| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Business of the House
10.41 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be as follows:
Tuesday 3 June--At 3.30 pm, there will be consideration of an allocation of time motion relating to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, followed by consideration in Committee of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill.
The business for the remainder of the week will be as previously announced.
Mr. Alastair Goodlad (Eddisbury):
Is this not an example of a guillotine--the details of which have not yet been given to the House--that exemplifies the Government's high-handed disregard of the House and their blatant disdain for its views? Will the Leader of the House confirm that an offer was made through the usual channels to agree a timetable for the Bill? Does it not beggar belief that, before the Bill's Committee stage has even been started, the right hon. Lady proposes that the House can properly consider under a guillotine a Bill that will affect our constitution and have a fundamental effect on the future of every person in the United Kingdom? [Interruption.] "Of course it doesn't," says the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Bill will have a fundamental effect on the United Kingdom, but he says that it will not have an effect. We will note his comment, from a sedentary position, that it does not have an effect on this country.
Has the right hon. Lady considered the amendments that have been tabled? Does she not deduce from them that there will be much which right hon. and hon. Members of all parties, including her own, will wish to raise? Does she or does she not consider that their opinions are worth hearing? [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Wales clearly believes that the opinions of the House are not worth hearing. The Secretary of State for Scotland is trying to shut him up, but the Secretary of State for Scotland also believes that they are not worth hearing.
Does the Leader of the House wish deliberately to cause the Bill to pass through the House unconsidered? The Lobby fodder do, but we know about the Lobby fodder. Has she considered that she has a duty to Members in all parts of the House to protect their rights? If so, will she confirm that her representations to her ministerial colleagues went unheeded and that, in effect, she lost the battle and has had to bow to the unelected forces--otherwise known as the secret seven, or is it the secret seventy--of the gauleiters who now run the Government and the Labour party?
Is it not ironic that the Government should choose on this, their first Bill, to move a guillotine motion and take an anti-democratic approach to a Bill, the purpose of which--[Interruption.] The Lobby fodder do not know what the purpose is. It is to allow some of the people of our country to have their say and yet to prevent the nation's elected representatives from considering it in
Parliament. Does the right hon. Lady realise that her credibility in the House and the House's co-operation with the Government have now been put in jeopardy?
Mrs. Taylor:
The shadow Leader of the House first asked me to confirm that the Opposition had offered a timetable for the Bill. I cannot confirm that that is the case, because, had they done so, we would not have needed this timetable motion.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill would affect the constitution. Having seen the amendments that have been tabled, I think that many Conservative Members do not understand that it is not the devolution Bill but a Bill for a referendum, a test of opinion. There will be changes to the constitution only if the people of Scotland and Wales, who are to be consulted in the referendums, vote for them.
As for the time that has been allowed for the Bill, we had one day of the debate on the Queen's Speech to examine constitutional issues, and we offered a day and a half on Second Reading. It is a simple, straightforward Bill with only six clauses. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House when he talks about its complexity. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will withdraw and rephrase that sentence.
Mrs. Taylor:
I apologise, Madam Speaker. The Bill is not complex. If the right hon. Gentleman has read it as such, I suggest that he looks at it again. It has six clauses and two schedules. The Government also have a clear mandate for it. I remind Conservative Members, most of whom did not come into the Chamber during the Second Reading debate, that they have not a single Scottish or Welsh Conservative Member. They have very little mandate on the issue.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish):
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the anger from the Conservatives seems synthetic, given that, as I understand from Tea Room rumours, they were offered more time for the Second Reading--time that they did not want to take?
Mrs. Taylor:
I shall not confirm Tea Room rumours from the Dispatch Box, but they often have some substance. As for synthetic anger, I remind Conservative Members of the words of a previous Conservative Secretary of State for Education:
Will the Leader of the House take it as a useful precedent that there should be timetabling of Bills from the outset, not when the Government run into trouble in
Committee? Does she agree that it would be a waste of the House's time to debate amendments such as amendment No. 189, which says:
Mrs. Taylor:
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his choice of frivolous amendments. He could have chosen others to prove his point equally well. We have tried to ensure a measured approach to the debate in Committee. We want the debate paced to try to ensure that some of the main issues will be covered, rather than going through the frivolous amendments and then finding that vital issues might not be discussed.
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian):
If the Opposition offered a timetable, would my right hon. Friend have any confidence that the Leader of the Opposition, whomever he or she may be, would have any control over the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) or any of his friends?
Mrs. Taylor:
We understand the severe difficulties under which the official Opposition are operating. It must be difficult for the shadow Leader of the House, not being sure with whom he should discuss the issues.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills):
Is it not the Labour Government's contention that this is the most important measure in this year's parliamentary calendar? We are dealing with issues that relate to the Union. There is a legitimate fear about that among Conservatives. As now posited, the referendum excludes the English or Scots living in England from expressing a view on the most precious Union of all to us.
On the Government's first serious measure, they are proposing a guillotining without testing whether the debate is frivolous or serious, yet it is fundamental to those such as me--born in Scotland, living in England and representing and English constituency--to be able to test the proposition. The motion should not be called tomorrow and we should stand by the proper procedures of the House on a constitutional matter.
Mrs. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman says that there are many people who were born in Scotland who represent English constituencies. Indeed there are and I am one of them; I have always followed this issue carefully.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the Bill is about whether the Union should continue to exist. The Bill is a test of opinion. There has been one test of opinion already during the general election and the result was very decisive. The Bill will allow for a very specific test of opinion. Opposition Members ought not to be so disdainful of the idea of consulting the people. One of the reasons why the Conservative party did so badly in Scotland and in Wales was that it was not willing to listen.
Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest argument in favour
"Any debate on a timetable motion invariably causes a good deal of indignation from the Opposition, . . . usually found to be largely synthetic and totally unjustified."--[Official Report, 29 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 1210.]
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland):
Does the Leader of the House agree that there was almost a good case this evening for a timetable motion on responses by the shadow Leader of the House? Does she also agree that for a party that guillotined the legislation on the Single European Act in 1986 to complain about a timetable motion from the outset is humbug and synthetic hypocrisy?
"Voting in the referendum shall only take place during daylight hours"?
Given that the shadow Leader of the House has Shetland origins, will he tell us whether he wants the referendum to take place before or after the autumn equinox? That would have a great bearing on whether we have six hours or 18 hours in which to cast our votes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |