| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: I have no authority over the allocation of time for departmental matters. The President of the Council will in due course be at the Dispatch Box, when the hon. Gentleman might like to put a question to her.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall points of order being raised about reading during Question Time. I believe that you indicated that it was acceptable if someone referred to notes. I noticed today that, once again, when an hon. Member referred to notes, a few hon. Members called out, "Reading." Will you protect Back Benchers and allow them to refer to notes during Question Time if they feel it necessary?
Madam Speaker: I have already given a ruling that it is of course occasionally possible to glance at notes. I am particularly tolerant with new hon. Members and I hope that other long-standing hon. Members will be a little tolerant about such matters, too.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will be able to help the House. My point concerns the change in time allowed for Question Time. About 18 months ago, an hour was allocated to Environment questions and the then Opposition asked whether that could be changed to 40 minutes, because it would help them. We agreed, on the basis that it is normally felt that Question Time should be particularly affected by the needs of the Opposition. That has been historically so.
No such discussions have taken place recently, and that is a pity. Could you find some way of trying to ensure that once again hon. Members on both sides of the House
feel that the allocation of time for questions is not a matter of a diktat? I should have liked to retain an hour for Environment questions, but because the then Opposition wanted a change, we accepted it. Could you use your good offices in this area?
Madam Speaker:
I dislike repeating myself. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I am not consulted about a change in time. I take his point and repeat that the President of the Council will be answering such questions soon. I appeal to him to use his good offices, too, through the usual channels. I shall do what I can myself.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
On a point of clarification, Madam Speaker. It has been suggested that today's allocation of time motion will prevent individual votes on any amendments other than the first amendment in any group. Is that the case?
Madam Speaker:
What is usual on a guillotine is that it depends on the progress made and on the Chairman of Ways and Means or whichever Deputy Speaker is in the Chair. It depends on progress, and the more points of order we have, the less progress we shall make.
Mr. William Cash (Stone):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. An extremely important new clause has been tabled, dealing with the threshold for majorities that would be taken into account in deciding whether a referendum was to be effective. A similar amendment was ultimately defeated under the previous Labour Government and led to that Government's fall. Do you accept that it is outrageous that under the present arrangements for the allocation of time, that new clause will effectively fall and there will be no vote on those important matters?
Madam Speaker:
That is not a matter for me. I repeat that the more points of order we have, the less time we shall have for debating those matters.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last night, when a statement was made about the business of the House for today, I asked whether you had any role in safeguarding the position of Back Benchers. Clearly, my question was addressed through you to the Leader of the House; I now address it directly to you. Bearing in mind the fact that a unique situation on a constitutional Bill has resulted from the Government's decision, do you have any role in safeguarding the ability of Back Benchers to speak on a Bill which, although it is only a referendum Bill, clearly has vital implications for subsequent legislation?
Madam Speaker:
I have always attempted to safeguard the interests of Back Benchers. Guillotines are carried out under our Standing Orders, and I repeat that the longer hon. Members raise points of order and do not debate the issues on the Floor of the House, the worse the position is for them. I hope that we can now get on with the guillotine motion and move on to amendments. If we do not take up all the three hours on the guillotine, we can move on to the amendments.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to try your patience,
Madam Speaker:
That normally happens when we discuss legislation that is under guillotine. That has happened over many years. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House when we have dealt with legislation under guillotine. It is a normal practice and how it works out depends on who is in the Chair at the time and on whether hon. Members wish to use up time by dividing the House.
Mr. Dewar:
I thank you, Madam Speaker. I am very conscious of the fact that the clock ticks and that someone moving a motion of this kind should do so, I hope, with conviction and with persuasion, but certainly quickly. The quickly part is not necessarily built into my natural mode, but I intend to be up and down reasonably sharply on this occasion.
I am also very conscious of the fact that guillotine motions are never popular. This is the first one that I have ever had to move, although I have been on the receiving end on many occasions, as Conservative Members will know.
Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar:
No, I think that we should make a little progress.
I listened with particular care to the exchanges when the business statement was made last night. I am not totally persuaded that precedent is the only way in which to proceed. If we relied entirely on precedent, we would live in a very ossified society, because we could never do anything that had not been done before, and I am not sure that that would be a recipe for a live and lively democracy. Therefore, I am not entirely persuaded that we should rely on precedent in the matter.
However, I am entitled to draw the attention of the House to the fact that our action is not unprecedented, and that this is not a case of pushing something through in a way never thought, dreamt of or dared before, nor of the bulldozing of Parliament by a bullying Executive. What we are doing does not fall into any of those categories. It seems to me that the whiff of constitutional outrage that was allowed to drift round the Chamber yesterday can quickly be dispersed when one begins to look at the facts.
Opposition Members, including those who have been involved in Conservative Administrations, will know that they have often used guillotine motions as a way of managing the business of the House. I make no complaint about that; no doubt on occasion the present Government will feel it necessary to do the same. That is part of our constitutional machinery.
As I understand it, the particular complaint here is that a guillotine to govern a Committee stage has never been tabled before the start of that Committee stage.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe):
Not on constitional matters.
.
Mr. Dewar:
Now we are beginning to change the script. The former Home Secretary may have saved me some time, because I was about to read out an enormous list of occasions when, under the Conservative Government, a timetable motion to guarantee progress during Committee stage was tabled before that Committee stage started.
I am thinking, for example, of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the Local Government Finance Bill, the Further and Higher Education Bill--[Interruption.] Let me draw attention--
Mr. Dewar:
I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a little while, but the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill are burnt into my memory. I happened to be the Opposition spokesman on both--they were both important Bills that shifted a substantial financial burden on to industry. With both, a timetable not only governed the Committee stage, but took them through all their stages from Second Reading to Third Reading in one day. On successive days, both went through.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |