Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour)

I beg to move,

That the Order of 20 October 2009 (Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in four days.

3. The proceedings shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the first column of the Table and in the order there shown.

4. Each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of that Table.

The basic decision on the programming of the Committee stage was determined on 20 October, when the House agreed that there should be four days on the Floor of this House. That programme motion was agreed without Division, which I took as general approbation, following discussions among the usual channels, for having four such days of debate. This programme motion provides more detail, hopefully for the convenience of the House. It proposes that part 1 be debated today. On the second day, it proposes that we deal with part 5, which corrects an important anomaly in respect of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Scotland Act 1998 following the Somerville judgment by the Law Lords; with part 6, which deals with courts and tribunals; with part 7, which deals with the National Audit Office; and with part 8, which relates to transparency. Days three and four are then assigned for part 2 on treaties, part 3 on the House of Lords, part 4 on protests, part 9 on final provisions and any new parts of the Bill.

Lest there be any suggestion that the measures in this Bill, which is by any standards medium-sized—it is certainly not a long Bill—have not been subject to proper scrutiny, I have brought with me the 19 reports that preceded this legislation. [Interruption.] Mrs. Laing says that she remembers them.

Discussions on the civil service, dealt with in part 1, have been continuing for a very considerable period. Indeed, they go back to a draft Civil Service Bill published in 2004. We then saw proposals in the "Governance of Britain" documents and a statement in July 2007. A draft Bill was then published, which went before the Joint Committee on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, as well as before the Public Administration Select Committee. The Government have taken both those Committee reports very seriously, and their comments are reflected in the drafting of the Bill. The same applies to the other parts of the Bill. The issue of Somerville arises from concern expressed—not least by the Scottish Executive—about the anomaly that had been created. I am glad that we are now able to correct it, as it has been the subject of extensive discussion in the House and outside.

The part relating to the ratification of treaties was also the subject of detailed proposals that were considered by the Joint Committee and others. We shall deal with the part concerning the House of Lords on days three and four. I do not suggest that it has been endorsed on an all-party basis, but it has been the subject of two periods of all-party discussion, and of a Green Paper and a White Paper which I published in 2007 and 2008.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour)

Since Second Reading, have there been any further discussions with the Opposition about their proposal for the appointment of temporary peers? The Lord Chancellor seemed to favour the idea.

Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour)

There has been no formal discussion of the matter, although informal representations have been made. As I believe I said on Second Reading, I understand the proposal and it is being considered in Government, and we shall have time to return to it.

The part of the Bill that deals with courts and tribunals has been the subject of widespread approbation. Finally, there are the parts relating to national audit and the transparency of Government financial reporting to Parliament. The national audit proposals follow on from a draft Bill from the National Audit Office.

As the Bill was published three months ago, it cannot be said that it has been slipped before the House with no opportunity for its provisions to be discussed properly.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I have no doubt that there has been extensive consultation up to this point, but, having engaged in a large amount of constitutional debate concerning Wales and, indeed, Northern Ireland, I have observed that sometimes it is only when legislation has been implemented that we perceive deficiencies, weaknesses and aspects that we might wish to improve. Has the Lord Chancellor considered allowing further debates once the Bill has been implemented—should it become an Act—to ensure that any unforeseen or unintended consequences are rectified in the future? I think that that is very important when it comes to constitutional changes.

Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I agree that this Bill in particular should be subject to proper arrangements for post-legislative scrutiny. I will write to him, and will make the letter available.

Because there was a new Administration in 1997 and we regarded Scottish and Welsh devolution as high priorities, there was not the same provision for draft Bills and detailed consideration by Select Committees as there has been for the measures before us. It was necessary for us to proceed at that pace, but in a better world it would have been to everyone's advantage to have had more time.

If I manage to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall of course respond to questions that are raised.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker)

I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of Mr. Clegg.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Justice; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I entirely accept the Secretary of State's comment that the House did not divide on the programme motion at the end of Second Reading, but he can see for himself what has already been tabled for consideration over the next two days, and it clearly shows that there will be insufficient time for full consideration. Moreover, this is a constitutional Bill, and not such a long time before the Labour Government were elected in 1997 not only would such a Bill have been considered on the Floor of the House, but that would have been without any guillotine or any end date for its coming out of Committee, and therefore all Members would have had the opportunity to participate and say what they wished about what is, even in its curtailed form, a very important piece of legislation.

How are we to do justice to this legislation when it is already apparent—I am not criticising the Secretary of State for this, but he can now see it for himself—that we have no possibility whatever of getting through the clauses for consideration on the civil service in the course of today's business, particularly as the time is now 20 minutes to 6 and the business will be finished by 10 o'clock? Having looked at what is already down for consideration on day two, I strongly suspect that there will be insufficient time then as well.

We must also face up to the fact that, because the Government have imposed internal guillotines, as is their current practice, we will probably come across the most controversial parts of the legislation at the very end of the process, whereas if the Government had left the consideration of business so that knives did not fall, the House could have adjusted to make sure that it gave the desired amount of consideration to those parts it decided were most important. After all, some interesting ideas are floating around; Keith Vaz rightly raised the idea of term peers, but I can foresee already that we will not have sufficient time to give that the proper scrutiny and consideration that it requires.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour)

Is not one way of dealing with this the commencement of proper discussions between the Government and the Opposition? We heard from the Lord Chancellor that there were informal approaches, and Mr. Tyrie raised the issue on Second Reading. One way of avoiding lengthy debates on the Floor of the House about programme motions is to have proper constructive discussions between— [Interruption.] I agree that such debates are important, but on measures of this kind, where the political parties are prepared to have a discussion, surely such formal discussions should not take place on the Floor of the House and thereby curtail the debate that is necessary on the Floor of the House.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Justice; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I, for one, am always happy to have informal discussions with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State on these matters—and I enjoy them—but it is important that we do not circumvent this House. The reason for holding these debates on the Floor of the House is precisely so that we do not have a Committee upstairs which can be packed with the nominees of Government—and, for that matter, of Opposition—and so that every Member of this House can participate in debate on this constitutional measure, including those who may disagree fundamentally with any proposal, even one brought forward jointly by the Secretary of State and myself.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

Will my hon. and learned Friend also make the point that it is profoundly undemocratic for important constitutional measures to be cobbled together by the two Front-Bench teams and for Members to be denied the opportunity to debate such matters on the Floor of the House?

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Justice; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, and the last thing I would wish to do is deprive him of the opportunity to participate in the debate.

Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire, Conservative)

As the amendment paper shows, amendments have been tabled by Members who do not sit on the Front Benches but who have over the years taken a very honourable part in these debates. I am thinking of Kelvin Hopkins, for example, who has been involved in such debates on many occasions. Amendments have also been tabled by representatives of minor parties, who would not necessarily normally be part of such Front-Bench discussions. That is why on a constitutional Bill it is important to capture the views of the whole House.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Justice; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I agree entirely.

This Government motion offers us an opportunity to revisit something we did at the end of Second Reading, and with which I have never been comfortable. The Government know that, as a matter of principle, we oppose guillotines, particularly in respect of constitutional measures. However, we also have a desire to get through business, and we are realistic, sometimes, about the likely outcome of a vote. That having been said, here is our opportunity—and, if I may say so, the Secretary of State's opportunity. He has had the chance to see the sort of amendments that have been tabled, and it is pretty clear that a debate is developing over a wide range of issues. None of the amendments appear to be spoiling ones that do not merit consideration, and it is becoming plain that there is insufficient time for consideration. Even today's business will end, I fear, with large chunks having not been properly considered.

The Liberal Democrat proposal—I respect Mr. Speaker's decision that we cannot vote on it—strikes me as one that the Secretary of State could properly keep in mind. Given that I feel we will have insufficient time, the one way in which we can lay down a marker of our unhappiness at this stage is to oppose the Government motion.

I hope that, in the spirit in which I certainly intend this debate to be conducted, the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to reconsider the timetable, which has two key failings. First, I strongly suspect that it is not long enough in its totality. Secondly, the way the knives have been placed guarantees that when we finally get to day four and probably have to consider the Bill's most important clauses, it will be even more apparent than it is today that we do not have the time to do so, especially when the business has not been protected, as it has not this afternoon. We have had two statements—I do not blame the Secretary of State for that, but the fact is that it is the Government's business—which have already taken up a considerable part of the afternoon's business.

For those reasons, I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the position. None of the amendments tabled is in any way a means to filibuster. This is an important Bill and the fact that the Secretary of State has kept it in some ways—dare I say it—mercifully short does not mean that it does not contain plenty of meat to be scrutinised. It does—in its limited remit, which is far more limited than the Government originally envisaged. For those reasons, I hope that, by listening to this afternoon's debate, the Secretary of State will have an opportunity to reconsider his position. If he does not, we will have to register our unhappiness in the only way we can.

