| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret having to say this, but the hon. Gentleman must now direct his remarks to the timetable motion.
Dr. Lewis: I have almost concluded my remarks. The debate will be truncated in such a way that we shall not be able to consider this and many similarly important issues that relate directly to the democratic process and the effect that abuses of that process can have on the lives and electoral possibilities of candidates for membership this House. I have raised the issue because I hope to elicit from the Under-Secretary a commitment that the Government will seek to deal with this problem in the future.
7.5 pm
Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton): I shall, as always, give the shortest speech in the debate. It is in my nature to give short speeches, but I fear that my campaign for shorter speeches has not caught on; if it had, there would be no need for this debate.
There are measures and there are times when guillotine motions are appropriate. I do not think that this is the right time or the right measure. This is not a technical or non-controversial Bill. It goes to the heart of our democracy and relates to how people vote and how we are chosen and to public perceptions of the Chamber. In many respects, it is profoundly undemocratic and militates against the independent and independent-minded. It will allow vast sums of money to be thrown at the electoral process and it will take us further down the American path. The Bill needs more scrutiny than will be allowed given all the amendments that have been back-loaded on to it.
When I arrived in this place rather unexpectedly in May 1997, I thought that I was joining the free Parliament of a free people. Increasingly, it seems to be more of a rubber-stamp assembly. I am worried by what we are doing tonight. We shall vote in haste and repent at leisure.
7.6 pm
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down): I shall speak against the guillotine motion. Although in some circumstances such motions may be justified, Bills to which a large number of amendments have been tabled--technical, consequential or otherwise--and which include provisions that affect the fundamental principles of democratic government and go to the fundamentals of our constitutional process should not be rushed through without scrutiny. They should be considered for their
content and language and they should be subject to careful assessment. As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said in his succinct fashion, this place should be a democratic assembly where the principles of democracy and liberty are given the fullest, unrestrained rein when fundamental issues are at stake.Recently, I read a quotation from Judge Learned Hand, one of the most distinguished jurists of the 20th century. He said this about liberty:
- What then is the spirit of liberty? . . . The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weights their interests alongside its own without bias.
Earlier speakers have said that the House is increasingly becoming the creature of parties. There is no question but that the party system and the increasing emphasis in the life of a parliamentarian on having a structured career that leads to office have both militated against the independence of Members. There is perhaps an air of unreality to the debate. We all know that the Whips will give their directions regardless of what any of us say.
Mr. Hogg: May I amplify the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument? In this debate, the majority of hon. Members have supported the views that he is articulating. We all know that in 40 minutes or so, 320 or 330 hon. Members who know nothing about the debate, have not been present and have not taken part in the argument will flock in.
Mr. McCartney: I could not agree more with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When the Division Bells ring, I often think of the analogy of the Pied Piper of Hamelin: "All they come from their various places--fat ones, thin ones, scrawny ones and tawny ones," making their way to their new lodgings at the direction of the respective pipers, and no doubt hoping to benefit later from the cheese.
Mr. Winnick : It is true that when the Division Bells ring, hundreds of hon. Members--on both sides, incidentally--will come into the Chamber. That has always been the practice, whichever Government were in office. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take into account the fact that when Government Members have strong feelings against a Government measure or a certain aspect of a Bill, as was the case last night, we are present in the Chamber? Many of us listen closely to the debate and usually we know precisely what we will do: vote against our own Government, as a number of us did last night. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not be too cynical. In the main, my colleagues believe that the Government's proposed guillotine is justified. That is why they are not in the Chamber now.
Mr. McCartney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not think that I had made a generalisation so overriding as to apply to each and every hon. Member or to groups of hon. Members in parties. In the relatively short period that I have been in the House, I have observed nothing that detracts from the principle that I outlined.
When the Whips give their indication, hon. Members pile in and, broadly speaking, do their bidding. We can all say what we like, but elected despotism will be at work. When the Whips call the tune, the matter will be disposed of.
I shall deal briefly with some of the points that are of particular significance to Unionist Members from Northern Ireland. One is the exemption which has been so eloquently dealt with by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), relating to the special dispensation that is to be given to parties in Northern Ireland. It will benefit only two parties, both of them part of the pan-nationalist front: Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party, which both claim that a large part of their revenue comes from abroad, principally from the Republic and the United States.
What is baffling to most democrats in Northern Ireland is the vacillating and cowardly policy of appeasement that is afforded to those parties. Sinn Fein has been described by the Prime Minister and successive Secretaries of State as being inextricably linked with the IRA. They are two sides of the same coin. It is a matter of common knowledge in Northern Ireland that all the highest offices in Sinn Fein and the IRA are occupied by the same people, and that the personnel of Sinn Fein almost wear as campaign medals some conviction for a terrorist offence.
It has also been the subject of comment on both sides of the Atlantic--
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are debating the timetable motion, not the Bill itself.
Mr. McCartney: I agree entirely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall give the argument some focus.
I have been forced to stress some of the substance of the argument in order to highlight the circumstances in which matters of fundamental constitutional and democratic principle will be swept to one side and afforded inadequate treatment and scrutiny because of the guillotine. Were it not for the guillotine, many matters that are of the most fundamental importance could be considered.
As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out, why should parties which observe the democratic process, eschew violence and attempt to achieve their political goals in peaceful and non-violent ways be penalised by special concessions made to parties which the Government admit are inextricably linked with terrorist organisations?
I finish by saying that this evening, when the Division Bells ring, when the guillotine motion is carried in favour of the Government, and when, after inadequate discussion and scrutiny of both its content and its language, the Bill is blitzed through the parliamentary process, people in Northern Ireland will have to live with the consequences. Their belief in democracy will be shattered. They will see those who rely on violence raised up and financially fed. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office may smile, but that is what people in Northern Ireland will see.
7.16 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): The Secretary of State was disappointed that his benign intent in moving the guillotine motion on Monday night was
defeated by the wilful nature of the Opposition, who, in his estimation, subsequently discussed all the wrong amendments.That is a measure of the Government's arrogance when they introduce such motions. They decide in their own minds what it is proper for the Opposition to discuss. They tell us that under the terms of their motion, there was time to discuss what in their opinion ought to have been discussed. That was precisely the point made by the Secretary of State--the Government should be scrutinised on their own terms, not according to the estimates of the Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to even greater arrogance when he said that the Government, when in opposition, had learned from the process when they began to co-operate with the then Government. We have heard that theme several times this week. No wonder this week has been characterised as national guillotine week.
Let me make a point that I made earlier this week about what such co-operation means. I recall, as do other Opposition Members, that the Scotland Act 1998 passed through the House with some measure of co-operation. That is exactly the sort of co-operation that was lauded this evening by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). An agreement was reached between the two Front Benches, so that the right things, according to the estimation of both sides, would be debated.
Again and again, that was used to silence dissent on the Government Benches. What those on my Front Bench thought it proper to discuss was not entirely consistent with what I thought it proper to discuss but, much more important, given his role in that debate, what was discussed was not what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) considered it important to discuss. Again and again, amendments that he considered important were never discussed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |