Philip Davies
Main Page: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend makes a good point—of course he is a signatory to amendment 58 and he made the same point in Committee. This is about not only collecting evidence, but evaluating that evidence using the relevant criteria, including those to which he refers. That is probably one reason why he has misgivings about aspects of this Bill, as do a number of other hon. Members.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
As my amendment was mentioned, I am anxious to ensure that it is not misrepresented. Does my hon. Friend agree that it does not say that the concerns of those faith groups should take precedence over everybody else’s view? The amendment merely asks that regard be given to their concerns when a decision is taken.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
Amendment 3 stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset and I look forward to hearing his speech in support of it. The amendment proposes to leave out clause 2, and I may well share the scepticism of my hon. Friends who have supported that amendment, because they obviously feel that the Bill would be better if it made no reference to what is described as the “Independent Oversight Group”.
One thing seems to be absolutely clear: this so-called “Independent Oversight Group” will not be independent of the Government. Its members will be chosen by the Secretary of State, who will be able to remove them on a whim, and subsection (3) provides that they will not even be entitled to have all their expenses defrayed, because instead of using the word “must” the Bill refers only to “may” in this regard. They will not be allowed to choose their own terms of reference and they will have to do as they are told by the Secretary of State, even to the extent that he will be able to order them not to publish their advice quickly. They might produce their report quickly, but the clause means that the Secretary of State will be able to say to them that they should not produce the report based on their findings until a given time, perhaps closer to a year or 18 months after they had been asked to start their work. So I can understand the scepticism.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and I have tabled the more modest amendment 63, which would require the independent group to be comprised of “independent academic experts”. We did so not because we believed that a group of independent academics is necessarily best suited to this task, but because the Minister promised in Committee that the group would be so limited and the amendment would prevent him from changing his mind later. The amendment would also provide the opportunity to probe him further as to how and why he believes that independent academic experts are the best people to advise on a report on the potential costs and benefits.
I have been campaigning for a long time for the Government to carry out work and produce a comprehensive report on the costs and benefits of UK membership of the European Union. I find it interesting that although the Government resolutely refuse to do that, they are prepared to contemplate such an inquiry into the costs and benefits of changing the time zones within this country.
Mr Chope
I am much more in favour of harmony than harmonisation, particularly on the European Union.
Amendment 22, which again stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, states:
“Membership of the Group must be ratified by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
It introduces a modest safeguard to try to ensure that the group is truly independent. What could be wrong with this House having an opportunity to ratify the membership of the group or to table amendments to remove individual members from or add them to it?
Philip Davies
Given the slightly different tack that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and I have taken in our amendments, does my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) feel that if my amendment were accepted, the necessary safeguards would be in place and he would then be happy for the independent oversight group to take shape?
Mr Chope
It would go some way to addressing the problem, but what the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset bears out is that there is a certain amount of scepticism about whether the “Independent Oversight Group” will actually be independent. Giving this House the opportunity to ratify the membership or otherwise might obviously provide some safeguard, but this is not my preferred approach. If amendment 22 was, however, incorporated in the Bill, a Select Committee could perhaps try to get involved in the process and interview the people who were going to be cited on the Order Paper as appointments needing ratification by this House.
Philip Davies
But if we accepted amendments that made this group genuinely independent, surely that would be better than having no independent oversight group at all.
Mr Chope
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about that.
Amendment 64 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Gainsborough. It proposes to omit subsection (4) from clause 2—this is the subsection that, above all, constrains the activities of the so-called “Independent Oversight Group”. From the Government’s perspective, the group can be independent, provided that it does as the Government say—I shall try to illustrate that with two specific examples. Under this subsection, the Secretary of State could prevent the group from examining separately the issues of whether to have experiments advancing the clocks by one hour: in the summer alone, in the winter alone, or across the whole year. Why do the Government insist on holding the whip hand? Another example of what could happen unless subsection (4) is removed is that the Government could prevent the publication of any minority report from the group. They could suppress dissent, because although the group might contain people who took a different view from the majority, the Government would be able to use their powers to say, “You are not allowed to produce a minority report.”
Mr Chope
I should have anticipated my hon. Friend’s intervention; I am sure that the Government would wish to receive representations and would be very sympathetic towards representations along those lines. Let us hope that that is so. As somebody who spent quite a lot of my late childhood in Cornwall, I think it would also be useful to have a representative from England who came from the far south-west, as the circumstances there are rather different from those in what might be described as the soft south-east. I do not know what, if anything, the Government have against the amendment. I know that in Committee it was proposed that the independent panel should have three experts from each of the four nations comprising the United Kingdom. This amendment is modest in comparison, but it introduces a worthwhile safeguard to ensure that any report is fully informed by the perspective of all parts of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 95, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley, for Hendon (Mr Offord) and for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) and others, addresses the same issue as amendment 58 in slightly different language. The amendment talks about the impact and effect on the practices of the mainstream faith groups in the United Kingdom. It is a very sensible amendment although, as with amendment 58, if my amendment 59 were agreed, it would be redundant.
Amendment 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, me and my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Gainsborough, would leave out clause 3(2). Clause 3(1) requires the Secretary of State to publish the report of the independent oversight group within one year of Royal Assent, but subsection (2) gives the group a possible additional six months. Why? Why do they need an additional six months? If amendment 59 were accepted, the group would have less work to do but, in any event, surely one year is long enough for its work. If the group's members know that they have a chance of extending their work by another six months, they might be tempted to do so, but they should get down to the work they are being asked to do. In this country, we have a tendency to delay and delay and to think that that is a solution to our problems. As I said earlier, last weekend I was in Kazakhstan, where they have built a new city of 800,000 people in less than 15 years. If they can do that in 15 years, why will it take more than a year for this group to consider such a modest issue? We tolerate delay to far too great an extent and if we want to get on with this, we should get on with it—I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, who is promoting the Bill, would agree—for better or for worse. We should not, however, use the delaying tactic.
That brings me to amendment 25. I am rushing through these amendments, but I think it is important to address them. Sometimes, the people who are impatient to take the debate forward try to move a closure motion, which means that Members with amendments in the lead group do not have a chance to speak about them before there is an attempt to curtail such debate by using the procedures of the House. What I am doing by going through these amendments seriatim is giving those who tabled them the opportunity to expand on them if they so wish. In any event, I am ensuring that the full nature and extent of the amendments is officially on the record so that if the Bill goes to the other place for debate, those who pick up these issues there will be able to look at the report of today’s proceedings and decide which, if any, of the amendments find favour with them.
Amendment 25 would leave out “18” and insert “24” in line 14 of subsection 2(b). This is the only one of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley with which I do not agree. I think it contradicts absolutely amendment 5, which he has also signed.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right that it does, but the time scale for the independent oversight group surely depends on its terms of reference. The amendment was tabled in case the terms of reference were extended in the way I have requested, considering the impact on other faith groups, and the way the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned, considering energy consumption. If those amendments were accepted, the group would need longer to consider those issues, but if they were not accepted, the shorter period of time that my hon. Friend mentioned earlier would be more than acceptable.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining the thinking behind amendment 25.
On the amendments relating to clause 4, amendment 60, is consequential on amendment 59. Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order advancing the time in the United Kingdom throughout the year by one hour. Following on from my lead amendment 59, amendment 60 would restrict that power to advancing summer time alone by one hour.
Amendment 67, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Gainsborough, would change the name of such an order from a “daylight saving” order to a “summertime extension” order. That wording would promote both accuracy and transparency. Frankly, I object strongly to the expression “daylight saving” because it is against nature to be able to save daylight. I think the Bill’s promoter is effectively committing daylight robbery of the English language in using that expression.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am very interested by what the hon. Gentleman says, but if it were simply a case of looking for the evidence, the Government could do that anyway. The Government produce Green Papers, White Papers and discussion documents, and set up inquiries that publish reports. If every one of those required a private Member’s Bill to be passed by the House, we would be saved a large number of inquiries.
Philip Davies
If the Bill is not anti-Scottish and if people are happy with it, there will be no problem with ensuring that the oversight group contains members from all four parts of the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) is right, the amendment should be accepted by all Members, regardless of whether they support the Bill?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
That is an excellent point. I hope that it was heard by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), because she is one of the wisest Members in the House, and has handled the Bill with so much charm that she almost persuaded me to support it. Perhaps she and the Bill’s sponsors will accept amendment 23.
Mr Reid
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He makes the important point that the debate on the amendment is not about the substance of the Bill, but about whose consent should be required for it. I hope that hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom will support the amendment. Wherever an hon. Member comes from, I hope they will agree that a measure like this, which will have different effects on different parts of the UK, is so important that it should go forward only if it has the support of every part of the UK.
Philip Davies
I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. As he knows, I have tabled similar amendments, which I hope to be able to discuss. Will he explain why it is so important to him that Parliament as a whole—the Scottish Parliament as a whole, the Welsh Assembly as a whole—rather than the First Minister should be specified? The Bill in its present form seeks the agreement only of the First Minister in Northern Ireland, so why does the hon. Gentleman think the arrangements should be different for Scotland and Wales?
Mr Reid
I am grateful, because the hon. Gentleman raises an important subject. When my party was in opposition, I was a spokesperson on Northern Ireland for a few years. I am far from an expert on the Northern Ireland constitution, but one important element to remember is that what is called cross-community voting applies to passing motions or resolutions in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That means that a resolution has to be supported by a majority of both Unionists and nationalists. I was not expert enough on the workings of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Standing Orders to draft an amendment that would cover the cross-community voting, but the Government amendment added to the Bill in Committee requiring the consent of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland means, in effect, that a majority of Unionists and of nationalists must support the Bill for it to go through. Both the First Minister, Peter Robinson, and the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, have been given a veto, so even if the Bill is passed by this Parliament, I am far from convinced that it would go any further, as it is odds on that one of those gentlemen would use his veto.
Philip Davies
The Ministers says that he is determined that this will not go ahead without the agreement of people in Scotland and Wales, as well as Northern Ireland, so why will he not accept that being made clear in the Bill? If that is his intention, he has nothing to lose from making it clear in the Bill. He might be prepared to seek their agreement, but he might move onwards and upwards in the future, leaving someone else in his position, so we need a safeguard to ensure that his successors will adopt the same procedure.
Dr Whiteford
That is right, and I agree.
I will conclude my remarks, because I know that other people want to speak. Ultimately, it is a quality of life issue. One thing that struck me after the last debate on the Bill was that a huge number of people from England, mostly older people who remember the last trial, got in touch with me by letter, phone or e-mail. They all said the same thing: “This was a disaster when they did it in the ’70s.” They found it miserable getting up, going to work and delivering things in the dark. People who remember it did not like it. Ultimately, that has to be our arbiter: is this going to be helpful for our quality of life? I know that it is going to impact more on my part of the world than some other parts of these islands. For the sake of our health and well-being, we need to think carefully before messing around with something that might not need to be changed.
Philip Davies
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on getting her private Member’s Bill this far. She has certainly got much further than I have with any of mine. I think mine got no further than being heavily defeated on Second Reading—largely by my hon. Friends! I also commend my hon. Friend for the way in which she has conducted herself, always remaining in good humour. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I think she has great charm; I thought that she was charming only me, so I was disappointed to find out that she had charmed my hon. Friend as well!
I shall speak to the amendments I have tabled in this group, starting with amendment 30, which gets to the nub of the issue. It is similar to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), who wanted to ensure that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly agreed to any trial before it went ahead. My amendment would achieve something similar, but it relates to subsection (4) rather than subsection (3).
As the provision is drafted, we have the curious position whereby we have to
“obtain the agreement of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland”—
something I wholeheartedly support—
yet only
“consult the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers.”
I have heard the debate and heard the assurances both from the Minister and from my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point that, as far as they are concerned, no trial will go ahead if there is opposition from Scotland, Wales or other parts of the United Kingdom. That is fine: I accept those assurances and I accept their intention. What we have to deal with, however, is what is in the Bill before us, and notwithstanding all the good intentions, that is not what the Bill says.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We are supposed to be debating the amendment tabled by Mr Philip Davies, which has nothing to do with the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make.
Philip Davies
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will press on, as I am sure you and others would wish me to do.
If the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and the Minister is to get agreement from Scotland and Wales before a trial goes ahead, I fail to see any possible objection to making that clear in the Bill. The Minister said that he had made progress with the Bill in a way that maximised consensus. As far as I can see, consensus can win out. All it needs is for my hon. Friend and the Minister to say that they will accept my amendment so that
“agreement from the Scottish First Minister and the First Minister of Wales”
is obtained before a trial goes ahead. At that point, I can sit down and allow the Bill to progress. I see no reason why this should be a stumbling block, given that my amendment proposes the intention of my hon. Friend and the Minister in any case.
Mr Tom Harris
The Bill is carefully worded so as to respect the devolution settlement. Responsibility for changing the hours is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it is not devolved to the Scottish Parliament and every piece of legislation that comes before this House must respect the Scotland Act 1998. As a pro-devolutionist, I firmly believe that, but the SNP wants to undermine devolution because it opposes it. The hon. Gentleman should be careful about aligning himself with the separatists.
Philip Davies
I have drawn exactly the opposite conclusion. What the hon. Gentleman says may be true in terms of the niceties of the legislation, but I understand that, like me, he wants to preserve the United Kingdom, and giving an additional safeguard to people in Scotland and in Wales is a much better way of safeguarding the UK than trying to railroad something through against the wishes of those people and using some legal nicety to try to justify that action. That is not a sensible approach.
Mark Lazarowicz
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on this point. It is not separatists who say that they want to give more powers within the existing devolution settlement to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and therefore I hope that his amendment is successful.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, and I am pleased that he accepts that I am trying to entrench the Union and make people in Scotland and Wales feel more part of it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I just wondered whether my hon. Friend had noticed the time on the clock, because had the Bill already come into force, the debate would by now have ended.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation.
My amendment 35 deals with the length of the trial period, which the Bill proposes should be three years. I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made earlier about a city in Kazakhstan that had been built in 15 years; we seem to need three years to conduct this trial but I do not see why it needs to last that long. His amendment 85, in this group, recommends reducing the period to two years, which I would welcome. However, my amendment 35 urges the promoter of the Bill to reduce the trial period to just one year, because we can get a perfectly good flavour of what is going to happen in that time. Of course there would then be the opportunity, if everyone so wished, to carry out another trial beyond that period. I do not see why we should be boxed into having a three-year trial, as that is totally unnecessary.
My amendment 38 deals with the monitoring of the effect of the order. Clause 6, to which my amendment relates, provides for a situation in which the Secretary of State monitors the effect of the order “throughout the period” and then lectures all the parts of the United Kingdom—the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—on his conclusions and, therefore, what he thinks should happen. My amendment merely asks that reports are also sought from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, so that they can equally make it clear what their report on the trial is. Rather than just having the Secretary of State laying down the law, it is only fair that we let those parts of the United Kingdom not only have their say but be seen to have their say, which is not the case at the moment.
Amendment 40 would delete clause 8, which relates to the power to increase the length of the trial period. I think that a trial period of three years is on the excessive side, so I obviously find it nonsensical to have a clause that then gives a power to extend the trial period. The period is already too long, so we should delete any clause that gives a power to increase it; we really should be able to make a decision after three years.
