I have a petition from the Football Supporters Association of the east midlands and other football supporters, and the signatures on it have been collected from places as far apart as Boston, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and all the counties of the east midlands. The petition states:

We condemn the proposed legislation to force football supporters to carry identification cards, and we believe that a system of identity cards will have little impact on the problems of football—related violence, will hinder football's attempts to attract a new generation of supporters and will lead to the eventual demise of the game as a spectator sport.

Wherefore your petitioners pray that your hon. House will urge the Government to bring forward proposals which have the support of genuine football supporters.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am taking petitions first.

I, too, wish to present a humble petition by football supporters, which brings the total number of signatures to the petition to over 430,000 which, I think, makes it the third largest petition since the war. The House will be interested to know that that represents almost exactly the gate at every football club in the country on a Saturday afternoon.

Wherefore your petitioners pray that your hon. House will urge the Government to bring forward proposals which will have the support of genuine football supporters. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

rose——

There is one more petition.

I wish to present a petition organised by the students of Goldsmiths' college in my constituency and signed by David Anteh, 7 Malpas road, Brockley and 1,200 others. The petition states:

The humble petition of citizens and students of Great Britain and Northern Ireland showeth that any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees and student loans, whether partially or fully, will further limit access to higher education. Wherefore your petitioners pray that your hon. House do reject any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees or student loans and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray etc.

Order. The hon. Lady must not make a speech on this matter. She must present her petition now please.

This matter is of concern to the students and staff of Goldsmiths' college because that college has equal opportunities for women, black students and part-time students, all of whom would be disproportionately affected by the Government's proposals. I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf.

I shall now take points of order.

In view of the uncertainty and confusion in the international money markets, Mr. Speaker, have you had any indication from the new Chancellor of the Exchequer about a statement on the economic situation?

They are paying his wages.

Order. It is intolerable to have background conversations going on when I am listening to a point of order.

I should have thought that it was in the interests of all hon. Members that we should hear about any new Government economic initiative, such as a change in the base rate or a change in policy towards sterling, not through the press but here in the House. Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask you whether you have had any indication of the Government's intention to make a statement in the House.

I shall deal with one matter at a time. I have had no such information. Normally I should receive notification before 10 o'clock.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an important issue. While you have not had notification of that, the Opposition did not have notification that two Bills were to be guillotined this week. That causes us anxiety. First, the Government should come to the House as an urgent priority to sort out the enormous chaos caused by the squabbling between Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street. Secondly, at least on his occasion, the Government should give proper notification to the Opposition and on the annunciators so that they cannot slip in a few platitudes in the middle of the debate this morning, but must provide an adequate explanation to the House. I raise this matter because of their conduct—

Order. This matter was raised yesterday. I heard the Leader of the House apologise for the fact that no notice was given. We cannot pursue that matter now. I am sure that in future notice will be given.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you had no information that the Government sought a statement from the new Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will you confirm that, if the new Chancellor is willing and considers it necessary, as many of us do, to make a statement about exchange rate policy, it would still be possible for you to arrange a statement at 11 o'clock if you received notice between now and then, after the Chancellor has seen the response of the British exchange markets to overnight falls in New York?

rose——

Is this the same subject?

Yes. In a similar crisis 25 years ago, John Profumo lied to the House. He was asked to come to the House to explain his actions. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a serious allegation that the Prime Minister had misled the House, because at 3.15 pm yesterday she said that the Chancellor had her full support——

Order.

I have not finished my point of order.

I know. The hon. Member made broadly the same point yesterday. We cannot continue with it today. The Front Bench gave the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) the answer.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Front Bench. It answered the point, but I am putting it to you. Despite the Prime Minister misleading the House at 3.15 yesterday afternoon——

Order. If the hon. Gentleman makes that kind of allegation, he should write to me, because it is a matter of privilege. I will not have that allegation made in the Chamber today.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 19 October the Home Secretary said in a statement on the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings:

"the four persons involved will be eligible to apply to me for compensation under the provisions of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The amount of the compensation will be determined by an independent assessor."—[Official Report, 19 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 273.]

"But I hope that Opposition Members, in their pursuit of this matter, will take into account the fact that the people who suffered most from it were not those who were wrongfully imprisoned, but those who were murdered at Guildford."—[Official Report, 26 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 1035.]

Order. No—this is a matter of argument between the hon. Member—and perhaps other hon. Members—and the Home Secretary. It is not a matter of order for the Chair. I said yesterday—the whole House must accept and recognise this—that I cannot be held responsible for answers given, provided that they are in order. The Home Secretary's answer was in order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order for you is that the House is being denied access to information. Clearly, the Government and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer had access yesterday and previously to the Treasury's autumn forecasts. Setting aside Walters and all the rest of it, those forecasts were the basis of the ex-Chancellor's decision yesterday. Will the House be allowed to see that information, so that we can know the true extent of the economic catastrophe and of what happened yesterday?

That is a spurious point of order, even for a Friday morning.

I wonder whether you could assist me, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have one particularly strong, peculiar and far-reaching power, which is not often exercised, but which you share with my wife. You have the ability to section a Member whom you feel is probably bordering on insanity. I think that you should move directly to No. 10 Downing street, as clearly there is a candidate there for your exercise of that power.

I was chosen by the House to be the Speaker. Let us move on.

This ways and means resolution should not pass without comment. It is a narrow resolution which was made available to Members only this morning. It should have been provided earlier in the week, as is the custom. The Government have been thrown into chaos by the huge diversion in economic policy between the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister's croney, who was employed at the taxpayers expense to the tune of £50,000 a year—at least there had been some saving to taxpayers—so it is understandable that the Government have not been able to issue the resolution earlier for Members' consideration.

"An application for a licence in respect of any premises shall be made in such manner, in such form and accompanied by such fee as may be detemined by the Secretary of State."

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I shall finish my point. We want an assurance that, in applying the power that we grant to him, the Secretary of State will take into account the financial position of clubs, if necessary levying only a nominal fee, and that he will not regard this power as a means of raising revenue. The resolution requires that the fees be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and other members of the Committee which considered the Football Spectators Bill that, as the Taylor inquiry has not yet produced a report, the best course of action would be to withdraw the motion and the Bill until we have the final report from Lord Justice Taylor?

That would be an extremely sensible course of action. The Government promised that they would be able to take into account the results of the Taylor inquiry as the Bill progressed through Committee, but that was patently not the case. I expect the Government to give solid, cast-iron assurances to the House about the level of fees that they will levy. I hope that the assurances are rather stronger than those which were given to the House about taking into account the results of the Taylor inquiry.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the ways and means motion. I know that he appreciates that it is a narrow motion.

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for filling the void by catching the eye of Mr. Speaker while we were waiting for the Minister to explain the proposal that is before us. We have been considering the Bill for a long time and it is unfortunate that we never get any explanation from the Government. As my hon. Friend says, they continue with their proposals to levy licence fees and other unacceptable charges. At the end of the day, the burden will fall on innocent spectators and not on the clubs. It will fall also on the Consolidated Fund. It is outrageous that the motion is on the Order Paper. We are proceeding with a measure to tax football and also, possibly, to impose further expenditure upon Government funds. It is entirely inappropriate and, in my view, foolhardy.

Come on, Denis.

It is perfectly true.

Order. It would be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman who has the Floor if there were not so much cross-talk across the Chamber.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My right hon. Friend has referred to the problems associated with Hillsborough and the report that is being prepared by Lord Justice Taylor. Is he aware that there were great problems at the Conservative party conference when the breakdown of a computer meant that many Conservative Members were denied access? There was no violence outside the conference centre, but inside——

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Order. The intervention by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is far removed from the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).

I was merely pointing out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the same problem could arise with the implementation of a football membership scheme.

I shall take up my hon. Friend's point, and I hope that I shall be able to do so within the rules of order.

The right hon. Gentleman must remain within the rules of order.

I quite agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the rules of order bear on the expenditure which can be forced on clubs unnecessarily, which I am sure you will appreciate.

The Minister is not listening.

The Minister never listens, so that does not worry me. If he does listen, he does not comprehend, which is even worse.

"Electronic turnstiles will be tested before identity cards."

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but not in the middle of my fulsome tribute to Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, who goes to West Bromwich Albion, knows what a struggle it has, and that every penny counts. She knows that it is vital that spectators should get into the ground promptly, and no licensing authority should set about its business before Parliament has considered the Taylor report and decided whether the whole nonsensical idea should be scrapped or whether some other scheme should be introduced.

I am sorry to interrupt the cosy chat between midlands Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Howell) is misleading the House, as he did throughout Committee stage and on Second Reading, when he says that having introduced the proposals my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is erring from his original policy. It has always been made perfectly clear—the right hon. Gentleman knows this—that before the scheme is put into operation some sort of experiment has to take place to test the machinery to be used. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that it was proposed that some sort of scheme should be put into operation before the season in which the policy was fully implemented. The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately misleading the House. My hon. Friend's proposals are perfectly in line with all the statements made throughout the passage of the Bill.

That is another example of the logic with which we have repeatedly been faced this week. People say, "Everything's all right." When we ask, "In that case, why did the Chancellor resign?" we receive no answer. The hon. Gentleman's intervention belongs to the same perverted logic. The Minister has said throughout that he would not proceed in this way. If he had always intended to proceed in this way, why did he issue the press statement yesterday? He did so because what he proposed was a departure from everything that he had told us in Committee.

May I clarify two points, because the right hon. Gentleman is going off at a tangent? First, I have made it clear since before the introduction of the Bill that if the Government went ahead with a national membership scheme, we should need to be satisfied that the technology was up and working and correct so that the scheme could be implemented effectively from day one. The testing of that technology will be a matter for the football membership authority, which will examine in detail the appropriate technology and tests. Absolutely nothing has changed on that front. I hope that that assists the right hon. Gentleman.

No doubt it was Mr. Bernard Ingham who gave the information to The Times. Perhaps one of his minions at the Department of the Environment told Sheila Gunn and journalists from other newspapers what the Minister wished to convey.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation. He said that my hon. Friend the Minister had fundamentally changed the rules and changed his policy since our debates in Committee. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers my hon. Friend's words at 11.30 am on Thursday 20 July. He may not have been present, of course, because I know that he had to spend a great deal of time outside the Committee Room briefing his various friends in the press. If he was around at 11.30 am—Hansard conveniently records the fact that it was 11.30 am—he may remember my hon. Friend saying:

"I said that testing the technology for the scheme would be part of the preparations for implementation. I have also said repeatedly that we shall not go ahead with implementation until we are satisfied that the technology is workable, efficient and safe."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 July 1989; c. 503.]

Judging by the rather offensive comments with which the hon. Gentleman introduced his intervention, we have a potential new Chief Whip staring us in the face. Even at 11.30 pm, we can well understand what the Minister is saying and we can also understand the Bill, which says that it is the business of the Football Membership Authority, not the Minister, to put the scheme in position and to satisfy itself as to the technology.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong again—on two counts. First, nobody has spoken about a system of testing being introduced before the football authority is set up. Secondly, this is not a matter for the Football Membership Authority alone because, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, the Government have given a commitment to the House to the effect that, once the Football Membership Authority is established—subject to the will of Parliament—there will be a further debate in the House on the approval of the scheme by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The prospect of that second important debate was welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman. It will be vital in the light of any findings that Lord Justice Taylor may make and will give Parliament a full opportunity to consider them.

The Minister only compounds the confusion. He says that the scheme is the business of the football and licensing authorities, yet before they are even established and have been given an opportunity to decide what action to take, the Minister makes his pronouncement, by one means or another, that he intends to usurp the authorities' powers and judgment and to proceed, which may have the consequence of fees being imposed on football clubs.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion is narrow in its scope, and it cannot be in order for the right hon. Gentleman to rattle through a speech covering much wider matters while attempting to keep himself in order by occasionally using the word "fees" and "licensing authority".

I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) has himself strayed from the straight and narrow from time to time. The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished parliamentarian who knows full well the scope of the motion, and I am sure that he will take the point that has been made both by the hon. Member for Bury, North and by myself.

I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am making every endeavour to keep within the rules of order. However, I acknowledge, as you obviously do, Madam Deputy Speaker, the political rigidity of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt).

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be misleading the House again. A few moments ago, he said that the Bill should be delayed and that fees should not be levied or paid because the system is not yet ready to be introduced. He went on to deal with part II of the Bill, which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends consistently supported in Committee and which he acknowledges has some merit and should be implemented. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Does he want the Bill to proceed as it stands or not? He knows full well that it would be impossible to implement part II of the Bill and not part I.

I advise the right hon. Gentleman not to continue down the path that he has chosen. The House is debating not the Bill but a narrow motion concerning money matters in the form of the fees that are to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman must limit his comments to that aspect.

You will be glad to learn, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my sea voyage to Sweden has ended.

I could not disagree more with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). I welcome the motion itself because, apart from anything else, it is nice to consider a motion that will bring money into the Exchequer rather than cause the Exchequer constantly to dispense it, as is the case with most money resolutions.

The hon. Gentleman has just mentioned the ground belonging to the club—Chelsea—of which I am an avid supporter. Would he care to tell us what he thinks is not being done at Stamford Bridge that should he being done, to justify the direction of such a colossal calumny at that wonderful club?

I shall do so within the specific context of the money resolution, as is appropriate. It is a question of the fees that will be payable for the establishment of a membership card scheme. This, in my view, encapsulates the whole debate that took place in Committee, in which I know that the hon. Gentleman would have loved to participate if he had had time.

Contrary to that extraordinary proposition, we have advanced the policy that the thing to do is to target the evil-doers rather than imposing ludicrous restrictions on all the innocent football supporters. Not only did we say that the matches and the wrong-doers could be indentified and targeted—we said in Committee that the Sweden-England match was the first that should be targeted, and that the Government's failure to do so had led to all the mayhem.

There was a good deal of anecdotal reportage during what must have been one of the most entertaining Standing Committees on which many of us have ever served, and there is no doubt that those of us who emerged from it—bloody but unbowed—know much more about Sheffield Wednesday in the 1930s, not to mention Accrington Stanley and many other fine clubs and traditions. We heard a brilliant exposition of the importance of identifying the clubs involved——

And Millwall Tommy.

I am very sorry. Madam Deputy Speaker, that you did not have the opportunity to learn about Millwall Tommy. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—who is in the Chamber, as I expected him to be—brought a lump to my throat when he expounded on the merits or, indeed, demerits of Millwall Tommy. It was a wonderful experience.

One of our problems when a Bill is guillotined is that Conservative Members immediately waste the Committee's time, and many issues that we wish to discuss at length are not discussed for that reason. A perfect example is the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who has admitted that he has only ever seen one football match—and that was when the chairman of Luton Town, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), gave him a free ticket to Wembley for the cup final.

Rubbish.

The hon. Gentleman made great play of our proposals. Perhaps he does not know that the Football Grounds Improvements Trust gives £9 million a year to grounds, much of it to prevent violence through the use of cameras, videos and better policing and technology. The trust was set up following a proposal that I made in the House back in 1974 that a football betting levy scheme be set up to take money from the pools. The pools then voluntarily set up their own trust to provide grounds money out of their profits. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has followed the same line.

It is not fair to suggest that the Minister has misled the House. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is aware that this is an enabling Bill and that, after it becomes an Act, there will be a period of delay before its measures are implemented. If the hon. Member checks his memory he will realise that the Minister promised that, during that period, there would be a debate on the Taylor report. That has always been contemplated. There has been no change. There is no question of the Minister misleading the House in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Order. I shall be obliged if the hon. Gentleman who now has the Floor does not respond to those comments. We must confine ourselves to discussion of the motion.

Clause 10 provides that the licensing authority may grant a licence

"in such form … as may be determined by the Secretary of State."

"may include conditions imposing requirements as respects the seating of spectators."

This motion may seem to be a small detail of the Football Specators Bill. I am sure that that is how the Minister and his supporters see it, but it ought not to be recorded at all—it ought not to be rumbling on as it is. It is another element in pushing through a Bill which ought to await measured discussion on every detail of the Taylor report. It is no use right hon. and hon. Members saying that there will be another debate on whether to bring it into effect. By that stage, everything in this motion and all the details of the Bill will be in print, on the statute book, and incapable of amendment. To change it, we shall have to go through the whole process again, and I am sure that the Government have no intention of bringing in another Bill. It will be a case of take it or leave it with the Football Spectators Bill and this motion, as passed.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that among those who can be counted as the most ardent supporters of a scheme to control membership, which is what we are discussing here, are the police. In stark contrast with some directors of clubs, the police have made it clear from the outset and throughout the Committee proceedings that they believe it necessary to introduce a scheme to control membership and that they welcome participation in it. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will confirm that Mr. Alan Dyer, chief constable of Bedfordshire, has commented favourably on the scheme which operates at Luton Town football club, and that colleagues of his in the Association of Chief Police Officers have expressed similar optimistic comments about the scheme.

The hon. Gentleman should talk to the Police Federation which represents the ordinary constables who will have to face the crowds outside the turnstiles when the scheme is introduced. The arrangements at Luton Town must be satisfactory to the police and are not likely to give rise to problems, but anyone who thinks that one can run football on the basis that people cannot watch it will have to think again.

The Police Federation suggested a scheme far more draconian than that before the House today and sought to extend the Luton scheme nation wide with a ban on away supporters.

As I was saying, I do not believe that one can run football in this country as a spectator sport without away supporters.

I must explain to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that only 45,000 people go to away matches per week. We are therefore talking about 10 per cent. of those going to football matches, so the hon. Gentleman's ridiculous statement about people not going to football matches is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Those 45,000 people have a right to enjoy their Saturdays. The vast majority of them are not hooligans but people who want to watch football. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's figure. Thousands of football supporters cannot be classified as either home or away supporters and their liberty would be involved if any scheme of this kind were to be pursued.

I want to correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) that the information given and the experiences shared in Committee were not relevant to our discussions. I am a relatively new Member of the House and I was delighted to participate in a Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). They brought a great deal of experience to the Committee. As the House and Committee members will know, I am the president of two small football clubs in my constituency which will not be affected directly by the membership scheme.

Once again, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and his right hon. and hon. Friends have followed the chorus of disapproval for the Bill and the resolution. He showed what members of the Committee experienced before and throughout the passage of the Bill—the utter complacency of Opposition Members and, in some cases, of the hierarchy of football management on the Football League and Football Association. They say all is well and that nothing should be done.

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a monstrously inaccurate, almost libellous, statement. In Committee, we said that what has been done inside grounds—I am giving credit to the Prime Minister and her colleagues—has led to considerable improvements. The trouble is the social problem outside grounds, inside shopping centres and motorway service stations and on trains. We said that the people who caused trouble in Sweden, and the people who cause trouble in this country, should be apprehended because they are common criminals dealing with evil. They should be dealt with in the normal way.

I shall not follow that comment because I know that I should be going against the instructions that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, gave the House.

My hon. Friend says that one can walk around Luton on a Saturday afternoon free from hooligans, bullies and cowards, but is he aware that at Highbury stadium——

Order. I must, yet again, refer hon. Members to what is on the Order Paper. This has nothing to do with the resolution.

I am sure that my hon. Friend should not wish to stray away from this important subject. The basis for the fees that we are considering is important for people outside football—a problem that has been completely ignored by Labour Members.

"We need to attract the family group, the reasonable supporter to the England trips so that the tickets in Italy go to decent supporters. We want to give them an alternative to travelling with hooligans … We need to isolate and alienate those who might cause trouble so that they can be easily identified and either expelled … or even arrested."

