Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) ((No. 3) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Leader of the House

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) ((No. 3)

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts
Monday 18th March 2013

(11 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elfyn Llwyd Portrait Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
- Hansard - -

I appreciate everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).

When the Leader of the House made an announcement last week about rescheduling the business for today, naively, given my 21 years’ experience, I presumed that a good part of the crime and courts work would be taken elsewhere. For the past few months, we have been treading water. There have been many Opposition days and Back-Bench business days flying around. That is not a bad thing and I am not running those things down, but there has been plenty of slack in the system and there remains slack in the system. The hon. Member for Kettering has identified two opportunities in the past couple of minutes.

What are we dealing with at the moment? An Executive who are treating this place with contempt. Earlier, we were all back-slapping and grinning, and saying that we were doing something about Leveson and getting stuck into doing something for the public. The public should know that conscientious parliamentarians, such as those who have spoken today, are being denied the opportunity to scrutinise important legislation, such as provisions on the all-important European arrest warrant, exceptions to automatic deportation and provisions to deal with vulnerable witnesses. As a lawyer, I find it abhorrent that we are not able to discuss provisions that deal with vulnerable witnesses.

David Winnick Portrait Mr Winnick
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Leader of the House said that there would be other opportunities to discuss those issues. Would it not be useful, arising from the strong representations and speeches that have been made from both sides of the House on the right of Parliament to debate such issues, if the Leader of the House indicated when we will be able to discuss such issues if he is not willing to agree to the amendment?

Elfyn Llwyd Portrait Mr Llwyd
- Hansard - -

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, with which I agree fully.

The Executive are overriding completely the will of this place. The matters that we are not able to discuss are not minor ones; they are vital matters that concern people out there. They are not matters for the twittering classes of Westminster alone; they are vital matters that affect ordinary citizens up and down the UK. For example, we are dealing with automatic deportation and ensuring convention rights. We cannot be expected to run through such vital issues in a matter of minutes. I find the whole thing utterly unacceptable.

I was in Parliament in 1992 when the then Conservative Government thought better of such practices and provided time for debates to take place. Very rarely were debates truncated in this way. It is utterly unacceptable and I am sure that people outside this place will see that. We took a step forward this afternoon, but we are taking a major step back this evening.

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call Mark Garnier—or even Edward.