David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I must say that I am extremely disappointed in the position that the Lord Chancellor has chosen to take on this occasion; he would not have supported it in previous incarnations. I say this because, whatever its shortcomings, this is an important constitutional Bill. It certainly does not go nearly far enough in many directions for my liking; nevertheless, it does contain matters that we ought, quite properly, to debate in this House. However, perhaps just as important are those things that are not in it, and which right hon. and hon. Members would wish to add to the appropriate legislation for dealing with constitutional reform.

The proposal before us—programme motion No. 2—differs from its predecessor in a very important respect, which is, as Mr. Grieve said, by the insertion of knives. Those knives will curtail discussion. They are designed to curtail discussion. They are there to prevent Members of this House from having the opportunity of debating this constitutional Bill.

The reason why, by convention, we consider the Committee stage of constitutional Bills on the Floor of the House is to enable every Member who wishes to contribute to have their say. Perversely, what we have before us today is a programme motion that puts us in a worse position than if we had been in Committee upstairs. It is normal practice not to have knives until such time as it is clear that progress will not be made without them. I have served on countless Committees dealing with Bills of a constitutional or criminal justice nature over the years. Normally, we have managed to discuss, between ourselves, appropriate ways of progressing business to avoid knives, wherever possible, and ensure that every single clause is given proper weight and proper consideration. That will not happen on this occasion, despite the fact that many more Members may wish to be involved. This might be a modest Bill in what it sets out to achieve, but it is hardly that modest in its physical size—it contains 56 clauses and nine schedules—so it is reasonable that we take a little time in considering it.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

Irrespective of whether or not the Bill is modest in itself, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a vehicle to which this House and its Members can add very substantially, if that is what this House wants?

David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

That is precisely the point, and I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes it. He describes the substance of many of the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled and are on the Order Paper. The Government, with their majority, blithely pass though this House proposals for carry-over because they do not think that they can get things through in this Session, but they will not allow carry-over in debate—even carry-over until tomorrow of matters that we will not reach in debate this evening. When we reach the knife tonight, any matters that we have not debated will simply disappear—they will not be debated by this House—and that is not a satisfactory position.

When the Lord Chancellor comes to this place with his pile of reports and papers, he betrays the fact that the Bill before us is not the Bill that many of those reports considered—huge sections have been left out and other sections have been added. Even if it were the same Bill, what difference would that make? Today, we are making law—we have the duty to consider the Bill line by line—so it does not matter what discussion has gone on before. It may be helpful to our discussions in this Chamber, but it does not replace them. If he believes that it does, I should tell him that we have been discussing reforming the Lords for 100 years—we discussed it right back in 1911, but we still have not done it. Does he honestly believe that he could put it before this House without debate and expect to get it through? Of course he does not.

I firmly suggest that we will not conclude consideration of the groups that are before us tonight. Mr. Dismore will be disappointed, yet again, at the outcome of his sterling efforts to put a small measure that has a great deal of common sense behind it on to the statute book. He has proposed it in countless private Member's Bills and time has never been found for it. Now he has the perfect vehicle to introduce his reform of the civil service, yet he will not be able to do so. Mr. Hogg has tabled some excellent new clauses for discussion, but of course we do not reach new clauses until the very latter parts of our consideration in Committee, so it is almost certain that we will not be able to discuss the matters of huge constitutional importance that he has raised.

Liberal Democrat Members wish to debate one key proposal, on the role of the Attorney-General. It was in the previous Bill, when the reforms were supported by the Select Committee on Justice, of which I am a member; by its predecessor, the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs; and by a minority in the Joint Committee. Yet this House is not going to be allowed to debate that very important matter because of the timetable exerted by the Lord Chancellor.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Justice; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

Although the hon. Gentleman and I may differ on whether the reforms that he seeks to the role of the Attorney-General are right, it is perfectly clear that they should be debated during our consideration of this Bill—there is no reason why they should not be. It is clearly in order that it should be possible to achieve that consideration—if we had the timetable that enabled us to do so.

David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

Of course it should. Let me conclude by saying that if one wanted the clearest possible advertisement for the virtues of a proper business committee, where these matters are discussed in advance between the parties, including Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House, and where we can identify those issues that hon. Members wish to have time to consider properly and provide the appropriate time for them to do so, this is it.

This is something that has not even been discussed by the Front-Bench teams; nobody has agreed to these guillotines and these knives, which the Lord Chancellor now wishes to insert. This programme motion goes against the principles of the discussion of constitutional Bills and against the interests of this House, and I hope that this House will oppose it.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour)

I agree with Mr. Grieve and Mr. Heath that, as a matter of principle, when a Bill dealing with the constitution is before the House it should not be the subject of a programme motion. The House of Commons ought to have an opportunity to discuss these important matters, especially given that when the Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill he talked about this Government's terrific record on the constitution and said that this Bill was an addition to it.

However, I am not absolutely convinced that the reasons advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome are necessarily the right ones. I was present on Second Reading and I recall that the hon. and learned Gentleman and David Howarth poked fun at the Lord Chancellor, saying that this Bill had a grand title but there was nothing in it. To be perfectly frank, the Opposition cannot have it both ways: they cannot say that the Bill is also weighty and important. I agree that the subject matter is, and even I poked fun at the Lord Chancellor, despite the great respect that we have for him, saying that given the history of what the Government have done on the constitution, this should have been a much more substantial Bill.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Justice; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I should make the position clear. I believe I said that the mountain moved and brought forth the mouse, and that is very much how I view this Bill. However, I also made it clear that elements of it, including the extremely important civil service reform and the proposals on the House of Lords, which are also extremely important and are a departure from the Government's previously stated position as to how they intend to carry out the reform of the other place, will require detailed scrutiny and, I suspect, are likely to excite a lot of participation. The question then becomes: how long should this Bill have for consideration? If the time were open-ended, the Bill would resolve itself—heaven knows we have not got much business in this place at the moment. For those reasons, the Government have got off on the wrong foot. Here is an opportunity to correct their position.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour)

I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that even if this were the shortest Bill in the world, he would be able to make his usual passionate and eloquent speeches, ensuring that even one of them would fill the whole four days—he is that able an advocate when he speaks at the Dispatch Box.

The one point that I wish to make in conclusion relates to the bit of the Bill that I found to be of substance, which was that concerning the House of Lords. With the greatest respect to Mr. Hogg, may I say that I was not suggesting in my intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield that we should substitute discussions outside this House for a proper debate inside it about House of Lords reform? However, I was very taken by the suggestions made on Second Reading by Mr. Tyrie, and others, relating to the appointment of temporary—or term-limited—peers.

I really do not believe that four days would be enough to discuss such an issue. I hope to obtain an undertaking from the Lord Chancellor that even though we cannot discuss it in great detail because of this programme motion, if an approach is made by an Opposition party, whichever one it may be, serious and substantive discussions will take place with that party on term-limited peers. We need to find a consensus on House of Lords reform. I, for one, do not believe that we have to wait for the next election and for the next manifesto to be written in order to make another commitment about such reform, because we have done that for the past three terms. I hope that that discussion will take place. If he gives me that undertaking, that will satisfy me that there is no need for additional time to be given to discuss this Bill.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

May I associate myself with what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend Mr. Grieve and Mr. Heath? This is an important Bill, but, goodness knows, it could be a much more important Bill. I would venture to say that most of the most important propositions that are placed before the House are in the new clauses and, as the House will know, the new clauses are for the most part grouped right at the end of day four, and therefore in all probability will not be reached.

It is perhaps quite useful to remind oneself of the nature of some of those new clauses, which seem to me to be of fundamental importance and well worthy of discussion in this place. Those to which I will refer are all tabled in my name—I hope that I will be forgiven for that. The first would allow Ministers who are not Members of this House to appear in the House and to answer questions and participate, though not vote. That would have the advantage, would it not, of the right hon. and noble Lord Mandelson's being able to come to this House? I would welcome that.

There is a second proposal, also tabled in my name, that we should have fixed-term Parliaments. I know that that is a matter of considerable interest to a lot of right hon. and hon. Members. On the point made by Keith Vaz about life peers' being appointed for fixed terms, I could see considerable advantages if peers were to be created for a period less than life—for five or 10 years, or whatever. Whatever the merits of that proposal, it is surely sufficiently important to attract a debate in this place. Although we might not be able to agree that proposition in the next four days or whenever, that this House should have the ability to ventilate and express that view seems quite plain.

There is another proposal that I venture to make. War-making powers should be entrusted to this House and should not be part of the royal prerogative. Again, that seems to me to be a matter that is very much in the interests of the House. I have tabled a new clause that has the effect of making the selection of the Prime Minister dependent on an address moved by this House to Her Majesty. That again seems to be an issue that is well worth considering.

