---

3.--(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

Extra time, &c.

4.--(1) This paragraph applies to--
(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments,
(b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords,
(c) proceedings on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the appointment of its Chairman.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.
(3) Proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(5) If proceedings to which this paragraph applies are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the interrupted proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
(6) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings to which this paragraph applies are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The purpose of the motion is to ensure proper, structured consideration of the amendments made to the Bill in another place. The intention is to ensure that the changes proposed to the Bill are given fair consideration and that other business is not jeopardised, particularly at this stage in the Session.

We repeat that the referendums Bill is simple and straightforward and follows precedent. It essentially seeks the consent of the people of Scotland and Wales and paves the way for substantive legislation. The Bill itself has been debated extensively in both Houses. In the Commons, it was debated for almost 22 hours over four days. In the Lords, it was debated for almost 33 hours over six days. Government amendments to the Bill are essentially technical, in that they put on the face of the Bill the provisions that were previously in the Standing Orders. That move was proposed by the Opposition in another place and was accepted by the Government. The other Government amendment simply clarifies the scope of financial provision--it does not imply any additional expenditure over and above what was already anticipated.

30 Jul 1997 : Column 372

Opposition amendments are also straightforward. One seeks to require the referendums to be held on the same day. The Government have made it clear all along that there are good reasons for holding the Welsh and Scottish referendums on different days. Another Opposition amendment inserts the word "income" into the second question on the ballot paper. Again, we have always made it clear that that is both unnecessary and undesirable.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): The Minister mentioned the argument about the dates of the two referendums and he said that the Government had given reasons for their position both here and in another place. Will he develop those arguments later today, or is this the only occasion upon which he will condescend to address the House on that matter?

Mr. McLeish: I hope that my contributions to the House could never be described as condescending. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), will deal with that matter later.

We have no doubt that the Opposition intend to debate the issues sensibly. However, our experience in Committee, when Opposition Members tabled several frivolous amendments, has made the Government wary and not prepared to take any chances. The timetable motion aims to strike the right balance between the need to complete the business and the need to provide adequate time for debate. Time taken debating the allocation of time motion could be used to debate Lords amendments. This seems to be a straightforward and sensible measure, and I therefore urge hon. Members to move on quickly to debate the substantive issues.

5.12 pm

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): I have heard some introductions to guillotine motions, but the Minister's comments take the biscuit for their breathtaking arrogance. I shall explain why. The motion is another step along the disgraceful path of railroading this important constitutional legislation through the House. Only yesterday, the Government were still amending the Bill in the House of Lords. I shall turn to today's events later.

The Minister asked whether I intended to take up time debating the motion. I shall take as little time as I can, despite my genuine anger about this imposition. I am in a quandary, as we have only three hours in which to consider the Bill and that time started when the Minister got to his feet. Every moment we spend debating the motion is a minute subtracted from the time that we have to discuss the very important amendments.

If we were to call a Division, that time would also be subtracted from the time that we need to debate those amendments. Therefore, I do not intend either to speak for long or to divide the House. However, we must do justice to the amendments today, as we were not able even to discuss them when the Bill was before the House previously, because of the guillotine imposed at that time. It would constitute a double gag if we did not discuss the amendments today, and that is totally unacceptable in this Parliament.

The shortness of my speech does not detract from my concern about the arrogance with which the Government treat the House of Commons and the synthetic and

30 Jul 1997 : Column 373

pathetic display of irritation that they evinced against the other place. The Minister cannot argue that the motion is designed to prevent delay. He said that it is intended to ensure that "other business is not jeopardised". Let us look at the provisions of the motion. They will end consideration of the Bill in three hours. There is no other business on the Order Paper today and, as a result of the motion, we shall rise before the normal Adjournment of the House. Therefore, it is simply wrong to suggest that the motion is necessary in order to protect other business.

Still more breathtaking is the fact that, far from dealing only with Opposition amendments from another place, the Government are amending their own amendments. In the first block of amendments, the Government disagree with the Lords amendments that they passed in another place. As I have said, it is breathtakingly arrogant to suggest that the debate on the motion is somehow a waste of time. The Government are drafting the Bill on the hoof in their headlong rush to produce it.

The Government expressed irritation with the other place when the amendments were passed--I think that all hon. Members will remember the Minister's comments about hereditary peers misusing or abusing their position. It is interesting to examine the facts surrounding those votes in another place. For the first amendment on 3 July concerning the referendum dates, the Opposition in the House of Lords had a majority of seven. Some 49 Labour life peers did not participate in that vote. Where were they? For the second amendment on 21 July, the Opposition had a majority of 17. Some 32 Labour life peers did not vote that day.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has the figures available, but will he tell the House what percentage of members of the House of Lords voted in those Divisions? That will give us an idea of the importance that the other place attached to the amendments.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is for Governments to get their business through. On that occasion, Labour life peers--who, we are told, are sent to the House of Lords to do a job for their party--were simply not present. It is not surprising that Labour Members of Parliament appear so willing to relinquish their seats in this place in order to move to the House of Lords, as they obviously have a pretty cushy role there--they do not even have to turn up to vote.

Mr. Garnier: Labour life peers might have been absent for those votes because the referendum dates--whether they are a week or a month apart--are not part of the Labour party's election manifesto.

Mr. Ancram: That may be so. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will have more to say about that when we discuss the relevant amendments.

It is quite extraordinary that tonight--the night before we debate the Scottish White Paper--hon. Members will be sent home before the normal Adjournment of the House. I cannot help feeling that the Government are ensuring that English comrades are out of the way before the White Paper is debated tomorrow. The Government do not want them to see the impact that the White Paper's proposals will have on the constitutional position of England and on English Members of Parliament.

30 Jul 1997 : Column 374

The guillotine procedure is never welcome: it is the exercising of Executive power, backed by a parliamentary majority, over the rights of Parliament to discuss and debate substantive and important legislation. It is particularly abusive today as it is based on nothing more than administrative convenience. It demonstrates the Labour Government's total disregard of parliamentary democracy, and it is another step down a dangerous road of which all who cherish the rights of Parliament should be very wary indeed. If it were not for the fact that dividing the House would increase the gag on debate, I would oppose the motion.

However, we must discuss important amendments that we were prevented from considering when the Bill was before the House previously. Therefore, reluctantly and regretfully, I must urge my hon. Friends to proceed to consideration of the amendments from another place as soon as possible.

---