I repeat that I am most concerned about amendment 30, but I am aware that amendment 40 may not be accepted—I do not know whether it will be or not. If it is not accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and the Minister, two further amendments I have tabled—amendments 42 and 43—would provide the House with an alternative. Basically, before an order is made to extend the trial we should either gain agreement from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—along the lines of the amendment promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute—or we should obtain agreement from the First Minister in Scotland, the First Minister in Wales and the First Minister in Northern Ireland, whichever option the House prefers. It seems to me that if we want to obtain the agreement of the Scottish Government or Ministers or the Welsh Government or Ministers before we start a trial, and if we want a clause that gives the power to increase the length of the trial, we must go through the same process to ensure that we are not railroading something through against the wishes of those people.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute was satisfied by the Minister’s response on amendment 13.
Philip Davies
He is a much more generous man than I am, and I am sure that he has taken the Minister’s word at face value. I would be the first to accept that I am more cynical. I have seen evidence of Ministers saying one thing with the best intentions in the world and then it did not quite turn out that way. I heard Ministers say that they were going to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but when it came to it they did not. I do not want just to rely on the word of the Minister, although I accept the good faith in which he made his point. He might move on to pastures new, however, and the Bill does not mention the Government’s view. It says what the Secretary of State will do, not the Government. The Minister might well be expressing the intention of the current Secretary of State, but before we get to any trial we might have a different Secretary of State who holds a different view and comes from a different party.
Mr Reid
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. For the avoidance of doubt, I want to put it on the record that I am delighted to accept the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister gave. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is concerned that this might not apply to a future Secretary of State, but my hon. Friend the Minister gave his assurances on behalf of the Government, so they apply to any future Minister in the Government.
Philip Davies
That is very helpful. I feared that my hon. Friend was going in that direction, so I would certainly wish to press amendment 30 to a vote as it encapsulates the flavour of the lead amendment and would make that requirement clear in the Bill.
The Bill says that the Secretary of State
“must consult the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers.”
That is slightly ambiguous, and I hope the Minister will confirm that the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers are the Ministers in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament and not the Ministers in the Scotland Office and the Wales Office. It would be perverse if the Secretary of State was consulting another Secretary of State to get something through that the Government wanted. I hope that the Government would be consulting a different body—the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly—but that is not entirely clear from the Bill or from the glossary of terms at the back of it.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman’s remark about the European Union reminded me of how things change in politics. I can remember in the last Parliament the Liberal Democrats walking out of the Chamber on the question of an in/out referendum. Now, the people who led that have found themselves in government and things have changed. Things could change again, which is why we need guarantees rather than intentions. We need the goalposts to be fixed so that we know exactly where we all stand.
Philip Davies
I agree and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman clearly supports my amendment. Our job in this House is to ensure that we have proper safeguards in place, based not on wishy-washy assurances but on provisions on the face of the Bill. We do not want to find that when we have passed something we have been sold a pup on an issue that is too important to the future of the United Kingdom for a decision to be based merely on assurances. I do not want to go on as I do not want to test the patience of the House or of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point because she has conducted herself so well and I do not want to scupper the chances of our debating the next group of amendments. On that basis, I shall leave my comments there, but I want to make it clear that if the my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute withdraws his amendment I would like to pursue my amendment 30, which is the second amendment in this group.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36), but the Deputy Speaker withheld his assent and declined to put that Question.
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My view is that we should not be told what to do on any matter by the European Union. I have a very clear view on such matters. Many people in this country are not aware of the existence of the directive or of its effect. It is another example of the way in which the tentacles of the European Union extend into areas of life into which many people do not realise they extend.
There will be difficulty in ever achieving the aims of amendments 16 or 17, but in any event I think we should stick to the existing arrangement for changing the clocks in March and October, despite the fact that that it means that my birthday is fairly often affected by the change in the clocks in the springtime when, as I think is the case this year, we jump on one hour and I lose an hour of my birthday.
It has been suggested that amendment 38 would result in extra costs being incurred. I am not so sure that it would. I strongly support the amendment. All it calls for are reports from the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They could simply write a brief letter saying, “Yes, we have considered the matter and everything is in order. There is no need to consult us any further.” Amendment 38 is sound and it would be sensible for it to receive the support of the House and be included in the Bill.
I oppose amendment 40. As I said about clause 5, in view of the importance of the matter, it makes sense to have a trial period of an appropriate length. If an increase in the length of the trial period is necessary, so be it. Let us have that increase.
Philip Davies
That is a perfectly respectable view for my hon. Friend to hold, although I might disagree. The question is about the basis on which we decide that we need a further period of trial. We seem to be leaving it to the Government and the Secretary of State to decide. We surely cannot have that, or the trial will be extended endlessly, which surreptitiously makes it a permanent fixture.
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I notice that clause 8(4) states:
“An order under this section is subject to affirmative resolution procedure”,
so there would be some democratic oversight of the use of the power, which most people would find satisfactory.
Those are my thoughts and that is how I will be voting.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 73, page 4, line 6, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment 74, page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 75, page 4, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 46, page 4, line 12, leave out ‘negative’ and insert ‘the affirmative’.
Amendment 48, page 4, line 23, leave out clause 11.
Amendment 9, in clause 11, page 4, line 24, leave out ‘during’ and insert
‘up to three years after’.
Amendment 20, page 4, line 28, after ‘Ireland’, insert
‘the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers’.
Amendment 21, page 4, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment 51, page 4, line 29, leave out from ‘must’ to end and insert
‘obtain agreement from the Scottish First Minister and the First Minister of Wales.’.
Amendment 15, page 4, line 29, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section unless resolutions supporting the order have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.’.
Philip Davies
I will try again with this group to persuade my hon. Friends of the merits of the amendments, the purpose of which is not to damage the Bill or prevent it from progressing, but to strengthen it. Lest anyone be in any doubt, some of the amendments in this group are similar to amendments in the previous group. I should make it clear that, as with the previous amendment that we have just voted on, if any of my amendments in this group were accepted at this late stage, I would be happy to support the Bill enthusiastically, because my amendments would, without doubt, strengthen the Bill. However, we have to deal with the Bill as it is and not base our decisions on the assurances that we have received from the Minister.
Amendment 44 would delete clause 9(1)(b). The clause relates to the end of the trial, and I have to say in passing that there seems to be a slight contradiction in the wording of the Bill—it may well just be a legalistic point. The clause is entitled “The end of the trial”, but the first sentence beneath the title states:
“The Secretary of State must, during the trial period, do one of the following”.
I was slightly confused about that, because it seems to give the Secretary of State the power to do one of the things listed at any point in the trial period, not just at the end as suggested by the clause title. Perhaps the Minister might be able to explain why that is the case.
Clause 9(1) states that the Secretary of State must do one of the things listed. The first is to make an order to abandon the trial—that makes sense. The second, in paragraph (b), is to make an order during the trial period to advance the time by one hour permanently. Given that the Bill regrettably does not contain the safeguards that I and other hon. Members sought in the previous group of amendments, I wish through amendment 44 to prevent the Secretary of State from making such an order. I do not believe that is appropriate without the safeguards that we have discussed previously, which I will discuss again under this group of amendments.
Amendment 46 relates to clause 9(3), which states:
“An order under subsection (2) is subject to negative resolution procedure.”
All the way through the Bill I have been pleased to see that each provision is subject to the affirmative procedure, but clause 9 appears to me to be the only part of the Bill that is subject to the negative procedure. The amendment is merely intended to change that to the affirmative procedure, which is standard in the rest of the Bill. Given that that procedure has been happily accepted in all other parts of the Bill, I would like to think that the House would be very happy to see it applied to clause 9 too.
The other amendments in this group that relate to clause 9 are amendments 73 to 75, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I am sure that we all look forward to him speaking at great length about why he introduced them. It seems to me—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—that amendment 73 would simply delete clause 9(1)(c). He may well be able to explain why he felt that was so important.
Amendment 74 would delete clause 9(2). I must say that as ever, my hon. Friend was far more alert than me in seeking to do so. It appears to give the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers without any great safeguards. I suspect that is why he has sought to delete that subsection, but of course he may well have had better reasons than that. I am sure he will be able to tell us what they were.
Amendment 75 would delete clause 9(3), which is the subsection setting out that the clause is subject to the negative resolution procedure. My hon. Friend may well have wanted it deleted because he, too, was unhappy with that. I would like to think that my amendment 46 would make his amendment 75 redundant.
Mr Chope
I hope to have the chance to address my amendments, but I will say now that the reason for amendment 75 is that it is consequential on my amendment 74. If amendment 74 succeeded and subsection (2) were left out, there would not be any need for the provisions of subsection (3).
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am pleased that he has cleared that up.
I am afraid that, through no fault of my own, time is pressing, so we do not have much time to go through these amendments or give them the kind of scrutiny that they deserve—but I shall press on. Amendment 48 would delete clause 11, which gives the Secretary of State the power permanently to advance the time by one hour. I seek to delete the clause partly for the reason that I gave earlier. Given that the amendments in the previous group were not accepted, we should not be giving the Secretary of State this power based on a trial period that I do not think has adequate safeguards built into it. To be helpful, however, I tabled amendment 51 to get around that problem. If it were accepted by the Minister and the promoter of the Bill, I would be satisfied and perfectly happy to support the Bill, because it would provide adequate safeguards.
That touches on amendment 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), which is similar to his amendment 13 in the previous group. Amendment 51, too, relates to the power to advance time by one hour permanently and not just for the trial period. If we are to do it permanently, it is not only important to obtain the agreement of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland but essential to obtain the agreement of the Scottish and Welsh First Ministers. To go ahead with a permanent time change without obtaining the agreement of the First Ministers would fatally undermine the future of the United Kingdom. We cannot be seen to railroad the people of Scotland and Wales into something that might be against their wishes and hope that the United Kingdom will stay together. Clearly, it would no longer be sustainable. Whether people thought it appropriate to obtain the agreement of the Scottish or Welsh First Ministers for a trial period is one thing—that is what we voted on in the previous group of amendments—but it must be clear to everybody that if we believe in the United Kingdom, we must obtain that agreement before permanently changing the arrangement. That is what my amendment 51 would do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute has taken a different tack, as he has done throughout. His amendment 15 would do pretty much the same as mine, except that he seeks to obtain the agreement of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly rather than just the Scottish and Welsh First Ministers. I would be satisfied with either amendment. In fact, I prefer his amendment. I think that the requirement to get the agreement of the Parliament or Assembly as a whole would provide a much better safeguard than the obligation to seek only the agreement of the First Minister. I commend him for having come up with a far better amendment than mine, and I am happy to fall on my sword to pursue his agenda.
Amendments 20 and 21 have been tabled by our friends from the Scottish National party, the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). If I read the amendments correctly—I am sure that they will correct me, if I am wrong—they seek to do exactly what I and my hon. Friend seek in our amendments: to put in place extra safeguards for the consultation of Scotland and Wales. Of the 11 amendments in this group, therefore, four or five would have the same effect. As for the future of the Bill, I must emphasise that it cannot progress unless we make it abundantly clear that we have the endorsement of people in Scotland and Wales, and not just through a consultation, which is what it provides for at the moment. People who are consulted can then simply be ignored. That is totally and utterly unacceptable.