| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): Does not the Leader of the House appreciate that the people of this country will be stunned at the Government's breathtaking arrogance in introducing a guillotine procedure even before Committee stage has begun? What am I to say to my constituents, the people of Ribble Valley? Some of them are Welsh, like me, and will have no say in that referendum. Some are Scottish and live in Ribble Valley, but will have no say in that referendum. The vast majority are English, but will be asked to pick up the tab for that referendum. Surely, the Leader of the House should recognise that denying them their say means that, at least, she should not deny their Member of Parliament in the House of Commons the right to speak at length on the issues involved in the referendum debate.
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman spoke in the debate on Second Reading, although I am sure that he has told his constituents his view. [Interruption.] I am asked what that has to do with it. It is astounding that there is such peculiar indignation coming from the Opposition Benches, from people who showed no interest at all on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman says that people will be stunned by the guillotine that we are suggesting; I think that people are stunned by many of our procedures, which see this House sitting through the night to no good effect.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Just as a matter of interest, can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tell us how many of those Conservative Members who are protesting now protested against the guillotines on highly controversial legislation, such as the Single European Act, the poll tax and many other measures that were strenuously opposed by Labour during the 18 years in opposition? Have we not seen tonight the height of
hypocrisy from Conservative Members who never once protested against the guillotine motions of their own Government?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. The list of the guillotine motions produced by the previous Government runs to several pages and I do not think that any Conservative Member voted against any of them.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): Just a few weeks into the new Parliament, are we not witnessing a quite disturbing situation--a new Government who find it impossible to resist the undoubted temptation presented by a large majority to treat this House with increasing levity?
We have already had the unilateral decision to change the arrangements for Prime Minister's Questions, reducing from six to three the number of questions a week that the Leader of the Opposition can ask the Prime Minister. We have already had a very important announcement about giving the Bank of England operational independence being made outside this place, and we were simply presented with a fait accompli.
Now, we have the double event of a Bill being guillotined which is, first, a major constitutional Bill and, secondly, one that has not even started its Committee proceedings. Will the right hon. Lady--even at this late hour--think again before fundamental damage is done to our parliamentary system, which all of us on both sides of the House who are devoted to this country's parliamentary system will come to regret and to rue?
Mrs. Taylor:
I do not think that this decision has the implications suggested by the hon. Gentleman. This is not a major constitutional Bill--it is a Bill allowing for the consultation procedure.
Mr. Cash:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the House has just said that the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill is not a major constitutional Bill. Is it not absolutely crystal clear from "Erskine May" and, indeed, from your own ruling that this could not possibly be described as anything other than a major constitutional Bill?
Madam Speaker:
That is not a point of order for me. The House must examine the Bill as it comes before it, as it is doing now and as it will do tomorrow.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring):
Can the Leader of the House answer the question that she has so far avoided? What is the precedent for guillotining a constitutional Bill in the House before Committee stage has even begun? Many people in the House tonight will feel that she has betrayed the trust put in her position, which is to defend the interests of the House against an Executive who seem to believe that if a measure is in their manifesto, it does not have to be debated in the House.
Mrs. Taylor:
It is basic common sense to adopt the approach that we are suggesting, not least because, if we did not take steps to ensure that there was a referendum in Scotland and one in Wales in the autumn, we would be breaking a manifesto commitment.
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne):
I can understand why the right hon. Lady is so terrified of even brief debate
Mrs. Taylor:
The Bill is about democracy; it is about consulting the people of Scotland and Wales.
Mr. John Butterfill:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Lady is justifying the proposed guillotine motion by saying that some of the amendments that have been tabled are frivolous. Surely that is your decision. You decide which amendments will be called for debate.
Madam Speaker:
My Chairman of Ways and Means decides.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
Will the Leader of the House tell me when such a Bill was guillotined before consideration in Committee? Is it her view, as it appears to be from what she has said already, that only those such as myself who participated in the constitutional debate on a Friday and spoke on Second Reading may take any interest in Second Reading?
Mrs. Taylor:
I did not say that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman participated as he describes. I was comparing the synthetic debate this evening with the amount of real interest that was shown on Second Reading.
Madam Speaker:
Order. We must now move on to the Northern Ireland business.
Dr. Fox:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the House, who is supposed to represent the interests of Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House, to fail to answer questions on precedent in the Chamber on repeated occasions, as we have seen this evening?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
What is said from the Government Front Bench is entirely a matter for Ministers and not for the Chair.
Mr. Salmond:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the House to timetable business during the Conservative party's internal elections? As I remember Second Reading, there were only three Conservative Members present in the
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Like many things that I have heard in the House, that is not a matter for the Chair.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the 38 years that I have sat in this place, I have never seen a Minister, in the middle of answering questions, walk out of the Chamber. Unless the right hon. Lady has been taken unwell, which we would all much regret, it seems to me an act of the grossest discourtesy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
In fact, Madam Speaker had determined that we move on to the next business. There was not, therefore, any question of discourtesy from the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House made it clear that she did not think that the Bill was a first-order constitutional measure. Why, then, is it being taken on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
There are other such measures that are taken on the Floor of the House, as the Order Paper for this week already shows.
Mr. Wilshire:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House could not have been other than aware that the issue of a guillotine motion was still being raised on points of order, despite what Madam Speaker said. Is it not therefore a matter of gross contempt towards us all for the right hon. Lady to walk out of the Chamber and ignore what we are saying?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Madam Speaker had decided that we were moving on to the next business, and certain right hon. and hon. Members acted on that fact.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you, as the Chairman of Ways and Means, are responsible for the selection of amendments, may I ask you whether it is normal practice on an important constitutional Bill for the Chairman of Ways and Means to select frivolous amendments?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |