Margaret
Hodge: Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with the comments
made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, who
has now joined our proceedings? He
said: “We
broadly support the Bill. As it has nearly 1,000 clauses, it is
pleasing that we have to disagree with only a handful of
them.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2006; Vol. 447, c.
136.] Does the hon. Member for
Reigate disagree with that statement? If he does, perhaps he will say
where. Mr.
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): Will the Minister
give
way?
Margaret
Hodge: I cannot give way during an
intervention. If the
hon. Member for Reigate does not disagree, does he accept that the time
that we have given for consideration in Committee is sufficient? Does
he further agree that when we discussed the purpose of going with the
further consolidation of clauses into the Bill, it was at the request
of Members from all parties during consideration in the House of Lords?
Does he also agree that he appears to have changed his mind on that and
that we are talking about pure
consolidation?
Mr.
Blunt: With the greatest respect, the Minister is
confusing her roles as a parliamentary pugilist and a legislator. My
hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton was saying on Second
Reading that there are parts of the Bill with which we disagree in
principle, although they represent a narrow element. However, we have a
duty as legislators to get this Bill technically
correct. We might have
no particular arguments over principle, but the Bill contains 925
clauses and that might grow to about 1,400. Some 181 amendments and 22
new clauses had been tabled for consideration by the beginning of the
sitting, many of which are technical and based on
advice. My hon. Friend
the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who appears to want
to intervene, is leading for the Conservatives on the substance of the
Bill and is being advised by a large number of experts in the City
whose profession we are dealing with. This is their opportunity to have
arguments tested in public debate in a Committee of the House of
Commons and to convince the Minister of the merits of those largely
technical arguments and of the technical changes that will come about
during our proceedings. Those proceedings are being curtailed, which
reduces our opportunity to achieve that objective as
legislators.
Mr.
Djanogly: The Minister said that my hon. Friend the Member
for Rutland and Melton mentioned that we agree with all but a handful
of clauses. That is correct, but the Minister is being disingenuous in
so far as that does not mean that we do not want to amend many of the
clauses with which we agree. If she examines the selection list, which
is sitting in front of her, she will see that we have tabled more than
100 amendments to the first 100
clauses.
Mr.
Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I am yet
to mention the number of Government amendments that have been tabled.
We are doing precisely the job that the Government are doing: taking
the opportunity of consideration in Committee to make changes to the
Bill. We are in
receipt of advice, as the Minister and her colleagues in the Department
are, and we are trying to improve the legislation. We have the
opportunity to take longer to do that and to produce a better Bill, but
the Government are not giving us the opportunity under this
motion.
Margaret
Hodge: Perhaps it would be helpful if I simply said that
many Government amendments arise from issues that were debated in
another place. In some cases, we gave undertakings to revisit the
wording of particular clauses, which is what we are doing now, so we
are meeting them. In others, the amendments are consequential and arise
from issues that, again, were discussed in another place. Tidying up
needs to be done throughout the Bill. That is from where most
Government amendments originate. During the sitting, I shall do a
calculation on
those. A large number
of the amendments tabled for consideration have already been fully
discussed in another place. They are technical, not of substance. A
technical response was given by us in another place and does not need
necessarily to be given again today, although I shall do so if that is
required. If the Opposition are concerned that there is insufficient
time for proper consideration of issues that are important to them in
getting the legislation right, they ought to focus their amendments on
those
matters. 10.15
am
Mr.
Blunt: Sitting underneath the assumptions of that
argument, there is a rather dreadful arrogance about the role of the
House of Commons and the duty of the Committee. It is not only the duty
of the Government to come forward. Otherwise, why are we
here? Is
no one here expected to do anything or to make any contribution to the
legislative process? I regret to say that that is the way that the
Government have treated the House of Commons. Programming is a classic
example of that, curtailing as it does the ability of the House of
Commons to produce better legislation. A careful selection has been
made of hon. Members to sit on our side of the Committee, who are able
to make a contribution because of their experience.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), due to her accountancy
experience, will be invited to speak for Her Majesty’s
Opposition from the Front Bench on those sections that relate to
accountancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford
(Mr. Davies) is an experienced company director who can speak with
authority on those elements of the Bill. My hon. Friends the Members
for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and for North-West
Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) are solicitors with considerable
experience in corporate law. We have put on the Committee people with
the ability to make a
contribution. My hon.
Friends the Members for Huntingdon and for Hornchurch (James
Brokenshire) have been in receipt of a considerable amount of
professional advice in their preparation for leading for Her
Majesty’s Opposition on the Bill. That has been technical, with
a team of more than 30 solicitors being brought in to advise them.
Similarly sized teams were advising my noble Friends in the other
place. We are taking
our duties seriously in trying to produce the best legislation so as to
enable the wealth creation of the UK not to be prejudiced by us getting
it wrong in the House of Commons. By tabling the programme motion and
insisting on the timetable of ending consideration on 13 July, the
Government are not enabling the House to do its job. That is why we
will oppose the motion and invite the Government to think again to give
them the time to propose consolidation measures in good order over the
summer. The process can take place in
October. Mr.
Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): Thank you
for calling me, Mr. Illsley, and I welcome you to the Committee as
Chairman. I want to
comment briefly on the Minister’s remarks. While I am sure that
my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton will be delighted that
he is being quoted so freely in Committee, the Minister mentioned that
he had said that we disagree with only a few clauses. However, she must
appreciate that the Bill’s purpose is to minimise litigation and
maximise efficacy for the practising of company
law. The Minister
should appreciate that even one word, if not properly considered, could
lead to litigation costing hundreds of millions of pounds. It is
disingenuous to dismiss the argument by referring to our disagreement
with only a handful of clauses when one word alone, if not properly
thought through, could make life miserable and lucrative for lawyers,
but not for business
people.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Vera
Baird): First, I deplore the use of the word
“disingenuous”, which has been used twice about my right
hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions. It ought not to
be used. It has been used by the hon. Gentleman—I am grateful to
him for giving way—and by the hon. Member for Huntingdon. It is
not necessary to use language of that kind. It is not correct to use it
either. My right hon.
Friend has made it clear that in her view the Opposition are repeating,
tediously and unnecessarily, technical amendments that have already
been considered in the Lords and dealt with, and which met with huge
agreement from the Government. If that is the case, what are the
Opposition playing
at?
Mr.
Vara: May I clarify the purpose? Many submissions have
been made by outside bodies—the
Law Society was referred to with reverence—and another place has
considered the amendments in detail, but the Committee is responsible
for the final
decision. There is an
unhealthy presumption—if I may say so, Sir—that
everything that has been submitted by everyone else is to be taken as
read and that this is simply to be an exercise in submitting
things.
Margaret
Hodge: I have just made a calculation that will interest
the Committee. Two thirds of the Opposition amendments tabled for part
2—I shall come back with calculations on the other
parts—are identical or very similar to those that were discussed
in huge detail in another place. The hon. Gentleman suggests that
somehow all the stakeholders and experts whom we have consulted since
1998 in formulating the clauses have suddenly appeared on the scene in
the past week when Opposition Members in the House of Commons started
to take an interest in the Bill. That is simply
wrong. This has been
an incredibly inclusive process, and there has been much consensus
among all the experts who have an interest in the Bill. Are Opposition
Members sincerely concerned with improving the Bill? We are sitting
here at 10.21, after almost two thirds of this morning’s
sitting, discussing process, not content. That does not appear to me to
be the best
way—
Mr.
Vara: Intervention or
speech?
Margaret
Hodge: No. This does not appear to me to be the best way
to use parliamentary time, which is always
precious.
Mr.
Vara: I am most grateful to the Minister for reminding us
that so many outside bodies have contributed to the Bill. Indeed, it is
because of that that the Government have regularly changed their mind,
clause by clause. It is ironic that the Government, who feel that they
have a right to change their mind, are not willing to give Her
Majesty’s Opposition time properly to consider the outside views
and make their contribution.
I conclude simply by saying
that the Minister rightly commented that we have not been able to make
progress, but that is no fault of ours. Perhaps if there were less
arrogance on the Government side in
assuming that there would be total co-operation from those on the
Opposition Benches—that would be a dereliction of our
duty—and perhaps if some Labour Members took the Bill seriously
and took the trouble to attend the Committee, we might not be in the
difficulty to which she
refers. Lorely
Burt (Solihull) (LD): May I register the disappointment of
my party over the lack of change to the programme motion? The irony has
not been lost on the Liberal Democrats that the nominal change to the
deadline—one hour—happens to be exactly the time that we
are spending on reorganising the programme motion. The Government say
that they will be conciliatory, but it does not feel that way on this
side of the
Committee.
Margaret
Hodge: Will the hon. Lady give
way?
Mr.
Vara: Not for
speeches.
Margaret
Hodge: Certainly not for speeches. I am somewhat surprised
by the hon. Lady’s intervention, because at the conciliatory
original meeting about programming, she agreed with the Government on
the motion that we put before the
Committee.
Lorely
Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for her elucidation,
but the Bill has been more than seven years in the preparation. When an
opportunity manifested itself to implement the suggestion of my hon.
Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton to increase the time for
discussion by four days, given seven years of preparation and the
enormous amount of time that has already been taken up in another
place, that did not seem to be too much to ask of the Government, who
said that they would try to accommodate
us. Kitty
Ussher (Burnley) (Lab): If that is the case, why did the
hon. Lady vote for the Government’s programme
motion?
The
Chairman: Order. The Committee has no agreement on when it
will sit next. Using my powers as Chairman and in accordance with
precedent, I call the Committee to meet next at 10 o’clock on
Tuesday 20 June. It
being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till Tuesday 20 June at Ten
o’clock.
| 
