Disability Discrimination Bill in the next Session. I am sure that hon. Members can think of further examples. There have been calls for private Members' Bills to be given a better chance of success. The motion allocates a mere 13 Fridays. Perhaps, some say, the procedure should be relaxed to counterbalance such a limited time. The Procedure Committee considered the matter in 1994–95 and commented at paragraph 18 that it is a matter for debate whether a majority in the House, not supported by electoral mandate, should be allowed to overcome serious objections from a minority of members on one issue. It concluded that any significant change in procedure which enabled a minority to pass through the House a bill inconsistent with the policy objectives of the Government majority is unrealistic and a breach of the conventions under which private Members' bill procedure has operated. Such a change could also have a dangerous consequence in that it would enable the Government majority to use the same procedure to drive through the House a private Member's bill to which there was substantial but minority opposition. Our motion tonight simply allocates the time required by Standing Orders. In the past, some private Members' Bills have been taken through all their stages on a single day. Now hon. Members tend to insist that no Bill should be passed without debate. Given the limited time, that reduces the chances of success. Some may argue that the chances of success are so small that it is pointless for the House to approve the motion. However, private Members' Bills and the time allocated to them offer unrivalled opportunities for procedural training and tactics. We all know the need to have our supporters present and correct at 9.30 am and to have sufficient numbers to secure a closure. However important private Members' Bills are in themselves, and however great the procedural amusement they provide, the key reason why the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 should be implemented remains that Standing Orders allocate the time to private Members and they should be given it. I invite the House to agree to the motion, which will put the Standing Orders into effect.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

It is a pleasure to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary opening the debate on a matter that is clearly important to Back Benchers. Private Members' Bills are peculiarly their province. As the hon. Gentleman said, the motion has been on the Order Paper for some time. It is clear from the presence of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends that they have some anxieties and concerns about the way in which the matter is being presented, about which we shall hear more presently. I shall not get involved in discussion of the number of days allocated. Those who want to raise their concerns will do so. In view of the fact that the motion has consistently been objected to since it first appeared on the Order Paper, it is unfortunate that we have not had an earlier opportunity to debate it, so that Back Benchers could express their views. One has the impression that the Government hoped that by reintroducing the motion time and again, the objections would simply go away. [Interruption.] I hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It was apparent that the issue would not go away, as there were matters that needed to be discussed. On one matter, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that, historically, the purpose of private Members' Bills was to enable Back Benchers to bring before the House matters that would require a considerable degree of unanimity in order to reach the statute book. I was fascinated to hear the hon. Gentleman present an exposé of the reasons for that, with which I heartily concurred. I hope that I will not be considered to be out of order if I gently point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that having adhered to that policy in respect of the Hunting Bill when it was a private Member's Bill—the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill—and seen it consigned to oblivion by the House for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman articulated, the Government, for reasons which remain incomprehensible, saw fit to reintroduce it in Government time, when every argument that the hon. Gentleman has just advanced would militate against that. I found that telling. Perhaps at the end of the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary will amplify his remarks. A better justification for not proceeding as the Government did after the failure of a private Member's Bill would be difficult to find. I am happy to listen carefully to the objections that are likely to be raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends to the number of days allocated and to other matters connected with private Members' Bills and the business of the House.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out, we have finally got the motion on the Floor of the House, where it belongs, and we have an opportunity to debate it. However, I wonder whether it is too late. The Government seem to have taken the attitude that such matters are entitled to be nodded through by the House, without proper debate or consideration, and they are learning the hard way that that simply is not the case. When the Government say, "We believe that a certain number of days should be allocated to this or that", they should not assume that the House will acquiesce. As the debate is entitled "Business of the House", the House should debate it. It is only slightly to the credit of the Minister that he has been brought to the House kicking and screaming, at the last minute, reluctantly to present the matter to the House, when it is far too late to do anything about it. That is important because the matter was first presented to the House before Christmas. It should have been dealt with then, as there was time for those who opposed it to say why we felt that it was inadequate or inappropriate. We are now at a late date in January. We are asked to agree that the private Member's Bill cycle, to which the Minister alluded, should start very soon, on 2 February, and that only two days will be allocated in February. The Government care so little about private Members' Bills that we are then to go away for a month before resuming the process on 9 March. I presume that the Committee of Selection will sit on the Wednesday after the first of the two Fridays, so 14 February would be the first day available for Committee proceedings. Therefore, even if a private Member's Bill were to get a Second Reading in the House on one of the first two Fridays and to get through Committee in one sitting, the first day on which it could possibly come back to the Floor for Report or Third Reading would be 9 March. Hon. Members who have gone through the private Member's Bill process know that it is not always to their delight or advantage, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) would agree. The Government have taken so long to seek to resolve the matter on the Floor of the House that they have put private Members' Bills in jeopardy. They have taken so long because there may be an election. It is not good enough for the Minister to say, in his bland way, that we must not discuss whether there is going to be an election. The entire country assumes that there will be an election in April or May. That makes it incumbent on the Government to make more proper provision for private Members' Bills than appears in the motion.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My right hon. Friend is being too generous to the Government. The chances are that the House will be dissolved at the end of March. Private Members' legislation has to get through the other place, so it is probable that none will become law in this Session. Is not the motion therefore bogus?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

If so, it would cause me no loss of sleep. My right hon. and learned Friend is right to remind the House that a private Member's Bill, like any other, must be dealt with in another place. If necessary, it must return to the House of Commons before it reaches the statute book. My point is that holding a general election in April or May—or even June or July—would put at risk all the private Members' Bills that have been balloted. So casual is the Government's attitude in this matter, as in so many others, that they have allowed a month to pass since the motion first appeared, since when no attention has been paid to it. If we end up with no private Members' Bills in this Session, we shall know whom to blame—the Government. Their attitude to such Bills is hostile, and they kill about 30 or 40 of them every year. I should be happy to provide any hon. Member who so wishes with an analysis. The Government have dealt with this piece of business very casually. They have assumed that the House will accept everything that they do, but that assumption is false. The debate allows us to say to the Government that they should not assume that they have killed the House of Commons. They have done a pretty good job of strangulation, but the body is not yet quite dead. The House is still capable of exercising some of the powers that have been left to it. The other message to the Government is that they should not think that they will get away lightly with treating private Members' Bills so casually. My analysis shows that the Government have left private Members' Bills with little or no chance of reaching the statute book. To many hon. Members, that will seem a great pity.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for, in effect, triggering this debate. He has exposed the fact that the Government do not want any private Members' Bills to pass through the House in this Session. The motion first appeared on the Order Paper before Christmas. I was among those hon. Members who objected to it. We wanted the matter to be brought to the Floor of the House much earlier, so that it could be discussed fully. However, the Government waited for a month before the opinion of the House could be heard. The result is that no private Members' legislation will succeed this Session—unless the Government approve of the Bill involved. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst analysed the timetable, and he is right to say that the House would be dissolved near the end of March if there is to be a general election in May, which seems probable. Any legislation would have to get through Second Reading, Committee and Report stages, and then go to the other place. Lords amendments, if any, would then have to be considered in the House of Commons, and then Royal Assent would have to be granted. It would not be possible for any private Member's Bill that was one whit controversial to get through that process by the end of March. The Government are seeking to frustrate the passage of private Members' legislation. We need to identify the bogosity—if that is a word—of the Government's attitude. My right hon. Friend and I agree about many things, such as the hateful nature of the Government, but we differ about the desirability of private Members' legislation. My right hon. Friend is a great strangler of such legislation, and would say that he is broadly against it. I am broadly in favour of the process, but I am careful about which Bills I support. I am in favour of the process because it gives hon. Members the opportunity to identify issues that are important to themselves or to interest groups.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of what Sir Winston Churchill said in 1931? When asked about private Members' Bills, he said: I am not very anxious to help private Members' Bills. I have seen a great many of them brought forward, and in most cases it was a very good thing that they did not pass. I think there ought to be a very effective procedure for making it difficult for all sorts of happy thoughts to be carried on to the Statute Book.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My right hon. Friend, the great strangler, makes a very good case. Most private Members' Bills need to be treated with great caution, and I have voted against an awful lot of them because it is awfully easy for people's wishful thinking, in an ill-attended House on a Friday, to go through the statutory process and suddenly become law.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Not any more.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My right hon. Friend, the great strangler, makes it less probable than it used to be, and I am very glad that he does, but it does not alter the fact that the private Members' process is a good one for identifying issues. Usually, private Members are wrong when it comes to the expression of those solutions in statutory form, but they are often right in identifying the issue, which then triggers debate and may trigger more sensible legislation. Occasionally, the private Members' process is a good vehicle for passing very minor measures, which otherwise would not attract Government time, but which are passed because the private Members' system provides an opportunity. For those reasons I am in favour of the process, although I view with concern many of the Bills that emerge from it. That brings me to my next point. Thirteen days on which private Members' legislation will get precedence is not enough, especially as we have a Government who are over-mighty and oppressive of the interests of minorities. I would like private Members' legislation to get precedence on more days, not because I particularly want the Bills to be passed, but because I want private Members to have an opportunity to articulate their concerns on matters that arise from their constituencies or matters of national interest. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has given us the opportunity to highlight these issues. The motion could have gone through on the nod. The Government would have preferred it to do so, because they do not like debate. We on the Back Benches, who are standing up for the privileges of Parliament, do like debate, and because debate in the House is being so severely truncated by Ministers, they must expect us to take every opportunity to debate issues of importance. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) was responsible for the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. She will remember that I strongly disagreed with that when we debated it, but it was an example of a matter that it was proper for a Back Bencher to raise. I disapproved of the outcome, I disapproved of the Bill, I protested against it and I protest now, but that type of thing should be encouraged because it enables Members to express their views and those of their constituents. I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has triggered this debate, and I hope that he will trigger many more such debates. I am playing my modest part in encouraging that debate.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to the extent that they were saying the same things—which, on the whole, they were. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I believe that we have too much legislation. The limited number of forms of conduct that are unacceptable and need to be made crimes and offences are already crimes and offences, and there is no need to add unduly to the list, using up much parliamentary time and incurring great expense. Most of the legislation that is passed under the present Government is vexatious, regulatory, meddlesome, intervening and interfering, which is why my right hon. and hon. Friends usually vote against it. I would not welcome the introduction of much more similar legislation in the shape of private Members' Bills connived at or encouraged by the Government. However, if I had to choose whether the time of the House should be a little more occupied by the ideas of private Members or by those of the Government, I would prefer the former, because it is just conceivable that one of my colleagues would come up with an interesting idea that did need attention in a legislative way, whereas I find that Her Majesty's Government usually comes up with ideas that are vexatious, meddlesome and intervening.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The more days private Members have, the fewer days are available for the vexatious, oppressive and tyrannical.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

My right hon. and learned Friend was ahead of me in my argument. The great advantage of allowing more private Members' days is that it might limit the number of Government days, and so reduce the amount of meddlesome and unnecessary legislation that is introduced. I object to the way in which modernisation has been steamrollered through the House. The motion could have been discussed before Christmas or two or three weeks ago, when the debate would have been more relevant and timely and more options would have been available to the Government in the light of the feelings of the House. We are discussing it today because the Government have decided to steamroller and dragoon; to cheat the House of Commons of proper debate and scrutiny; and to decide, of their own initiative, what we shall discuss and when, instead of allowing the usual channels—the normal dialogue between the main parties in the House—to settle what is important and what is not so important and to make progress with Government business, given that the Opposition have a right to a certain amount of choice as to what to highlight and what to debate. The normal procedures have broken down because the Government have behaved in a typically arrogant and overweening way, and some Opposition Members will continue to debate these procedural matters until the Government understand that trust has been broken and needs to be restored. I regard it as part of the Government's cynical plot to sideline the powers of the House, and the rights of the individual Members of the House, to choose a very limited number of dates for private Members' business before a likely general election at the beginning of May, and to choose another series of dates that will obviously fall, given that the election now looks almost certain to be on that date or slightly earlier. The Government have allowed the expectations to build up. They have not attempted to dampen those expectations or to suggest that there are other serious dates, so this afternoon the House must conclude that they have cynically chosen a series of dates so that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, no private Member's Bill can conceivably pass—unless the Government suddenly get behind one and make additional arrangements to dragoon a measure through the House and the other place very quickly indeed. It is all part of the pattern of a party that thinks that, because it has so many seats in the House of Commons, it has the right to do what it likes when it likes, without courtesy, without discussion, without proper debate and without asking those of us who represent the other interests and viewpoints of the nation what we consider to be relevant and how legislation might be improved or modified. One thing that I used to value, as a Minister of the Crown, was that dialogue in Committee and in hard-fought debates on the Floor of the House, when the Chair would allow—and the Minister was happy to accept the ruling of the Chair—the debate to run on because the Opposition had a serious point. I thought that it was my job as a Minister either to have what I thought was a better argument and argue it through, or to give a bit of ground because I or my officials had missed something important and the legislation needed to be modified. I never thought that it was my job to get angry with the Opposition and say that they had no right to a life or existence and no right to a view, and that we would immediately impose a guillotine to ensure that we could not debate those things. The art of being a good Minister is to tempt, persuade and cajole the House into agreement, and work out a way of living with the Opposition, so that the Opposition may have their day or two in court on the things that really matter to them and, as a result, are more prepared to allow the Government's business to pass.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

I have something of a vested interest in the matter, having drawn No. 1 in the private Members' Bill ballot. I have been following what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been saying and their objections to the dates in the motion and the amount of time allowed. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, and the other Opposition Members who have spoken might like to express their views, too. If, theoretically—accepting that hon. Members have objections to the dates and the frequency—a private Member's Bill was introduced to the House that secured public support, and on which there was agreement in the House that it was a sensible measure, would it be sensible, in the interests of the dialogue that the right hon. Member is talking about, for that private Member's Bill to be blocked to make a point about procedure, even if the substance of the Bill was sensible?

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

There are so many ifs in that question that I fear I cannot be tempted into giving either the friendly answer that the hon. Gentleman would obviously like or an unfriendly one, which would be unfair, given the number of hypotheticals that he has advanced. I believe that he should mainly address his remarks to Ministers. The reason that he is very unlikely to get his Bill passed is that Ministers are not making enough days available. The reason that he is very unlikely to get full co-operation from all of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the Opposition are exceedingly angry about the way in which business is being dragooned through the House. I notice a pattern developing. When the Government began imposing guillotines on everything—obviously, wanting to limit the number of days for private Members' business is part of that—they were so arrogant that they would not tell the House anything about their thinking. Then they would just explain a little. Today we have had rather fuller explanation and a little bit of flexibility. That is welcome, but it is still nothing like the proper flexibility that a mature House of Commons has enjoyed in the past and expects from its ministerial team. Ministers should be prepared to engage in debate. They should not be shy of private Members' business having more days for debate, and they should not wish to carry on in this ridiculous fashion, believing that they can steamroller anything that they like through without proper discussion. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is normally a more reasonable and accommodating Minister than many of his more senior colleagues, will take this message away and think about it. There is a very strong feeling, which I suspect is shared on the Labour Back Benches, that Back-Bench private Members' business and Back-Bench private Members' views are not getting enough airtime, are not being taken seriously and are not being engaged in debate by the Government, and that the Government should mend their ways—otherwise, they might find that the feeling of hon. Members in this place that they are anti-democratic and authoritarian spreads into the country at a very sensitive time for them, when they are facing re-election.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) is not seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to participate in our debate, as he is the potential beneficiary of the ballot, which is the parliamentary equivalent of the national lottery. There is no constitutional reason for having a general election this Session: there are only political reasons for having one. The Government may well wish to cut and run before people catch up with all their misdeeds, including those of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, about which, I understand, we shall read more in tomorrow's newspapers. The Government may well cut and run, but it seemed from the intervention of the hon. Member for Northfield that he is already looking for scapegoats. He is going to try to find a scapegoat for the eventual failure of his Bill in the interventions of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, if his Bill fails, the Government should be the scapegoat, as they will have failed to provide sufficient time for it in this Session before running for cover in a general election.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) did not answer my question, so I shall put the same question to the hon. Gentleman. My point is very simple: if the hon. Gentleman felt that a piece of legislation was sensible, would he join in blocking that legislation purely to make a procedural point?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I would always vote, as far as I could, on the merits of the legislation. Having considered, albeit briefly, the alleged merits of the hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill, I am not sure that I am convinced of them. Obviously, if we had the chance of a full debate, we would be able to explore that more fully.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

As we are talking about making law, I hope that my hon. Friend would always insist that every Bill was properly debated on Second Reading, received proper consideration in Committee, on Report and Third Reading, and was considered properly in another place. I hope that, along with me, my hon. Friend would insist that anything destined to reach the statute book went through all of those stages in detail.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend, as there are too many examples of legislation that has been cobbled together by the Government and supported by the Opposition—whoever they were at the time—only for us to find out that it is probably the worst legislation ever passed by the House. It is essential that legislation is subject to proper scrutiny. I am concerned on behalf of all those who have been successful in the ballot. I do not know whether the Minister has the required authority, but the Prime Minister could certainly come to the House tomorrow and say that there has been a lot of speculation about a general election in this Session. He could say that, as the Government have the largest majority that a party in government has had in a generation, there is no need to go to the country on constitutional grounds this Session. He could therefore announce that there would not be a general election until October at the earliest.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could also have said that they would bring the process forward? We have already had non-sitting Fridays this month since we came back from the Christmas recess. Fridays have already been frittered away by the Government, yet the Government are delaying the consideration of private Members' Bills. Does my hon. Friend not see irony in that?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am not sure that my right hon. Friend is right. Because we had a late Queen's Speech, strict timetables are laid down in the rules of the House on the presentation of Bills. I do not think that Bills could have received a Second Reading until they had been presented and printed.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

There is another way forward. My hon. Friend will know that members of the Government are always boasting that they will win the next general election. Well, we shall see about that. However, for the purposes of argument, let us assume that they will. It would be perfectly possible for them to promise the House that, in the event—however unlikely—of their winning the election, they would provide additional dates to consider private Members' Bills to compensate Members promoting such Bills for the dates in this Session that have been stolen from them.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point which, I hope, will be taken up and become part of the Conservative manifesto. I am sure that that would be very popular. If there is a general election in spring, and a Conservative Government returned victorious, with a Queen's Speech in, say, May or June, we would be in for a long first Session. During that Session, there should be scope to give substantially more time to consideration of private Members' Bills than they normally receive.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

rose—

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I see that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench wishes to intervene. I hope that she will say that that is going to happen.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extremely sensible suggestion which, I assure him, will be discussed at the highest levels.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. All that I need now is for the Minister similarly to say that my proposal will be discussed at the very highest levels. I hope that he will be able to give me that assurance when he winds up our debate. However, I thank him for his courtesy, as he did not open our debate peremptorily by saying: "This is the motion—take it or leave it." He spoke for five or six minutes and explained a bit about the background, history and importance of the issue. The Minister understands the importance of Parliament and the House in debating these issues. It is a pity that some of his friends in Government do not seem to have the same respect for the importance of discussions in the House. The motion was tabled and consistently blocked: sometimes my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was involved in that and had to be in the House for longer hours than perhaps even the Minister. My right hon. Friend had to go to all that effort to enable us to have this debate today. Other hon. Members also participated in that procedure. This is an important debate in what is, more or less, prime time. I hope that it will provide the Government with an opportunity to say that there will not be an election until October so that all of the Back Benchers who have been lucky in the ballot can exercise their lottery right to have their day out. Our debate also gives the Minister an opportunity to discuss extra opportunities for Labour Back Benchers in the next Parliament.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Naturally, all Conservative Members await the onset of the general election campaign with relish and nothing else. However, will my hon. Friend confirm that his enthusiasm for maximum time to debate private Members' Bills is not unqualified or unconditional? When he sees some of the nanny-state, interfering, regulating, tinkering, mollycoddling contents of some of those Bills, his enthusiasm may abate.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I would defend to the death the right of Members, however misguided, to put their proposition to the House and have it debated. I am not saying that I will agree with all those nanny-state propositions: far from it. However, it is right that people should have a chance to advance them. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) thinks that it is important to legislate on the issue of high hedges. I am not sure how that will be achieved successfully, but I hope that we will be able to have a full debate on the matter. The Government have already promised to legislate on high hedges—or, rather, they have given the impression that they will legislate on them. However, in practice, they are not introducing a Bill on high hedges because they obviously realise that it is extremely difficult to get even a proper definition of a hedge that will satisfy people at large. I certainly receive more letters about high hedges than about hunting.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to wander a little bit from the motion, but now I really must bring him back to the main motion.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

High hedges are the subject of the third private Member's Bill to be presented, which, I understand, will be debated on the third Friday: that specific date is on the Order Paper. I hope that my remarks about legislation on high hedges are in order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall not say much more about those hedges now, although I hope that when the Minister responds, he will explain why the Government, having promised to legislate, have not introduced legislation on them. That would allow us to see the colour of such legislation and whether it would meet the needs of our constituents.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I, too, have a vested interest in the debate, as I was sixth in the lottery for private Members' Bills. I am in an interesting position because—although there is nothing official, in writing, to guide the public—the received wisdom is that there will be a 3 May general election, so that my Adoption Bill would be considered on the last Friday before Dissolution. The restriction on the number of available Fridays is therefore very pertinent to my position. In my short time in the House, I have learned to keep within the spirit of private Members' Bills by choosing an issue on which there is very broad agreement. I therefore chose as the subject of my Bill the reform of adoption law. It is rather fortuitous that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who is responsible for the issue, is in the Chamber. He will be very familiar with the correspondence that we have exchanged on the subject. I should like to pick up on various issues raised in the debate by Opposition Members, not the least of which is the late starting date of this Session, as that seems to be the key reason why we may be up against the problem of an impossible timetable for considering a private Member's Bill that enjoys very broad support. Indeed, the reason why consideration of almost all private Members' Bills in this Session is an academic matter is that the previous Session ran so late into last calendar year. The public will find that very difficult to understand. There has been great support for the subject of my Bill—the reform of adoption law—and the public will be incredulous that the Government seem to regard foxhunting as a more important legislative priority than children in need of adoption. The Government's priorities have left some of my constituents and British adoption agencies bemused, to say the least. I very deliberately chose adoption as the subject of my Bill to try to add a bit of pressure on the Government to introduce the reforms that, in July 2000, in debates on the Care Standards Act 2000, they undertook to make. Back in July, we were given assurances that legislation would be forthcoming, and the Prime Minister had just conducted a review of adoption. Indeed, the Opposition gave Ministers the opportunity to add new provisions to the 2000 Act to introduce the reforms that the Prime Minister said he wanted. That offer was refused, and we were told to wait for later Government legislation. We waited for the Queen's Speech, but there was nothing in it about adoption reform. Consequently, I have taken the opportunity to address the issue in my Bill. Moreover, I generously offered in writing to allow Ministers to use that opportunity to introduce their own draft Bill to reform adoption law. However, my offer was churlishly rejected on the grounds that a private Member's Bill would be piecemeal and could not possibly introduce such legislation. Well, Ministers were already making a mighty assumption about what my Bill should contain. As the Minister of State knows, I have told him that my Bill should contain the White Paper proposals which have received consensual support and require primary legislation. That offer was generously made. Last week, at Prime Minister's questions, the plot seemed to thicken. In answer to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that the Government would introduce legislation in this Session to reform adoption. That was very interesting. We have probed the Government on the matter of "this Session" because, as we are all aware, it seems that there is not a great deal left of this Session.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Given that, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the Government's legislative priorities are perverse and are likely to be regarded with rank disdain by millions of people who believe that the adoption issue should be properly addressed long before and instead of that of hunting, does she agree that the great danger is that the Government will not want to reach that sixth Friday, for they will not want to suffer the public opprobrium to which they would be subject if her patient and articulate advocacy of her measure were effectively to show up the Government's failing in that regard?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that he is thinking precisely as I am—that the subject of my private Member's Bill, in the context of the concertinaed time scale afforded us, is a source of very real embarrassment to the Government; and so it should be. Undoubtedly when history looks back at the Government's choice of legislation which they could have passed in this Parliament with their very large majority, their failure to introduce legislation reforming adoption will be particularly regretted. I hope that I have the opportunity of a Second Reading for my Bill, as I shall use it to underline the point that the Government undertook to introduce such reform. Indeed, at last week's Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister promised to introduce such reform. It will be very interesting to see what happens. I should add that the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, to which the Government have referred, has already been enacted. It would not, therefore, serve to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise. As a holder of one of the opportunities to promote private Member's legislation, I feel passionately about this debate. More time could have been allowed to consider private Members' Bills, and the Government could have chosen a better set of priorities. Those two factors would have made a substantial difference to the way in which I view restrictions on Back Benchers' opportunities to deal with very important matters.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Has my hon. Friend been approached by representatives of the Government to say that they find her initiative very helpful and that they would like her to help draft the Bill, as it might get the Prime Minister off the hook? Or has there been absolutely no dialogue at all, and does the Prime Minister seem not to wish to honour that particular pledge?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am very sorry to tell my right hon. Friend that my overtures have been rebuffed. Perhaps we should not be entirely surprised about that. I have certainly written twice to the Minister, reiterating our offer and making it clear that my opportunity to promote a private Member's Bill could be a vehicle for the Government's own draft Bill. We know that a draft Bill already exists. I have asked for a copy of it, but I have not been afforded one. After the Prime Minister's response at Prime Minister's questions last week, we probed the Government on the issue, but there has been no clarification of what legislation he plans to introduce in this Session, as he has promised to do.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Is my hon. Friend saying that she has given the Government the opportunity to use her Bill to implement their own stated commitments? If that is so, can she explain why they have not taken advantage of the offer?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I note the tone of incredulity in my right hon. and learned Friend's voice. However, incredulous though he may be, the situation that I have described is absolutely true. My only conclusion on why the Government have so churlishly rejected my offer is that they are too proud to accept it.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

My hon. Friend will know that, last Thursday, when I raised with the Leader of the House the issue of the Prime Minster's pledge on adoption legislation in this Session, she indicated that, in relation to adoption, private Member's Bills and the time available to consider them were very important. However, after hearing my hon. Friend's comments, I am totally confused about the matter. At last Thursday's business questions, my very clear understanding was that the Prime Minister's pledge would be honoured using private Members' Bills.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I confess that I am similarly confused, for there has been no clarification the matter. Are we to take the Prime Minister at his word? So far it has not been retracted—unless such an occasion arises tomorrow, when I shall seek to catch the Speaker's eye so that I can probe the Prime Minister on the offer that he made last week. Perhaps we shall all be much clearer after Prime Minister's questions tomorrow. Given his pledge last week, it seems perfectly legitimate to ask the Prime Minister to introduce legislation this Session to reform adoption law, and to ask him for which reforms he plans to use primary legislation. It seems legitimate also to ask him to clarify for the public that the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 is done and dusted. Interestingly enough, that legislation started as a private Member's Bill. It has been enacted and now requires only to be implemented. That is all that delays the introduction of those provisions. In reply to the perfectly valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I can only say that the whole House is confused on the issue. My Bill is sponsored by members of the all-party parliamentary group on adoption, which is an entirely cross-party group of hon. Members. They support the initiative to try to enable the Government to introduce reform of adoption law because reform is so obviously needed, as has been highlighted by the recent cases of the internet adoption babies. However, the all-party group is similarly confused by the current situation.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not wish to embarrass my hon. Friend, but I should like to pay her a compliment. She has just vouchsafed to the House an assurance regarding her willingness to sacrifice her Bill to the Government because she is concerned about the issue at stake and about achieving urgent progress on it. That is an example of heroism, selflessness and statesmanship of which I have known no equal from any hon. Member during the past four years. Does not it demonstrate the Government's base ingratitude that they are not prepared to respond in a similar spirit?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I thank my hon. Friend for that compliment. I have learned to take all compliments made in the House with a pinch of salt, but he has a valid point. There is a distinct arrogance in a Government who assume comfortably that they will win the next election and that they can afford to wait for their victory before they introduce legislation. Indeed, they count on that victory just as one counts the eggs in a basket, and it is that arrogance that has caused their current embarrassment. Their sheer complacency allowed the issues involved in the internet adoption case, which caused all of us such disgust and horror, to arise. The case arose in the absence of reform and implementation of legislation that has already been agreed to—something that has shown the Government to be more than a little wanting.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

A number of hon. Members, many of them Opposition Members, made it clear that they wanted this debate. I agreed with them, and I believe that this has been an interesting and important discussion. It was perhaps short, but it has been taken in prime time, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) recognised. The debate has reflected hon. Members' different views of private Members' Bills. We have heard of hon. Members—I shall not name them—who are alleged to be stranglers of such Bills. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made it clear that he has little regard for private Members' Bills, but the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and Hykeham—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

