| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dewar: I shall make one final point before I take a couple of points of information. In order to avoid the catalogue of examples, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who will open for the Opposition, said very precisely, "Not on a constitutional Bill." He said that there was no precedent on a constitutional Bill.
We can argue about the status of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, but there can be no doubt that in 1978 the House, rightly or wrongly, passed two enormously important constitutional Acts--the Scotland Act 1978 and the Wales Act 1978--most of the proceedings on which took place under timetable motions regulating the Committee stage. Those motions were debated and agreed before the Committee stages started.
We cannot allow the myth to be perpetrated that what we are doing has never been done before, and that we are plunging into some sort of new jungle territory where democracy will die among the snakes. Things are not like that at all, and hon. Members should recognise the fact.
Mr. Dewar:
I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is smiling.
Mr. Cash:
In an attempt to penetrate the Scotch mist, may I invite the right hon. Gentleman to answer the
Mr. Dewar:
For one hopeful happy moment, I thought that I was about to be compared with the late J. Stalin. As a former Chief Whip, I might have thought that a compliment.
May I say to the hon. Gentleman--[Hon. Members: "Answer the question.] I will answer the question, which takes me nicely on from the precedent argument to the status of the Bill. We could dance on the head of a pin about whether this is a constitutional Bill, but one thing cannot be denied: it is not a Bill that seeks to alter the constitution. That is the key point.
In a particularly pained contribution last night, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose sincerity about these matters I have genuinely admired for many years, talked about this Bill in terms that made it clear that he was classing it with the devolution Bill that may follow if the referendums approve the Government's proposals. If we were talking about that Bill, we should be in a very different situation, but this is a paving measure which deals with organising the ballot and putting in place the machinery for counting votes. It is a simple Bill that follows almost exactly the precedents of the 1975 European referendum and the 1978-79 devolution referendums. Other than paving the way for an expression of opinion by the people of Scotland and Wales, it does not in any way alter this country's constitution. The comparison with the devolution Bill itself is false and mistaken.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)
rose--
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)
rose--
Mr. Dewar:
I cannot resist giving way.
Mr. Jenkin:
Which of us is the more resistible?
Mr. Dewar:
I give way to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).
Mr. Jenkin:
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is only a minor paving measure, why did he bother to have the Committee stage on the Floor at all? Will he undertake that the main measures will be taken on the Floor with a timetable agreed with Her Majesty's Opposition, to ensure that the whole Bill gets proper scrutiny?
Mr. Dewar:
We are damned if we do, damned if we do not with the hon. Gentleman. He is a most contrary man, although often entertaining. We decided to take the matter on the Floor. We thought that it would please
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the Jopling Committee, on which there was a substantial Conservative majority, considered not only the precedents, but how the House could more expeditiously deal with such business? Its report stated:
Mr. Dewar:
I am well aware of the Jopling report and that we have moved some way to meeting some of its recommendations. It suggested that the timetabling of all Committee stages would be a sensible approach to the business of the House, which would allow good order and better government, and which would let people know exactly where they were and when matters of interest were likely to arise. That is a matter for further consideration. It would not be fair for me to pray it in aid, except spiritually, on this occasion. I am sure that the matter will be discussed by the Select Committee on parliamentary procedure, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hopes to have operating shortly. The recommendation points the way forward and is interesting in the context of this argument.
Mr. Dewar:
I must move on. I promised to be quick, but I have taken many interventions.
My first point was simple. This is a paving Bill for the purpose that I described. The second is that in discussing our way forward, we relied on the realities and the common sense of the situation. We have a Bill, which no doubt hon. Members who have the staying power to have stayed for so long will have looked at carefully. They will have seen that it is a modest measure dealing with the mechanics of the referendum. It runs to six clauses and two schedules. It has attracted 250 amendments plus 25 new clauses and 12 new schedules. I congratulate the Opposition. They are obviously in a rather machismo stage of their political development on the Opposition Benches. In all fairness to them, they have got organised. It is clear that there was an agreement that they would attempt to dig in and obstruct this measure.
I make no complaint about that. I have been involved in that sort of exercise in my time. I do not live in the unreal world of imagining that that is beyond
the competence or wit of even this Opposition. I am sure that it is not, and we shall probably see plenty of evidence of their ability to engage in such an exercise in future.
I do complain, however, that the Opposition should try to pretend that it is terrible when the Government, recognising what is happening, take steps to deal with what is afoot and to preserve proper progress for their business. That seems to be common sense and something that should cause no surprise to anyone who is being frank about his expectations on the Conservative Benches.
Mr. Howard:
The right hon. Gentleman has made much of the fact that the proposed legislation and the devolution legislation to follow it will follow closely the precedent established in 1977 and 1978. Is he able to confirm that the motion before us allows no time for debating the thresholds for the necessary majority, which ended up as such an important part of the future of the earlier legislation to which I have referred?
Mr. Dewar:
I suspect that what we manage to debate will depend entirely on how much time we spend on these matters. The sooner we get on with the real debates, the better I shall be pleased.
We were faced with an organised move to block and obstruct. We decided that it was better to go for a timetable motion. We thought that there was an additional advantage in taking that course, in that rather than having a chaotic passage of arms over an indefinite period, we would try to arrange the motion in a way that at least allowed for a number of the important issues related specifically to the referendum to be properly ventilated. That is what we have tried to do.
"The evidence given to us on timetabling of bills was almost without exception in favour of its more general use."
More importantly, it stated:
"The arguments in favour of the proper scrutiny of all parts of a bill are compelling; and timetables applied from an early stage after second reading are probably the best way".
I note that the former Conservative Leader of the House strongly favoured that recommendation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |