I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall have effect—

Sittings on 6th, 7th and 8th April: general

1. At this day's sitting and at the sittings tomorrow and on Friday—

(1) any motion made by a Minister of the Crown may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House;

(2) proceedings on Lords Amendments or any subsequent Lords Message in respect of any Bill may be considered forthwith without any further Question being put and shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement (subject to paragraph 3(1));

(3) Standing Orders Nos. 83D to 83H and 83I(2) to (6) (conclusion of proceedings, &c.) shall apply to proceedings to be taken in accordance with this Order (but with the omission of Standing Orders Nos. 83D(2)(c) and 83E(2)(c));

(4) notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee on any Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time;

(5) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply; and

(6) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords have been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons has reported.

Wednesday 6th April

2. At the sitting this day the following business shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) at the time after its commencement shown in brackets at the end of each sub-paragraph—

(1) any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the reading of specified Resolutions of 22nd March, presentation and first reading of any Finance (No. 2) Bill brought in on those resolutions and remaining proceedings on any such Bill (four hours);

(2) any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the bringing in of an Appropriation Bill, presentation and first reading of any Bill brought in in pursuance of that motion and remaining proceedings on any such Bill, to which Consolidated Fund Bills">Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply (forthwith);

(3) remaining proceedings on the Inquiries Bill [Lords] (one hour);

(4) Committee of the whole House and remaining proceedings on the Disability Discrimination Bill [Lords] (one hour); and

(5) Committee of the whole House and remaining proceedings on the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords] (one hour).

Thursday 7th April

3. At the sitting tomorrow the following business shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) at the time after its commencement shown in brackets at the end of each sub-paragraph—

(1) proceedings on any Lords Amendments to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill which may be received (one and a half hours);

(2) remaining proceedings on the Education Bill [Lords] (one hour);

(3) the motion relating to suspension and revival of the Crossrail Bill (one hour); and

(4) second reading and remaining proceedings on the International Organisations Bill [Lords] (one and a half hours).

4. On Thursday 7th April there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.

Friday 8th April

5. On Friday—

(1) Standing Order No. 14(4) (Private Members' Bills) shall not apply; and

(2) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until a Message has been received from the Lords Commissioners.

General

6. If any Finance (No. 2) Bill, or the International Organisations Bill [Lords], is read a second time, it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House.

7. The Orders that the Disability Discrimination Bill [Lords] and the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill [Lords] be committed to a Standing Committee shall be discharged and the Bills shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

8. A reference in this Order to proceedings on or in respect of a Bill includes a reference to proceedings on any Money Resolution, Ways and Means Resolution or Order of Consideration motion in relation to those proceedings.

9. The Order of Consideration motion of which Maria Eagle has given notice in respect of the Standing Committee on the Disability Discrimination Bill [Lords] may be moved by a Minister of the Crown in respect of the Committee of the whole House to which the Bill is committed under paragraph 7.

10. Paragraph 2(1) shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bill brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions.

11. If the sitting this day continues after 11.30 a.m. on Thursday 7th April, this Order shall have effect as if any reference to the sitting on Thursday 7th April or Friday 8th April included a reference to the sitting this day.

12. If the sitting tomorrow continues after 9.30 a.m. on Friday 8th April, this Order shall have effect as if any reference to the sitting on Friday 8th April included a reference to the sitting tomorrow.

This is a motion designed to facilitate our business between now and Prorogation, and it may help the House if I say something about its effect.

The motion provides that today, Wednesday, after we have concluded our consideration of this Business of the House motion, we will proceed as follows. First, we will take all stages of the new Finance Bill, for up to four hours. Instead of seeking to amend the original Bill, which would require a complex Committee stage, the Government will—on the advice of the Clerks and with the agreement of the Opposition—withdraw that Bill and reintroduce part of it as a new Bill.

Secondly, we will take all stages of an Appropriation Bill, without debate. Thirdly, we will debate the remaining stages of the Inquiries Bill for up to one hour, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Disability Discrimination Bill for up to one hour. We will then take Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Public Service Ombudsman (Wales) Bill for up to one hour. Finally, we expect to take some Lords amendments or messages for up to an hour on each Bill.

Tomorrow, Thursday, we will consider the following, although not necessarily in this order: Lords amendments to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, for up to one and a half hours; remaining proceedings on the Education Bill for up to one hour; the motion to suspend the Crossrail Bill for up to one hour; Second Reading and remaining stages of the International Organisations Bill for up to one and a half hours. During the course of the day, we may consider other Government motions, including motions relating to Lords amendments or messages. I hope and intend that we will conclude our business and be prorogued on Thursday evening.

The motion makes general provision for debate on Government motions to continue until any hour without the need for motions at the moment of interruption. Amendments to be moved in Committee may be tabled before Second Reading. There will be no deferred Divisions and Mr. Speaker will not adjourn the House until any Lords messages have been received and any Reasons Committee has reported.

The motion provides that there will be no sitting in Westminster Hall on Thursday.

I hope that the House will agree to this motion swiftly so that we can proceed to consider the important legislation before us.

Before closing, I would like to thank all the staff and Officers of the House for their hard work during this Parliament. Without them this House would not operate as effectively as it does. I would also like to pass on my thanks for all the work undertaken in Departments, private offices and parliamentary sections. In particular, I thank my two private offices: the Leader's Office and the Wales Office. The hard work, professionalism and integrity of the civil servants in both those offices have served me and my predecessors well.

I commend the motion to the House.

I join the tributes paid by the Leader of the House to all those who work here and help us so much in everything we do. I thank them for their work throughout this Parliament. I also thank the officers at Conservative headquarters who help me with the necessary research in my role.

I join the tribute that the Leader of the House paid yesterday to Mr. Tyler, who has had a long career here and is now retiring. We wish him well in his retirement. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear.]

I thank the Leader of the House for consulting, through the usual channels, on the form of the motion. We agreed that it would be for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House to include everything in one motion, particularly the programmes for the various Bills in so far as they are known. That is acceptable to us as a suitable way of dealing with business only at this stage of a Parliament and not as a wider precedent. I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that that is his understanding.

I am happy to confirm that the motion does not set a precedent for the general conduct of business. The shadow Leader of the House is aware of the unusual circumstances that always occur at the end of a Parliament. I take this opportunity to thank him and the usual channels for expediting matters and for the constructive approach that meets both Opposition and Government interests and, ultimately, the national interest.

I thank the Leader of the House for his comments. I said yesterday that we would take a constructive approach to the Bills before Parliament. Good progress has been made and the Government have accommodated our requirements on the Bills that are proceeding. However, would the Leader of the House look again at the Inquiries Bill? Two Lords amendments were removed in Committee here, but concern has been expressed throughout the House. When an inquiry touches on ministerial conduct, surely it is right that Parliament should approve the details of the setting up of an inquiry, as happens now under the Tribunals of Inquiry Evidence Act 1921. What is the reason for taking that power away from Parliament unless it is to be able to hold such inquiries in a way that might not be approved by both Houses of Parliament? Surely that is not something that the Leader of the House wants. In the interests of having inquiries that have the support of Parliament and the public, surely the Government could look at the matter again.

I add my thanks on behalf of my colleagues to those that have been expressed. Perhaps I could also be allowed to thank not just the Officers of the House, but right hon. and hon. Members of all parties with whom I have been happy to work for some years. The House is often at its best when we work across party lines for the achievement of better business and a better legislative product. We all regret it when a straitjacket is imposed but, as the Leader of the House said, this is not a precedent for the way in which Parliament usually operates. These are abnormal times and I accept that this is evidence of the way in which constructive consultation behind the scenes in both Houses can achieve a sensible way of doing business in abnormal circumstances.

If I have any reputation at all as I leave this House, I hope that it is that I am capable of making both a brief point and a point briefly, so I hope that by making a succinct contribution this afternoon I do not endanger that reputation. We should get on with the substance of the business so that we have the maximum time for scrutiny.

Finally, I thank both the Leader of the House and his Conservative shadow for their kind remarks about me.

I would not like the House to prorogue without my joining in the tributes paid by the Leader of the House and the spokesmen for the Opposition parties to the staff. This establishment has not always caught up with modern management techniques and, inevitably, it cannot run in the same way as a structured, commercial organisation, nor should it choose to do so. It is thus essential that our staff at every level, whether direct employees or members of associated firms, are not only sufficiently flexible to fit in with the needs of the House of Commons and the Members, but that they also meet the very real need of the general public to know what is happening here and to understand our sometimes arcane procedures.

It is easy to criticise and occasionally to knock those who maintain traditional forms of dress, but who marry with that extremely modern forms of administration. It is important that Members understand what an enormously effective job the House of Commons does in servicing the needs of a Parliament. That goes right the way through, whether it is the Refreshment Department staff, the people who service the building or the industrial or non-industrial civil service. It is essential not only that Members understand that, but that we say firmly how grateful we are to the staff for the way in which they perform their duties day in, day out, and occasionally, even now, night in and night out.

Mr. Tyler and I have west-country connections that go back a long way. He will be missed in this place; he is an individual voice and a very plain one. I shall miss all the other Members who are retiring. Some of them are going far too soon, and I hope that they will regret leaving us so early. Every one of them has contributed in a unique and essential way to the work of Parliament. Long may they enjoy their future careers. Long may we record with affection and respect the work that they have done in this Parliament.

