Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

I am really disappointed in my constituency neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice). I should have thought that she would know better than to treat the House in this contemptuous way. We have become used to Ministers assuming that these so-called programme motions—or guillotines, as we used to call them—will be quietly nodded through and that they need give no explanation to the House as to why they have been tabled. I shall have to have a word with the Minister about this afterwards, because our neighbourliness could come under severe strain. The motion reveals all about the philosophy behind programme motions. Let us look back at the original programme motion of 13 December, which is referred to in the motion that we are now considering. I will assume, in a generous spirit—which, of course, is typical of me—that the Government had envisaged that this debate would take place on a Thursday, so I shall cast my remarks in terms of Thursday business, although I could range more widely than that. I could, but probably will not—I say ““probably””—pursue an analysis of how Monday’s, Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s business might have been affected as well. For the sake of brevity, however, I will limit myself to Thursday’s business. The original motion assumed that Report stage would end one hour before the moment of interruption, which implied that on a Thursday, Report stage would last until 5 pm and the Third Reading debate would last from then until 6 pm. Question Time would run from 10.30 am until 11.30 am, and let us assume for the sake of argument that business questions would run from then until 12.15 pm or thereabouts. According to my calculation, that would have allowed some four and three quarter hours for the Report stage. At the time when the programme is originally envisaged, we have no means of knowing what will transpire in Committee. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has said that the Committee stage was amicable, and that the Opposition seemed to be giving the Government their full support, something that happens all too frequently nowadays. Let us assume that this is one of those ghastly non-controversial consensual measures to which we all sign up without too much debate—but the Government did not necessarily know that at the time. The problem with these programme motions is that when they are drawn up, the Government have no regard to what might happen in Committee or, indeed, on Report. So the Government allowed four and three quarter hours for the Report stage, still not knowing what might transpire. It might be said that that would have been bad enough. Who knows how many amendments might have been tabled on Report by Members who had not served on the Standing Committee, and for whom the Report stage provides an opportunity to contribute? The Government, however, swept all that aside. They said, ““We, the Government, will generously allow you, the House of Commons, a whole four and three quarter hours in which to deliberate on Report.”” Several hundred Members, potentially—there are several hundred Members who are not in the Government—would have had four and three quarter hours in which to consider all the changes that they might wish to make on Report. That was then. This is now. Now, the Minister has the gall to present us with the motion that is before us, and to say, ““Never mind all that. It has all changed now. We are going to make an even more draconian assumption: that the House will require even less time in which to discuss the Bill””—and, as I shall make clear in a moment, it is a substantial Bill. We began our debate on this programme motion at 1.36 pm. The Government are now saying that we have a total of three hours in which to consider all the remaining stages of the Bill. Potentially, one hour of that time will be taken up by this part of our deliberations—45 minutes for the debate on the programme motion plus a Division at the end. I now give warning that unless the Minister can persuade me more than she has so far that the motion has any merit at all, I shall seek to divide the House on it, because it is a disgrace.