Rates Bill (Allocation of Time)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 6:30 pm on 29 February 1984.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Patrick Jenkin Mr Patrick Jenkin , Wanstead and Woodford 6:30, 29 February 1984

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's ready response.

It is just less than three hours since, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), with his characteristic rasp which we now recognise, and with his usual inaccuracy which we also recognise, sought to rubbish the Bill's safeguards on the introduction of part II. He said that part II could only be introduced on an order passed by the House of Commons. I sought to intervene to correct him but he did not give way. He and the hon. Member for Copeland will know that an order from both Houses is needed. That is the importance of the safeguard on the introduction of part II.

The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made the strange proposition that as the Bill had constitutional implications it should have been taken on the Floor of the House. The implication was that that should somehow affect the decision to impose a guillotine. He said that the timetable motion was outrageous because the Government did not accept that the Bill should be dealt with on the Floor of the House. That is a curious argument. By the time the Committee finishes, it will have devoted 125 hours to the Bill. There is not the slightest chance that the Bill would have been allocated anything like so much time had it been dealt with on the Floor of the House. Indeed, a guillotine motion would have been necessary much earlier. Only about five minutes ago the hon. Member for Copeland admitted that had the Bill been dealt with on the Floor of the House it would have been timetabled from the outset. I suggest that the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen should read their speeches before they respond to a debate of this sort.

Nobody denies that this is an important Bill. No one is arguing that it should not be properly debated. The question is what is proper debate. The simple fact is that we have already had 80 hours of debate in Committee and we now propose a further 42½ hours. In all, the Committee will have debated the Bill for more than 120 hours in 30 sittings spread over two months.

The Leader of the Opposition complained during business questions last week that the guillotine on the Bill was objectionable. I have given him notice that I would be referring to his remarks. In a debate when the guillotine was proposed for not one but two Bills—the Health Services Bill and the Dock Work Regulation Bill—the right hon. Gentleman said: there is greater danger to this Parliament from fatuous and superficial scrutiny of Bills than from the expedition of business which the people of the country demand".—[Official Report, 15 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 912.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) rightly said, the British people are demanding the Bill. While I would not be so unkind as to accuse Labour Members of fatuity or superficiality, I have to say that they have gone on and on and on interminably.

My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made some kind references to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans). He is an engaging debater, but when one has to listen to the hon. Gentleman for no less than four and a half hours on the trot, even the well-known tolerance of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State becomes strained. The hon. Gentleman managed to speak for 20 minutes on an amendment which had been withdrawn by the Opposition and replaced by another. He has great skill in talking to the Committee for 20, 30, or perhaps even 40 minutes before he comes to the point of the amendment to which he is speaking.