There is the further question of Mr. Speaker's having the right to recall Parliament in exceptional circumstances rather than leaving it to the Government of the day. That again seems to me to be a matter of considerable importance. The business committee, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, should be set up by the Standing Orders of this House so that we, and not the Government, determine, for example, the business surrounding a constitutional Bill such as that which we are now debating.

There is also the question of referendums. I tabled an amendment to the effect that when there is a treaty between the European Union and the United Kingdom that abrogates the sovereignty of the United Kingdom or in any way significantly curtails the relationships in an adverse way it should be subject to a referendum. The House might not agree with that, but that it should be the subject of debate seems to me to be quite plain.

The truth is that all these proposals, some of which have been on the Order Paper in the names of other right hon. and hon. Members for some time, are all matters of substantial constitutional importance. If we were not to have this timetable motion—or, alternatively, if we had more time—the House would have the opportunity to debate them. I venture to say that no right hon. or hon. Member would say that those new clauses were unworthy of debate, but the Secretary of State's timetable motion will deprive the House of such an opportunity.

Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain something to me? I understand his argument about the knives, but a large part of everybody's argument tonight has been over the fact that four days have been allocated. If that argument is powerful today, why was it not sufficiently powerful on 20 October to get him into the Lobby? There was no dissent to the programme motion on that day.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

The Secretary of State is being less attentive than he normally is. The truth is that one has to determine a timetable motion in the context of the amendments and new clauses that were on the Order Paper when the timetable motion came to be considered. No doubt when this motion was first debated, the House had not determined the exact character of the new clauses and amendments. Now we have; we can see the Order Paper, and it will expand. Nobody, not even the Secretary of State, has argued that the points that I have just made are unworthy of debate. The House should therefore extend the time available for debate.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Justice; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that the merit of not having knives is that, as the days progress, it might become apparent that there is insufficient time to consider the business within the Government's timetable? We could therefore make powerful representations that we needed extra days if necessary. The mischief of the knives is that we lose chunks of business at the end of each day and we are never able to recover it.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. The knives are even more mischievous when we have two important statements taking up part of the time for debate. Moreover, the principle of the knives is incompatible with carry-over motions. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome properly said, there is a carry-over motion, which suggests that the Government want some business to be discussed, but the knives deny that opportunity in respect of the next two days.

David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also be aware that there is a very high expectation of a statement tomorrow—the second day in Committee—so we will lose yet more time. That is again something that could not have been factored in when the programme motion was first considered.

Douglas Hogg (Sleaford & North Hykeham, Conservative)

Indeed. I have no doubt that when we come to the third and fourth days, whenever they might be, we will find that yet more important business has been shuffled into the programme. The truth is that this House is being denied an opportunity to make very important changes to the constitution, or, if it is not ready to make them, at least to debate them. I am afraid that this Government like to shut out debate and I regard that as quite lamentable.

Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I rise briefly to support my hon. and learned Friend Mr. Grieve, Mr. Heath and my right hon. and learned Friend Mr. Hogg. As the years have gone by, I have wondered more and more what the real duties of a Member of Parliament are. Today, they seem to be to attend to e-mails every five seconds and to respond on diverse subjects to constituents on matters about which I know very little. Our real duty, which is to scrutinise legislation—to look at it line by line—seems no longer to be important or the part of our lives that it should be.

I remember, in the days when I was in Committees upstairs, time after time the habit crept in of putting in the knives and the guillotine motions, which meant that whole chunks of Bills that I was taking through Standing Committees were never debated, neither in Committee nor in this House. That is a tragedy.

We all need to ask ourselves what is the role of a Member of Parliament now and what it will be over the next 10 years. Will it simply be instantly to react to a news story or can we please get back to the days when we examined legislation line by line and made our own arguments and amendments? The truth of the matter is that if I have an amendment or argument I want to make it, and I want the views of all hon. Members to be heard. If I lose the argument by a vote or because I have made it badly, that is that, but at least I have made it. Day after day, the trend continues that the opportunities for Members of this House properly to do the job for which they were elected, in my judgment, are gradually disappearing.

Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire, Conservative)

When we considered the devolution Bills at the start of the Government's time in office—

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Awful!

Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire, Conservative)

Well, there were arguments about the quality of the Bills, but the Government accepted the principle that they would agree programme motions with the Opposition, and allow the Opposition the time that they asked for to debate the Bills. My right hon. and learned Friend Mr. Hogg never agreed even with those programme motions, but the Government were prepared to engage and at least try to give the Opposition the time needed to go through important matters.

This Bill deals with the civil service, and it has taken years to come before the House. The Government promised it first in 1996, and then in almost every year since. It has been the subject of a lot of debate in the House, and the Public Administration Committee and the Committee on Standards in Public Life have both produced excellent reports on it. Even so, the Bill is a bit of a disappointment, as it does not go far enough in a number of ways.

We have an opportunity to debate the Bill and make sure that some problems are put right. Our debate should go further than the very valuable new clauses tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, as other hon. Members have tabled amendments that deal with vital matters such as the role of special advisers. Are they to have the sort of executive powers that were so unpopular when they were exercised by Alastair Campbell but which have proved to be such exciting entertainment in films such as "In the Loop"?

Are we going to tackle, in a proper debate, the problem of the special adviser with executive powers? There are numerous amendments to clause 8, and they all need to be considered adequately. When we last debated these matters, I remember that the important question of who a civil servant is took some time. I see that we are due to have a similar debate in connection with clause 1.

In my view, the Government are going backwards and becoming ever less democratic. The surprise is that the Lord Chancellor, who has always been thought to be someone who respects the House and who wants to be at one with its traditions, should be backsliding in this way. The programme motion does not give adequate time for what is an important constitutional debate.

When we considered the devolution Bills, we had 36 days on the Floor of the House. That was agreed by the Government, but the Lord Chancellor is engaged in cheese-paring by offering a mere four days to consider this Bill in Committee—four days that will be interfered with by constant statements.

David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

The four days may be sufficient—I do not think that they will be, but they may—but the point is that they can be extended by means of a further programme motion in the future. What cannot be extended are the knives that the Secretary of State is trying to insert today. If he were to withdraw this programme motion, he would be back to the previous motion that set a four-day limit, at the end of which we could see how much progress we had made.

Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire, Conservative)

I absolutely agree, and the hon. Gentleman is another veteran of these debates. My point is that the House as a whole has important amendments to debate, in connection with what is a constitutional Bill. In the past, the Government have accepted the principle that we should have the time to do a proper job, so it is poor for a person in the Lord Chancellor's position not to be prepared to listen to the House. Even at this late stage, he could remove these knives, which will have exactly the effect described by Mr. Heath and others.

Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour)

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say that I understand the concerns of the House? I could be forgiven for thinking that there was general approbation for devoting four days to this Bill, as on 20 October—just two weeks ago—the House agreed that proposal without Division. Not even Mr. Hogg—who, as Mr. Heald just noted, normally rises to oppose any programme motion—opposed it. I was not party to the discussions through the usual channels, and I would not disclose them even if I were, but I took it from that result that there was general agreement.

At the heart of this argument is the question of how the knives should fall. The special Committee chaired by my hon. Friend Dr. Wright is examining the question of programming. It is also looking at the idea of having a business committee, to which I am highly sympathetic.

In the old days of guillotining, programming used to happen with a vengeance. One motive for inserting knives was to help the Government, but another was to assist debate. In this case, it is clear that a lot of concerns have to do with the business that will arise on the third and fourth days—

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Justice; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

indicated assent.

Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour)

I see that there is approbation for that. A knife is proposed to fall today after debate on the proposals in respect of the civil service, and another on the second day—tomorrow—after debate on a number of important issues. Once we get to the third day, no knife will fall for two days. So the quicker that we can deal with the proposals on treaties and protests, the sooner we can get on to those on the House of Lords.

My judgment is that the proposals on treaties and protests need not take a huge amount of time, as there is general agreement about them. There will be a debate about the House of Lords proposals, but we will have two days for it. The motion protects that debate, rather than running it into the buffers.

Dominic Grieve (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Justice; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I am sure that the Secretary of State can see how much things have changed. On Second Reading, he quite reasonably presented a picture of a number of days being set aside for debate. That may not have been perfect, but then he comes along today, as the debate is about to begin, and changes the rules with internal knives. That guarantees that large chunks of today's business alone will never come to be considered. It also means that he has lost the option of being able to offer the House a further day if he thinks that it has genuinely sought to make progress and yet has been unable to do so. That is the problem with his proposal.

Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour)

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that the business of the House is in the hands of the business managers. Of course I take account of what has been said today, and I shall pursue the matter with those business managers, but I cannot offer undertakings as to what will follow. I want these matters to be debated properly—

Andrew Tyrie (Chichester, Conservative)

rose—

Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour)

I am sorry, but the debate is about to end.

I say again that no Bill has been the subject of greater prior discussion than this one—

Three quarters of an hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 83A).

The House proceeded to a Division.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker)

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.