I am always suspicious when the House indulges in an orgy of self-congratulation and mutual admiration. It makes me suspect that something rather unpleasant is going on, and I had only to read the words of the motion that we are being asked to approve for that to be confirmed fully.

In the good old days, I would have looked at the Order Paper, seen the words "until any hour" and been thrilled at the prospect. I am tempted to explore those words to the full, but those days, for the moment, have passed, although I hope they return soon; even I recognise that this is probably not the occasion for a full exploration of the motion, but I want to touch on one or two points.

Given that Mrs. Dunwoody properly focused on Members who are not seeking re-election, I reassure my right hon. Friend that I certainly shall be seeking re-election, both because I love parliamentary life and, quite frankly, because I am too young and cannot possibly afford to retire. I put it to my right hon. Friend that if it is true that the Government are abandoning the Identity Cards Bill, that is magnificent news. It is a thoroughly bad and obnoxious Bill; it has not been properly considered by the House of Lords, so it is extremely welcome that, despite the breast-beating of the Home Secretary, the Government are ditching that piece of nonsense.

I can give my hon. Friend a little bit of reassurance as I do not see that Bill mentioned in the motion, although it could always be subsumed in some mysterious way into the words "any other motions", to which I may return in a moment.

There is a parliamentary danger—a constitutional danger, even—in the proceedings that we face when we come to Prorogation and Dissolution. Because of our rather unusual parliamentary system, a Prime Minister can call an election at any time, so we are faced with an abrupt ending to our proceedings right in the middle of the parliamentary cycle. The danger lies in the fact that at that point consultations are undertaken between a very small number of people, on both sides of the House, who reach a cosy agreement and then, congratulating each other, present us with a fait accompli. The words of the motion reflect that all too fully.

My hon. Friend Mr. Heald has said from the Front Bench how delighted he is that we can sign up to everything and the Leader of the House has said how delighted he is that the Government are getting what they want: "We are getting what we want". But the we on this occasion is them. Nobody has consulted me about this at any stage.

May I point out to the former shadow Leader of the House, that if he had been sitting on the Front Bench he would have been absolutely delighted as well?

No, because if I had been on the Front Bench the Leader of the House would have got none of his Bills, and that would have been absolutely proper.

Why was my right hon. Friend offered a pint by the Leader of the House yesterday yet I was not?

I am not sure that I was, but we shall settle that later in the usual way. The Leader of the House is looking very embarrassed and we would not want that, would we?

There is a serious point. I do not want to dwell on it excessively, but merely to put down a marker. It is that we are being asked to legislate—to make the law of the land—in an extremely truncated and restricted way, on the basis that a small number of no doubt senior and eminent people have decided what will be and are then asking the rest of us, as Members of Parliament, to say, "Oh, all right then. You're only giving us an hour to consider an entire Bill". Even worse, we are being asked to sign up to the fact that

"any motion made by a Minister of the Crown may be proceeded with . . . until any hour, and shall not be interrupted".

That exemplifies the degree of control that the Government seek and have been given by the motion. They call the shots and the rest of us have to fall meekly into our places.

When we consider the detail of the motion, we find that the House of Commons is being asked to deal with the entire Finance Bill in four hours, and that other serious measures—on disability discrimination, international organisations or whatever—are to be agreed to in one hour for each. In all reasonableness, that cannot permit any degree of proper parliamentary scrutiny. In what we are told are exceptional and unusual circumstances—although I worry about that—the Government are saying, "Trust me. We the leadership have agreed that this will be the case and the rest of you are expected to fall into place." I have to say that looking around the Chamber it looks as though that is highly likely to happen, but we should be worried about it. It is yet another indication of the extent to which the proceedings of this House have been downgraded that we are being asked to sign up to the motion with a smile.

Of course, everybody's thoughts are on the upcoming election. That is perfectly natural. But it should not mean that we legislate in such a way that we eliminate all possibility of parliamentary scrutiny, with one great exception—the saving of our constitution and our parliamentary process; thank goodness for it—the House of Lords is still not controlled by the Government. Their timetable is still theirs to control. The Government still do not have a majority in the House of Lords.

As a Member of this House for some time, and someone who loves this place and is happy to spend much of my time here, it saddens me to acknowledge that in the motion we are surrendering our role in the legislative process and expecting our colleagues in the House of Lords to do the real work of scrutiny. That has been the reality for some time. It continues to be the reality and the motion reflects that; in fact, it sets it out in words simple to understand.

My right hon. Friend is consistent on these things. Surely, the essence of the matter is ministerial self-importance. Does he agree that the problem is that Ministers are very important, very senior, very respected, very influential, very busy, with very many commitments and very full diaries, so they think that it is a bit undignified to have to find the time to come to the House to explain and justify their legislative measures?

My hon. Friend reflects all too well the current "modern" attitude of the Government and their Ministers to the parliamentary process and to the House of Commons. It comes from the top of course. The Prime Minister has never had any time for the parliamentary process and, sadly, shows that repeatedly.

I do not entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the motion—in fact, I do not agree with him at all—but on the general point that there is far too much programming and not enough time for scrutiny, has he seen early-day motion 945, which points out that about 40 per cent. of the groups of amendments tabled on Report this Session have not been debated because of severe guillotining?

Sadly, I neither read nor sign early-day motions because I think that they are parliamentary graffiti of the worst and most useless kind, but if my hon. Friend tells me that there is something of value in that early-day motion, I am half inclined to believe him.

Although my hon. Friends keep tempting me and it feels more and more like the good old days, I will soon conclude, but before I do so, I simply want to tell colleagues that I really hope that in the next Parliament—if I have the honour of being returned to it—we will be prepared to look again at what we have done to our House as part of the legislative process, how we have diminished our role and how we have increasingly to rely, ironically, on the unelected, appointed House of Lords to do the real parliamentary work, while we are increasingly expected to act as legislative rubber stamps. The motion reflects that as well as anything that I have seen recently. I regret that, and I wish we did not have to act in that manner.

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his opening remarks.

Discussions are still continuing on the Inquiries Bill, but I understand that the major issue at stake is the Prime Minister's ability to maintain control over his Government, whom he appoints and Ministers' conduct and behaviour. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will understand, on reflection, that if he were in my position and the Leader of the Opposition were in the Prime Minister's position, they would take exactly the same view. The good conduct of government is the issue at stake.

As I said yesterday, I pay tribute to the long parliamentary career of the Liberal Democrat shadow Leader of the House. He is a brilliant parliamentarian, as well as a good colleague, despite the party differences, and I wish him all the best in the future. He was indeed very brief, but he is not someone to spin out his points.

Given the long parliamentary experience of my hon. Friend Mrs. Dunwoody, I agree with the generous tribute that she paid to the staff. She reminded us of their crucial role. I particularly welcome her reference to the catering staff, who are sometimes called on to perform their duties at very short notice and have their hours extended at short notice. They do so with good fortitude and good cheer, and we are indebted to them.

The same is true of the Doorkeepers, to whom I pay special tribute. Indeed, my only quarrel with them is our serious arguments about rugby—they do not appreciate the value of the Welsh rugby team enough for my liking, although, with the grand slam that we accomplished, they acknowledged, to be generous, the expertise and brilliance of that performance.

I also pay tribute to work of the new Serjeant at Arms, who has settled into his job very well, as has the new security co-ordinator.

Finally, in response to the points made by Mr. Forth, I would feel bereft if he had not got up to make them, and he does so with great honour and determination. I was interested to research a previous occasion just before the last general election when one of my predecessors, my right hon. Friend Margaret Beckett, now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, had an exchange with the right hon. Gentleman in which she pointed out that this wash-up period procedure goes on at the end of all Parliaments and has done so for decades. Indeed, when he was an Education Minister, his own Bill was taken through at great speed in exactly the same way. He did not seem to object to that process then, and I wonder whether he should be objecting now.

I very much wish to echo the tributes that the Leader of the House has paid to the staff of the House. I cannot resist making an effort to elicit from him a statement in his own words that the Government are withdrawing the Identity Cards Bill. Will he please tell us that that is the case? Perhaps he will admit that he is secretly rather delighted that that obnoxious Bill is being withdrawn because, as he has a long track record as a civil libertarian, he cannot seriously believe in that nonsense.

It is not the place to discuss the merits of the Identity Cards Bill, about which I have an honest disagreement with the hon. Gentleman. I am a long-standing civil libertarian and proud of it, and remain so, but I honestly think that the Identity Cards Bill is a common-sense measure in an age when we must supply photographic proof of identity to take an internal flight in Britain. Increasingly, we must come up with the kind of identification to travel abroad that the new identity card will provide on our passports, driving licences and so on. It is a common-sense measure and, no, we have not withdrawn it; we could not get the Opposition's agreement to allow it through, as other Bills have gone through, so it will fall, but it will do so as a result of the express opposition of the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, who did not give it the passage that it needed and should have had in the interests of security and the safety of all our citizens. I regret that very much.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sorry, but I will not give way.

I am sorry to disagree on that point with Mr. Bercow because he is an effective parliamentarian in every other respect. I admire him greatly, but I do not want to diminish the prospects for his future career by adding to that in any way.

Question put and agreed to.