Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty)

Today’s debate essentially revolves around one question—whether the Prime Minister will keep his word and Parliament will be able to debate this treaty in any depth. As has clearly been shown by Member after Member, the Government programme for the Bill is just a parliamentary gesture and not what was promised to this House. First, we had the broken promise on the referendum, and now we have a broken promise on detailed scrutiny of this momentous Bill in this House. Ministers seem not to want to listen to anyone. The European Scrutiny Committee has reported that the treaty was negotiated in a way that could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national Parliaments. Now Ministers, through this motion, are setting out to marginalise Parliament all over again. The Government are losing the people’s trust on so many issues, so what do they do on this critical issue? They effectively ignore the public, the trade unions, their own Back Benchers tonight and the Select Committee, and plough on regardless. That is borne out by the debate. Of the 15 contributions so far, only three have supported the Government and one of those was the Minister for Europe himself. I shall return to the subject of his contribution, but I wish to comment on the other contributions we have heard. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) made another powerful contribution to the debate, as I am sure the whole House will agree. Among other things, he pointed out the absolute absurdity of attempting to debate the extremely complex provisions on criminal justice and home affairs that are embedded in the treaty in just one day. The very idea that we can debate 27 amendments on that subject in 90 minutes tomorrow evening is itself a farce. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) was representative of the frustration felt among Labour Members about the way in which this is being handled. He directly criticised the Government’s approach and he made the point that not enough time will be made available for Back Benchers’ contributions. For his own reasons, he highlighted especially the charter of fundamental rights and criticised the Government for failing to mention it in their motion—something that we attempt to rectify in our amendment. We then heard from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who surprised the House twice over—first, because he spoke for less than half an hour, and secondly, because he said that the Liberal Democrats would vote against the Government tonight. That is a welcome change with regard to this treaty. He also said, generously, that his party would support our amendment. He made the case for the importance of detailed scrutiny of the Bill, and we look forward to enjoying his support in the Lobby tonight. We then heard from the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who accused us of nitpicking over procedure. That seems to be at variance with the Prime Minister’s promise that the House would be allowed to debate the treaty line by line and in detail. I ask her and her colleagues who support the Government whether they want the House to debate the treaty in detail or not. We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who brought his considerable experience in the House to bear on the debate. He pointed out, wisely, that the Prime Minister’s pledge to put Parliament back at the centre of our national life is completely at odds with the motion before the House. He was followed by the redoubtable hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who asked a crucial question: whom does the business motion most benefit? She powerfully answered her own question—it benefits the Government, and not the House. We then heard a passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who pointed out to the Government that Parliament’s standing in the eyes of the public can only be undermined by initiatives such as the Bill, and I entirely agree. We then heard from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), who said that timing was more important than time. That is an interesting observation, given that a major leak from the Slovenian presidency today revealed that there are about 30 unanswered questions on how the treaty will work in practice; that is embarrassing timing for the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) pointed out that the motion was designed more from the point of view of news management than for the convenience of the House, and I entirely agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) gave us an historical tour d’horizon of English and British law. He memorably described the Government’s position as a fetid sludge. I have a funny feeling that we will hear from him again once or twice as the debates continue. I may be wrong, but I would encourage the House not to bet against me. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who rightly mentioned his long service in the House, and who referred to, among other things, the weaknesses in the Government’s red lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) doggedly challenged the Minister on the lack of protected time on the day when we debate the referendum, and got a concession out of him; I shall return to that point later. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made an important point that reinforced what my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, said about the severe lack of time in which to discuss the key provisions on criminal justice and home affairs. My parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), rounded off the Back Benchers’ contributions by reminding the Government of their pledge on the referendum, among other things. I now come back to the Minister’s contribution. He was courteous to take so many interventions, but despite his courtesy he completely failed to convince the House of his argument. He gave a commitment that on the day we debate the referendum, the business will be protected. That commitment was not in the Government’s motion, and we therefore welcome it. On timetabling, he said that the Government would be flexible and would look at matters almost on a daily basis. Given that we begin debating the treaty in detail tomorrow, if he really wants to be flexible on a daily basis, the best thing that he can do is withdraw the Government’s motion tonight. The Minister really got into trouble over Standing Order No. 24. After frequent interventions and points of order, it was eventually established that if the Government’s motion is passed tonight, and if an emergency occurs on a day when the House is debating the treaty of Lisbon as set down in the programme, the decision on whether to have a debate under Standing Order No. 24 will effectively rest with the Government and not with you, Mr. Speaker. That is a considerable change to our established procedures. It took a long while to wangle that from the Minister, but eventually he admitted it, and that is another reason to vote against the motion.