| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.31 pm
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland): It is my pleasure and privilege to congratulate the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) on a very eloquent maiden speech. I am sure that all hon. Members who listened to her gained not only an insight into an attractive and diverse constituency but a feel for the spirit of the constituency and its people. I congratulate the hon. Lady and look forward to hearing the many contributions that she will no doubt make to debates on devolution.
It was also refreshing to be reminded of the commitment of Sir Wyn Roberts to the decentralisation of power in 1970. The House will recognise and acknowledge the hon. Lady's tribute to him. It is refreshing that the issues on which Sir Wyn, and probably many other Conservatives, campaigned in 1970 will be brought to fruition.
I shall try to be brief because the less time spent debating the timetable motion, the more time there will be to deal with the first batch of amendments, and perhaps even to have more than one vote, although that is probably a triumph of hope over experience.
I do not accept that we are debating what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) described as a first-class constitutional Bill. As the Secretary of State for Scotland reminded us, we are debating an advisory referendum; there is nothing in it that will affect in any way the sovereignty of Parliament--if, indeed, we accept that Westminster is sovereign. That is a point of difference between us and the Labour party. Those of us who signed the Claim of Right in Scotland do not necessarily accept that principle.
It is also right for the Secretary of State to point to the precedents. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has reminded me of the guillotining of two Bills in one debate in December 1993--the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill. That move provoked such antagonism that the official Opposition broke off pairing arrangements. On that occasion, there was a guillotine before the Second Reading of both Bills and a special motion to allow Committee amendments to be tabled before Second Reading. Although we think that the referendum for Scotland is unnecessary, at least it will give a say to the people. Those Bills gave Ministers considerable power to introduce secondary legislation that would have a pecuniary impact on many businesses, particularly small ones.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said earlier, the timetabling of proceedings on Bills was recommended by Jopling. I think that it is better to timetable before the start of Committee proceedings than to do so part way through, after drawn-out debates on a limited number of clauses and amendments, which often results in the clauses and amendments in the second half--or not even the second half, but the remaining two thirds or five sixths--of the Bill being given very cursory consideration. Parliament has often not done its job properly because it has not had adequate opportunity to scrutinise the latter stages of a Bill.
My party's publication, "A Parliament for the People--Proposals to Reform the House of Commons", suggested an all-party legislative steering committee to consider the programming of Bills to ensure that all parts are properly scrutinised. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the proper timetabling of Bills during her inquiry into the reform of the procedures of the House. We can do much more on that.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross):
Does my hon. Friend recognise that that argument is not peculiar to the Liberal Democrats? It was
Mr. Wallace:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. The Jopling recommendations commanded broad support on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) earlier repeated the frequently made argument that guillotines are the enemy of Back Benchers. I am not sure that that is right. There will be an opportunity for proper debate of the amendments tabled by those of us who are not in the official Opposition and those tabled by the official Opposition. That would not necessarily have been the case otherwise.
Mr. Luff:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a significant number of important amendments tabled by the minority parties cannot be debated under the terms of the motion, including an important amendment on tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly?
Mr. Wallace:
The point that I had just finished making was that the timetable allows for debate of the minority parties' arguments. We have tabled amendments to consolidate the two questions in Scotland into one. The Government do not agree, but we have a legitimate argument and there will be time for that debate. The Scottish National party wants a third question in a multi-option referendum. I do not agree with that, but I accept that it is a legitimate issue for the House to debate and is relevant to the referendum. There will be time to debate that.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked the shadow Home Secretary why the official Opposition had not got round to tabling amendments about the threshold. For once, the hon. Gentleman was not accurate. New clauses 22 to 25 provide for a threshold by requiring a 65 per cent. turnout. However, those new clauses are all starred. The Conservatives did not get round to tabling them until yesterday, suggesting that the leadership collective could not make up their minds on the issue.
The timetable motion was tabled because of the host of frivolous amendments on the amendment paper. I use the word "frivolous" advisedly. I have just appeared on "Westminster Live" with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who admitted that some of the amendments were frivolous.
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)
indicated dissent.
Mr. Wallace:
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He did, however, mention the frivolous amendments to which I have referred. I will describe some of them.
Mr. Hague:
I actually said that if any amendments were frivolous, they would not have been selected for debate by the Chair.
Mr. Wallace:
If the right hon. Gentleman gets a transcript of the programme, he will find that he did
Mr. Wallace:
The hon. Gentleman says that the amendment was not selected. My point is that those amendments are an insight into the mindset of those who tabled them. The amendments are on the amendment paper and the hon. Members concerned cannot run away from the kind of amendments--
Sir Patrick Cormack:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You, like me, have been a Committee Chairman for many long years. You know very well that no Chairman can dictate what is or is not tabled. You equally know that no Chairman would select a frivolous amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Selection is done, I hope, on an objective basis that stands the test of time.
Mr. Wallace:
I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, show much more good sense in the selection of the amendments than do those who tabled them.
My point concerns the kind of amendments that were tabled. Amendment No. 186 says:
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Tory Members who tabled the frivolous amendments will take an active part in the referendum campaign in Scotland or in Wales, or will they leave the active campaigning to their hon. Friends in Scotland and in Wales?
Mr. Wallace:
There is a difficulty in that those Tory Members do not have any hon. Friends in Scotland or in Wales. As the--
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
We have many voters.
Mr. Wallace:
The words used were "hon. Friends". The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said that the Conservatives were the party of the nation. One nation Conservatism is now England, and only part of that. No longer does the Conservative party speak for the nation in Parliament, which is an important point to remember.
Last night, I referred to amendment No. 189, which says:
"No referendum shall be held on any day other than St. Andrew's Day."
This year, St. Andrew's day is on a Sunday, but that does not matter because we also have amendment No. 184, which says:
"No referendum shall be held on any day other than a Sunday."
Mr. Luff:
That amendment has not been selected.
"No referendum shall be held for a period of less than two days."
That amendment was tabled by the same person, the hon. Member for North Essex, who said that the referendum should not be held on any day other than a Sunday. We would need to have a month of Sundays, or perhaps the suggestion is that the referendum should be held on two consecutive Sundays, like the French elections.
"Voting in the referendum shall only take place during daylight hours."
That is a travesty. What about the men and women of the night who would not be allowed an opportunity to vote if such an amendment were accepted?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |