| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to do everything to assist the break-up of the United Kingdom, which is why he supports the guillotine. I accept that he has views on the amendments, but who is he--who is anyone--to say that we should not even debate new clause 19, which deals with thresholds? I would be prepared to withdraw all my other amendments to get a proper debate on that measure.
Mr. Salmond: If that offer had been communicated to the Government earlier, perhaps we would not be having
this debate. I have already said, if the hon. Gentleman was listening, that the guillotine should have been looser and that the debate should have started before the guillotine was introduced. However, no intelligent layman looking at the nature of the amendments could come to a conclusion other than that Conservative Members were involved in a deliberate wrecking mechanism aimed at immersing the Bill in parliamentary procedure for a long time.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman underrates his wrecking powers. He was parliamentary private secretary to the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, who argued for such a referendum. It seems strange that those of us who did not want a referendum want the Bill to go through or, at least, not to be bogged down in parliamentary procedure, while he now declares that he is fiercely opposed to the whole process.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a good attempt at debating new clause 19, which he deplored and said should never have been tabled. A great deal of humbug, to use his term, has been talked about the frivolity of the amendments. It is important to nail this one. No Committee Chairman--the Secretary of State for Scotland can smile as much as he likes--chooses wrecking or frivolous amendments. If he sought to do so, he would be dissuaded by the excellent advice of his Clerks. The fact that there are amendments on the amendment paper that may be described as frivolous is neither here nor there. They have not been selected, so they will not be debated. The argument is totally false.
I have voted against guillotines proposed by my party when in government. I deplore the foreclosure of legitimate debate by whomsoever it is proposed. I remember once saying in a guillotine debate when we were in government that we should never do things that we would not wish to be done to us. That has always been my maxim in this place.
Sensible timetabling is one thing, but a draconian timetable is very different. I have always favoured sensible timetabling of debates. I remember once leaving the Chamber in disgust when an important Bill was being discussed and it was not possible to debate many of its key aspects. That is always deplorable. The Government are doing that to the House, and doing it quite needlessly. They could have entered into an agreement for sensible timetabling through the usual channels. The shadow
Leader of the House made that plain in his first comment last night. We would then have had adequate debate on all the Bill's essential aspects.
I lay aside for the moment the question whether the threshold should be debated. Personally, I think that it should be. In any case, no one could deny that, central to the Bill, is the additional question on the ballot paper. I have tabled an amendment on that. The leader of the Scottish National party and I agree about the importance of that, although we come at it from different angles. I am a passionate believer in preserving the integrity of the United Kingdom; he takes a different line. I respect his view, although I profoundly disagree with it. Most profoundly of all, I disagree with the fact that the House will have only an hour and a half, including probably little more than an hour of Back-Bench speeches, to discuss that vital matter. That is to treat the House with disdain approaching contempt.
Mr. Wallace:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack:
In a moment. On Second Reading a fortnight ago, I said that I felt that the seeds of our troubles were sown when we got a very large majority in 1983. I quoted with some approbation the remarks of the much-castigated Lord Pym. I told Labour Members that, having understandably indulged in some euphoria, there was a danger that they would allow that euphoria to lapse into arrogance. We are already seeing that.
The House should not be treated with contempt by any Government, and especially by a Government who have many Back-Bench Members who will not, during the course of this Parliament, have any other opportunity to develop or deploy their talents than in the Chamber. Many of them will not be able to aspire to ministerial office; many of them will not become members of Select Committees; many of them will have only one place in which to exercise their talents, and that is the Chamber. That is no bad thing, in a way, because the Chamber should be the cockpit of the nation. It should be the place where we truly, properly and thoroughly discuss issues of great moment.
If, however, the Government are to pursue the course on which they have embarked this afternoon, they are delivering a blow that will lead to a cancerous frustration among their own Back-Bench Members. They are not allowing adequate and proper debate. If we had had four days to consider the Bill rather than two, I would have considered that a reasonable allocation of time. There would then have been a proper opportunity for reasonable debate on all the outstanding issues that are before us.
The Government would have suffered not at all. They would not have lost their legislation. We must be realistic enough to accept that the Government will get their legislation. At least their legislation would have been subject to some proper debate and more real scrutiny if we had been given four days rather than two. Those responsible for that legislation would have had to answer detailed and critical questions arising from the amendments at the Dispatch Box. What is more, there would have been a proper chance to vote on a number of amendments. That is a chance that we are being denied by an extremely ungenerous timetable.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan:
Surely the parallel with the remark made or warning given by Lord Pym about the
Sir Patrick Cormack:
The hon. Gentleman misses the point completely. I am warning about the arrogance of a Government, bolstered by an enormous majority, who feel that they can act as a juggernaut or steamroller and push everything through this place without adequate debate. It is--[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can sit in his place and shout as much as he likes. He can blow his top as often as he wants.
Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, these are issues that arouse passion and real differences of opinion in this country. When I say "this country", I mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is "this country" as far as I am concerned.
I have referred to the honourable difference of opinion that I have with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, the leader of the Scottish National party. He passionately wants to see a fully independent Scotland. That is a legitimate aspiration and a reasonable ambition for him to hold. I have always respected the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) knows. The hon. Lady and I debated against each other during the devolution debates in the 1970s. I respect their position, but I profoundly disagree with it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |