| Home Page |
Column 793
House of Commons
Friday 30 March 1990
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Orders of the Day
Consumer Guarantees Bill
Order read for consideration of Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee).
9.34 am
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about the precedents for the recommittal of a Bill to a Committee of the whole House, which I understand we are about to do to reconsider clause 12, because of the failure to include a money resolution. Page 507 of "Erskine May" under the heading "Recommittal of Bill" states that you are entitled to accept a recommittal
"(d
(to enable the committee to consider in a regular manner a clause improperly agreed to before a money resolution had been passed".) That paragraph then refers back to page 495. I read through that page to find a precedent for the recommittal of a private Member's Bill, but could not find anything.
I am grateful to the staff of the Public Bill Office and the Journal Office who helped me with my considerable research. We found no precedents in the 21st edition of "Erskine May" for a recommittal. However, in the 20th edition--I am not sure whether you have a copy here, Mr. Speaker--on consideration of the Road Traffic Bill [Lords] 1930, the Speaker called the attention of the House to the fact that, while considering a new clause, the Standing Committee had agreed to an amendment which authorised the payment of certain fines to the Exchequer, which it had no authority by way of money resolution to do. That is a precedent for what I think you will allow to be in order today. I have taken the precaution of bringing that Bill with me, and you will notice that it is not a private Member's Bill but a Government Bill.
I undertook further research and found another precedent for what will happen today in our consideration of the Mineral Workings Bill on 18 June 1951. I do not want to take up more time than necessary, but--
Mr. Speaker : Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order? He is drawing my attention to precedents.
Mr. Leigh : My point is that I have established that there is no precedent for a private Member's Bill to be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House because of an error connected with a money resolution. Do you accept that there is no precedent and that we are setting a precedent today not to improve our procedures, but to right an error?
Mr. Speaker : It is an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman drew my attention to page 507 of "Erskine
Column 794
May" and I draw his to page 505. The answer is that there is no procedural obligation on the House to recommit the Bill to the Standing Committee that considered it. A Committee of the whole House is perfectly capable of regularising the position. The fact that this precise course may not have been followed before is irrelevant. I have selected this motion by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) who is in charge of the Bill. If hon. Members oppose it, they are free to speak against it.Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have seen in this morning's newspapers that last night the farm price talks in Luxembourg broke down. That means that the farming industry will enter the 1990-91 farm price year not knowing what farm prices will be. Clearly, that is bad for the farmers and those
Mr. Speaker : Order. What has it to do with the Consumers Guarantees Bill?
Mr. Marshall : Do you know, Mr. Speaker, whether a request has been made for a statement on the matter?
Mr. Speaker : We should proceed with the Bill.
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the matter before us.
Unfortunately, I was travelling back from the other side of the globe last night in order to be here this morning. I got Hansard first thing this morning to see what transpired in respect of the money resolution last night, but that edition of Hansard only covered the business up to 10 pm. Before we consider the motion on the Order Paper, surely we should be told exactly what happened last night. Furthermore--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman was not here, but had he been he would know that the money resolution -- [Interruption.] Order. I am dealing with this. The money resolution was passed last night ; if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Votes and Proceedings he will see that.
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South-West) : I beg to move,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of clause 12.
The recommittal of the Bill became necessary when it transpired, after the Bill had been reported from Committee, that the provisions of clause 12, if passed into law, would involve the expenditure of such sums of public money as would need the authorisation of the House by a money resolution. The application by clause 12 of part IV of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 would cost an estimated £1 million to enforce.
Clause 12 was considered in Committee without the authority of a money resolution. I must add that I hold no responsibility for that, and I have a letter from the Minister to confirm that. The motion for recommittal
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The motion standing in my name will allow us to correct the irregularity.
Mr. Viggers : The hon. Member for Clwyd South-West (Mr. Jones), the promoter of the Bill, would not give way to me when I sought to make an obvious point--that two
Column 795
kinds of legislation come before the House. The first is public, Government legislation which is led by Ministers and for which the Government are responsible. The second type of legislation is private Members' legislation for which an individual Member is responsible. Today we find ourselves in a monstrous situation. I am not reassured by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West who seeks to exculpate himself from any responsibility when it has everything to do with him. He is the private Member who sought to put the Bill before the House. He is responsible. If he got it wrong, his advisers should have advised him better.Who is responsible for this lash-up?
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Not as bad a lash-up as the poll tax.
Mr Viggers : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman on whom I can rely to intervene on my speeches.
Are the Government responsible? The Government will be responsible for the legislation when it is implemented.
Mr. John Marshall : If it is implemented.
Mr. Viggers : My hon. Friend is correct.
I know that the Government have expressed satisfaction with some parts of the Bill. I remember the Sale of Goods Act 1893 well from my student days, when I learned about it in my studies to become a solicitor. I know that the Government believe that that Act could do with some revision and updating. Are the Government responsible for the conduct of the Bill? The answer must be no, because the promoter of a private Member's Bill leads by explaining why he believes it to be a good idea. The Minister intervenes during the debate, virtually by way of amicus curiae, to give the Government's view of the Bill.
Mr. Robin Squire (Hornchurch) : Surely in such circumstances Ministers usually listen and guide hon. Members on such matters. I hope that the Minister is listening now, as I am not sure that he may not be the villain. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) dismisses the role of the Minister, I am not so sure that the real responsibility does not lie on the Front Bench.
Mr. Viggers : I am concerned that the Government have some responsibility, because, if and when the legislation becomes law, it will be for the Government to implement it. Imagine the difficulty, however, if we had passed the Bill into law and then found it was defective. It would have been the Government's responsibility to administer the necessary changes. We cannot relieve the Minister and his advisers of some of the responsibility.
Dr. John Marek (Wrexham) : When the Bill was in Committee, I implored the Minister many times to give us his advice, but he rarely did so. I do not want to make a lot out of this, as I want to get the Bill into the right state so that it can be passed, and I do not want to be accused of filibustering--I hope that that is not the aim of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). The hon. Gentleman must be advised that, so far, the Minister has not been extremely helpful.
Column 796
Mr. Viggers : I was not discussing whether the Minister has been helpful or not, but whether the Minister is responsible for the legislation.
Mr. John Marshall rose --
Mr. Viggers : I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I shall not give way ; I am anxious not to delay the House. The Minister must accept some responsibility, and I would be interested to hear his thoughts on this matter. He must have rafts of advisers--I suspect, not too far away --who have followed the Bill with keen interest. One or more of them must feel some responsibility, and perhaps some shame, that we have reached this stage and require the special motion now before us. I am afraid to say that the Government have some responsibility.
The second responsible group are those close to your august Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I remember seeking to introduce various ten-minute Bills under Standing Order No. 37, as it then was. Then I sought the advice of the Clerks of the House. They helpfully told me that there was a back way round the normal requirement for a money resolution. I was able to put my Bill before the House by claiming that the money would come from the national insurance fund. That quirk was helpfully pointed out to me by the Clerks who can be helpful on such occasions.
How can it be that Homer has nodded in this case? How is it that the Clerks allowed the Bill to reach this stage without pointing out its defects? What were they doing? That we have been let down in this way is an effective breach of the privileges of the House. Previously, when someone was guilty of a breach of parliamentary privilege, he used to be called to the Bar of the House. He had to account for himself and stand at the Bar while his case was debated. I believe that, until the 19th century, the person accused of such a breach had to kneel at the Bar. In this case it might be appropriate for the Clerk of the House to kneel at the Bar.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the Clerks give their advice to hon. Gentlemen in private. On reflection, I am sure that he will accept that public criticism of the Clerks is not seemly.
Mr. Viggers : I have sought to identify the second group to whom we should look for blame in this matter, but I intended to say that it is not the Clerks, whose services we all respect, who are primarily responsible. I have been in the House for 16 years and no body of people are more devoted to their duty and more skilful in guiding individual members than the Clerks.
The third party with responsibility is obviously the promoter of the Bill. We know that he has been advised by the National Consumer Council. Two days ago, it committed the extraordinary discourtesy of issuing a most abusive press release about me without the courtesy of sending me a copy. That press release was drawn to my attention during a television interview, when the interviewer produced it and asked me for comment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that the NCC is not in receipt of any public funds. It would be wrong if a body that behaved in such a way was in receipt of such funds.
Mr. John Marshall : I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister, who this morning has been described as unhelpful, is responsible for giving the National Consumer
Column 797
Council £2 million of taxpayers' money. Is issuing press releases attacking Members of Parliament a sensible way of spending taxpayers' money?Mr. Viggers : I am horrified to hear that it is £2 million of public money. We are discussing whether the House should waive its normal rules and allow a money resolution to be attached to a private Members' Bill, thereby allowing a further £1 million a year to be spent. We should not allow that to pass.
The House of Commons has a limited number of opportunities for Members to present private legislation. Many of us are unsuccessful in the ballot. It is disgraceful that an individual who was successful has put before the House a defective Bill, causing us to debate this issue on a Friday, when most hon. Members want to be in their constituencies. I oppose the motion.
Mr. Leigh : I, too, oppose the motion. As you may not have heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you had not quite come into the Chamber when I was raising my point of order, I have done some research on this matter. We are talking about setting a precedent, and I do not believe that we should set it. Its roots lie in the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister on Second Reading on 26 January 1990, when he said :
"The exchanges illustrate my earlier point : that the Standing Committee proceedings on a measure such as this--a long and complex measure for which Standing Committees on private Member's Bills are not entirely suited-- would lead to even greater problems that might be very difficult to resolve. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle for having highlighted the point."--[ Official Report, 26 January 1990 ; Vol. 165, c. 1236.]
My hon. Friend was looking into a crystal ball and foretelling the kind of problems that might arise on the Bill. This highly complex measure, with a considerable number of clauses, is not an appropriate subject for Standing Committee proceedings. That is illustrated by the mess we are in.
Unlike some hon. Members, I was here until the Adjournment debate last night. I was sitting on the Bench where my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) now sits advising the Minister. I saw the Minister come into the Chamber like a dark creature of the night, a saturnine figure dragging his chains. I think that perhaps he lives hanging from the rafters. The House was almost deserted. Where was the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones)?
Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to clarify a point. The motion that we are debating is that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House. Surely the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) should restrict his remarks precisely to the motion. May I ask you, Sir, to call him back into order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I hope that the hon. Member will leave order to me ; otherwise, we might get into a muddle on this very complicated day. I realise that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) was on his preamble, but it would be helpful to the House to remind him that we are dealing with the recommittal of clause 12. Remarks should be directed to that matter, not to the whole Bill.
Column 798
Mr. Leigh : I am simply speaking on a constitutional point. I do not believe that a precedent should be set. As you will know from your great experience in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, precedents are not set every day. We are not some little banana republic where one can do what one likes and change the rules simply because someone has made a cock-up--which is what has happened with the Bill. We change the rules because we want to improve procedures.
When I was carrying out my research for my point of order last night in the Public Bill Office and Journal Office, I was told that it was not entirely unusual for precedents to be set and that a precedent had been set recently to allow a guillotine on Lords amendments. That is a major issue, and it is central to what the Government want to do. Presumably, the Government persuaded Mr. Speaker that that action was in the interests of good government and legislation. This matter is entirely different.
It is extraordinary that no one spotted this problem before. I made the effort of looking at the Committee proceedings. I thought that there would have been considerable discussion on clause 12 and that these matters might have come up. I suppose that I should have been warned, because I was here at the start of the Second Reading debate, when the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West gave a cursory speech, lasting some 15 minutes, on this highly complex measure. I can only assume that, rather than wanting to inform the House on every clause, he galloped through his speech because he thought, wrongly, that other hon. Members would want to speak at some length. I spoke for only eight minutes, and the average length of speeches that day was 15 minutes.
If the House wishes, I can refer in more detail to the speech that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West made on Second Reading. I see no mention in it of clause 12 or any evidence that he had researched adequately as someone who had been given a unique opportunity with the No. 1 spot--something for which many of us have waited many years. As a result, we are faced on a Friday morning with having to set these matters right.
Mr. John Marshall : My hon. Friend has spent a lot of time researching the Committee and Second Reading debates. How much time did the Committee spend discussing clause 12? One would have thought that there would be lengthy discussion in Committee and that this point would be raised then.
Mr. Leigh : Exactly. I thought that I would go through the Standing Committee debates and find out whether my hon. Friend the Minister had given advice, backed up by an entire team of civil servants. How many civil servants are sitting in the Box now? I can count no fewer than seven
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Member that it is not in order to refer to civil servants in the Box or in the Gallery.
Mr. Leigh : I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Some blame must attach to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West. There was only a cursory discussion of clause 12 in Standing Committee C on 14 February 1990. The hon. Gentleman moved amendment No. 82, the Chairman said that it would be convenient to take another amendment and, judging by the length of the Hansard reference, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West spoke
Column 799
for no more than two minutes. That was the end of the consideration of clause 12. I am prepared to give way to him if he can convince me that there was more discussion. Unfortunately, I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee.Was my hon. Friend the Minister a member of the Committee? Was he present on 14 February 1990? Why is his name not listed? Instead of doing his duty and warning the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West that a money resolution might be necessary--advised as my hon. Friend is by the weight of the civil service--I see no reference to his having intervened at that point. Why is there no evidence that the mind of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West was exercised on this point? We may seem to be nit-picking, although I do not think that we are. This is an important point. The matter has been dealt with before. I need not go through all the points that I raised in my point of order, but they are of some relevance. Only twice in our parliamentary history have we had such a motion. For instance, the Road Traffic Bill was presented on 18 Februry 1930 by the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Herbert Morrison, but because it was a Government Bill and because of its content, it was entirely different from the measure that we are now discussing. Let me illustrate that by quoting the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Herbert Morrison--a man whom I have always admired--
Mr. Leigh : I have always admired him.
Mr. Marshall : I am appalled that my hon. Friend should admire the late Herbert Morrison, who was the originator of many of the nasty council estates that disfigured London for so long. I am also appalled that he should recommend a course of action followed by a Government led by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. I should have thought that the fact that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was in favour of it would convince the promoter of the Bill that he should not be.
10 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that that is a long way away from the recommittal motion on clause 12.
Mr. Leigh : I want to illustrate my point by explaining that the Bill that Mr. Herbert Morrison introduced was entirely different in kind and in substance from this Bill--not only by reason of being a Government Bill but because of its size. Mr. Herbert Morrison said : "The Bill which we now introduce is a consolidating as well as an amending Bill."
I am not aware that the Consumer Guarantees Bill is a consolidation measure. Mr. Morrison continued :
"There is, I am glad to say, in the last Schedule to the Bill, much existing legislation repealed."--[ Official Report, 18 February 1930 ; Vol. 235. c. 1205.]
I am not aware that the Consumer Guarantees Bill repeals existing legislation.
This is a constitutional point, and precedent is most important, because we base all our procedures on it. But I found no precedent for this motion in connection with the Road Traffic Act 1930, so I sought inspiration from the
Column 800
proceedings on another Bill--the Mineral Workings Bill 1950--in the hope that I might find a measure on all fours with today's motion. What I found was something quite different. The then Minister of Local Government and Planning, Mr. Dalton--another famous figure in Labour party history--said :"This Bill makes financial arrangements in connection with the announcement which I made on 4th July and the Special Development Order".--[ Official Report, 9 April 1951 ; Vol. 486, c. 664.] In essence, what he said was that that Bill was about financial arrangements. In that respect it was entirely different from this Bill. The Mineral Workings Act 1951 was a major Government measure to repair damage that had been done to a number of sites because of mineral excavations. Mr. Dalton said that the places that he had visited resembled the "deserts of the moon".
I then decided to see whether, with the help of the Clerks, I could discover any further information on this matter. I am not privy to all the inner workings of the Whips' Office. I leave such matters to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who is sitting behind the Minister. I discovered an interesting letter from the Clerk, then Kenneth Bradshaw, to the then Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), on 17 January 1980. It said :
"You raised with me at the Table earlier this week the question whether motions to recommit bills fell into the category of motions which could be moved without notice and therefore required special vigilance from your point of view."
I emphasise the word "vigilance". That is why I raised my point of order : this is a constitutional matter and we should be exercising vigilance.
The letter continues :
"Since then, we have looked at every recommittal motion since 1945 to see when and in what circumstances this kind of motion has been offered without notice, and might therefore be so offered in future."
We must remember that this is a letter from a distinguished Clerk of the House. I make no criticism of the Clerks, who have always been most courteous and who have advised me in the most correct fashion. The letter continues :
"These bills are normally Government Bills, and written notice is invariably given of motions to recommit them".
I return to the point that I raised at the beginning of the debate. Was written notice given in this case? All we had in this case was the Minister slinking in at the dead of night to table the motion. A former distinguished Clerk of the House has told us, first, that motions are normally restricted to Government Bill, and, secondly, that written notice is given.
The letter continues :
"It is true that at the end of the committee stage of the controversial House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill 1979"-- some of us remember how controversial that was ; it was very different from the Bill that we are discussing today
"a motion to recommit the Bill a Committee of the whole House was accepted by the Chair and put to the vote. The circumstances were, however, unusual. The recommittal motion was offered at about 3.00 am, and the occupant of the Chair was reluctant to delay the House while the Speaker was woken up".
I want to know whether Mr. Speaker was woken up last night. Did the Minister bang on his door at 3 am and inform him of what we should be discussing today?
But let me finish my quote :
Column 801
"the occupant of the Chair was reluctant to delay the House while the Speaker was woken up to exercise his power of selection (which he alone can do). As the procedure under which the House considers a motion to recommit a bill is very brief the Chair decided to let this motion go forward. The intention of the mover was in any case known in advance, and the (then) Government Whips were kept fully informed, so that there was no question of anyone being surprised." I want to know where the Chief Whip is. And where is the Patronage Secretary? We are talking about setting a precedent, and frankly this is not good enough. We have already found out that Mr. Speaker was not woken up and there is no sign of the Patronage Secretary--just an empty green Bench and a couple of junior Whips. I am led to think that the Government are not treating the matter sufficiently seriously. I hope that, at the end of the debate, the Minister will offer us an apology and give us an explanation.The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth) : My hon. Friends have asked me a number of questions. I hope that I shall be able to catch your eye in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I may explain. Some fairly serious allegations have been made against me, but I feel that I can explain my role and that of the Government in this matter. Having said that, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will leave out references to the Patronnage Secretary, who does not have a role in the matter. I shall accept my share of responsibility in due course.
Mr. Leigh : I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
There is another member of the Government whom I should like to see present today. I do not see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but, according to my research--I may be wrong because I was advised of this by another hon. Member and I have not had an opportunity to confirm it--it is the Chief Secretary who tables such motions.
Mr. Forth : I shall refer to the matter in my remarks, but let me make it clear that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury puts his name to money resolutions. As I shall also explain, I was here last night to move the money resolution to show good faith on behalf of the Government.
| Next Section
| Home Page |