North Hykeham.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I refer to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), whose constituency I hope to visit during the election campaign, whenever it comes. [Interruption.] Indeed, I have been in Lincolnshire today, but rather than being dragged kicking to the Chamber, I have rushed and sweated to get here for this important debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that private Members' legislation gave Back Benchers an opportunity to raise important issues. We saw an example of that tonight, when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) advocated his outworkers measure, which will help to deal with scams such as the receipt of money in advance for bogus schemes. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) spoke at length about the need for adoption legislation, on which I agree. That is why the Government produced the White Paper. That document and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say that adoption legislation will be introduced during the current year. As the hon. Lady pointed out, my right hon. Friend said last week that legislation would be introduced during this Session. I hope that we can work together on a consensual basis to make changes that are of paramount importance—a phrase that is used in the relevant law—for the children themselves. However, she also made one or two party political points. I chide her gently; the previous Conservative Government, whom she supported, also published a White Paper on adoption. After that, however, it took them three years to produce a Bill that was never enacted. I offer the hand of partnership, as adoption is an extremely important issue. The hon. Lady has heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have said, and has seen the White Paper. We will introduce legislation.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain how the Prime Minister's extraordinary promise will be fulfilled? Is he saying that the Government now regret spurning the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that her Bill might be used—of course, if they wanted to take that option, they would have to allow more time for private Members' debates such as this one—or that they will introduce a Bill about which we have not yet been advised? They would have to be very quick to introduce a Bill before the election, so how will they honour their promise? I do not believe that it will be honoured.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

The right hon. Gentleman is keen to pursue the date of the general election. He has emerged from the darkness of the Back Benches and into the light, but I fear that the Opposition Members' desire to try to name the day reflects an anxiety to get out of the light and back into that darkness. Let me stay in order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The sixth Friday is allocated to the hon. Member for Meriden. I envisage that any proposed adoption legislation will be comprehensive. Traditionally, private Members' Bills have stuck to one or two subjects, but I have no doubt that the sort of issues that the hon. Lady wants to pursue will be dealt with in any Government Bill. I am at a disadvantage, as I have not yet had the opportunity to see her Bill; indeed, I understand that it has not yet been published.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

On comprehensiveness, will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the Protection of Children Bill 1999 was a comprehensive, pertinent and important measure that was enacted through precisely the sort of vehicle with which I am trying to change the law?

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

The advice from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton)—it is valuable to have the Minister of State with responsibility for these matters beside me—is that the Bill to which the hon. Lady referred had 20 clauses. We envisage that the Government Bill will have far more clauses and that it will be comprehensive. I am not saying that it is her driving motivation to seek to gain party political advantage of these issues, but it must be borne in mind that they are important and are paramount to children's interests. She has heard what the Government have said; we will introduce the legislation.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me for issuing a warning to him. I have now been in the House for 20 years, so I know that when we come to a general election, the Government of the day seek to pop through all their outstanding legislation in the hope that it will go through on the nod. I point out to him that a number of my hon. Friends and I do not intend to let that happen. We intend only those Bills that are right and with which we agree to be popped through.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Well, I heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said and I am not surprised by his view. He and his Conservative colleagues resemble turkeys waiting for Christmas. I look forward to the general election, whenever it comes. When it arrives, we will have to have the discussions to which he refers. I am not sanguine about the idea that the Bill will be popped through, as he charmingly put it.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I shall give way once more, after which I must make some progress.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Parliamentary Secretary's mellifluous tone is as apparent as ever. I am bound to say, however, that his stance is rather rum. He appears to disapprove of the measure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), but how can he do so when, by his own admission, he has not yet seen it? Is not it a trifle cheeky of him to speak portentously about the comprehensive Bill that the Government intend to introduce on the matter, when he is as yet in no position to judge—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I fear that hon. Members are getting into a great deal of detail on a particular Bill, rather than the motion under discussion.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I shall keep within your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and simply say that any adoption measure that is considered on the sixth Friday that is allocated in the motion will not be as comprehensive as the Bill that the Government will introduce. The advantage of being in government is that one has a hand in and sight of proposed legislation.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

It is in the Parliamentary Secretary's back pocket.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

I have no Bill in my back pocket, but the White Paper on adoption has been produced—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to make me say that an Adoption Bill is extant. We have published a White Paper and held a consultation. We are in the process of producing a Bill, which will be introduced in the current Session, as the Prime Minister said. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) sagely and rightly said that there was nothing unusual about 2 February because the timetable is determined by the Queen's Speech. Several hon. Members have argued that we should have brought forward the first date for considering private Members' Bills. That is not possible because of the rules of the House.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Which rules?

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Standing Orders. Several hon. Members have said that we will not have enough time to discuss the private Members' Bills. They may know the date of the general election; they may be planning their campaign, but the Government have a good deal of business to tackle. We have set out our task, and we are determined to achieve more. A great deal has been achieved, but much more remains to be done. I look forward to doing that in the remainder of this Parliament and with a Labour Government in the next Parliament. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.