Once more we have had to hear the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) tell us how good the Luton Town scheme is. It is quite irrelevant to the motion and to the Bill itself, because if every club had to adopt Luton Town's financial situation, many of them would be out of business. Luton Town is in terrible trouble because of that scheme.

"where there are perimeter fences all gates to the pitch should be kept fully open during the period when spectators are on the terraces."

Many points have been raised and, as you rightly pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, many were out of order within the context of this narrow motion. Of course, important questions arise. Without exception, they are covered by a variety of amendments which we will discuss in a detailed and lengthy debate on Monday.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [AN HON. MEMBER: "No."]

Let me proceed for a short time on this point.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked the Minister to give way, the Whip said no. Who decides whether the Minister gives way?

All I heard was the Minister's statement that he would give way in a moment.

I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). He is aware that it is best to develop the argument, let it rest and then allow him to intervene. Funding of the FLA was discussed in Committee. I explained then that we had three options: we could recover the full cost from licence fees; we could meet the cost from the Exchequer; or we could arrive at a balance between the two. Having considered this further, we decided that it would be appropriate to meet the FLA costs by a mix of licence fees and grant aid. I give way to the hon. Member for Walton.

I was going to ask the hon. Gentleman why we are pressing forward with the measure at this stage. This question has been raised by my hon. Friends and we need an answer. Why has the motion been tabled at this stage, without our having discussed Lord Justice Taylor's interim report? [Interruption.] I know that the question has been raised a hundred times. I will raise it again. I want to know the reason. These matters are of the utmost importance, especially to areas such as mine, which suffered great loss of life because of what happened at Hillsborough.

It is the determined wish of Government to ensure that there is a framework of legislation in place as soon as possible so that any recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's final report that relate to the safety of spectators at football matches can be implemented as soon as possible. If we did not have the framework of legislation in place, we would have to wait later—possibly a delay of a year—before we might he able to implement by law the very important safety recommendations that Lord Justice Taylor may make in his final report.

The question is simple: what happens if Lord Justice Taylor says that there should not be a membership scheme?

I have made the point absolutely clear to the House many times. The whole House will have the opportunity to consider everything that Lord Justice Taylor says. It will be able to consider all the arguments that he puts forward to support his conclusions. It is right for Parliament then and there to consider those arguments in the light of the various views put forward by Lord Justice Taylor. To hypothesise about what may or may not be in the report is not only redundant in terms of the time of the House but totally irrelevant to the motion before us.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on that point, I will not give way, because it is clearly out of order and beyond the remit of the motion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on the motion, I shall be happy to give way.

What will happen if Lord Taylor's report gives rise to a feeling that either the terms of the motion or other parts of the Bill need to be altered?

If the hon. Gentleman had studied the Bill carefully, he would know that we have a framework that does not need to be altered. Any safety recommendation can be accommodated within the Bill's scope. It is a framework to cover a national membership scheme and extensive licensing powers concerning safety, which I very much hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome.

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The closure has just been moved. Some of us have been in the Chamber since 9.35 am. I have been here the whole time, except for three minutes when I went out to get information that was appropriate to the debate. We have had no opportunity to contribute to the debate. I deliberately did not intervene, in order to facilitate procedures. The closure motion should not have been moved at this stage. It is part of the general procedural incompetence, mess and fiddling in which the Government have been involved on this whole measure, including the ways and means motion, which we have debated at this stage instead of after Third Reading.

A number of hon. Members have wanted to speak on the motion. The motion is very narrow in terms of debate. I believe that it has been widely debated this morning, with ample time given to it.

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was quite clear that the Government Whips were actually moving for a Closure. At one point, the Minister was given his instructions by the Whip, who told him not to give way to an hon. Member who was trying to intervene. Fortunately, the hon. Gentleman did give way, which shows that he has a little residual good sense.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chair does not have to give reasons. However, in answer to an earlier point of order, I did say that this was a narrow motion, which I felt had been thoroughly debated.