Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Francois: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In days of yore, there used to be an offence of breach of promise, and the Government are most definitely guilty of that now.
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend will recall that on 20 June, the deceitful manner in which this process has been conducted was initiated by the revelation of the mandate, which is described as binding on all the member states. Furthermore, that mandate, as we shall discuss later, translates the word Community into the word Union, provides a single legal personality, and replaces and succeeds the Community. What is happening during all of these proceedings is happening against the background of a binding mandate that is being imposed on this House, which is why the Government are behaving in the way that they are.
Mr. Francois: Again, my hon. Friend is entirely right, and I suspect that he will return to that point briefly later.
Ms Gisela Stuart: The hon. Gentleman may be making a powerful case, but it is also a completely pointless case. Unaccustomed as I am to being helpful to those on my Front Bench during these debates, if I consider the amendments that have been tabled during the limited time we have had, I find that the Opposition have not come up with any ideas, other than, I dont like whats in the treaty. He should be a bit more positive in the next couple of days.
Mr. Francois: The hon. Lady is of course entitled to her view, but if we had had an opportunity to debate a number of those amendments, powerful cases would have been made. Because of the way in which the debate was structured, it was not possible to do so.
The Governments whole case against a referendum is based on the alternative of detailed parliamentary scrutiny. We have not had detailed parliamentary scrutiny. The Government do not deserve to get away with this, and on Wednesday, hon. and right hon. Members will have a vital opportunity to prevent them from doing so. I shall end, as I have taken quite a lot of interventions, with an editorial from The Times today, which is entitled Let The People Speak. It says:
Institutional subterfuge, such as that in which the Government has engaged, will do great harm to the reputation of Parliament, will increase the contempt felt for the EU by much of the electorate and make a mockery of the new, more inclusive, politics which the Prime Minister insists that he favours.
We agree. We say that these debates have been rigged from start to finish for the Governments convenience. We say, Let the people decide.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): I shall speak very briefly. We should be quite clear about what is happening here. This legislation is being guillotined, not programmed. It is being cut short in a most brutal and unhelpful manner. Presumably, that is happening because we are frightened of debating in this Chamber every massive change to the way in which we organise our affairs. The House of Commons has always been jealous of its command of powers over the Government and of the way in which it proceeds through legislation.
What we are debating has enormously far-ranging implications, and because of the way in which the process has been managed, we are unable to discuss whole fields of affairs that are of enormous importance to our people. For instance, transport is not even mentioned under the arrangements for this so-called programme. The Government are foolish and unwise; they ought to have handled this matter better.
The thing that depresses me most is that neither the Front Benchers of the official Opposition, nor the unofficial hangers-on, have made the slightest attempt to wreck this legislation in the way that they should, or have been prepared to, despite the artificial noise. Until we do so, we are failing those who sent us here.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), or the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but I agree with their opposition to this motion. We disagreed with the original business motion because, as others have said, it curtailed time for this House, and we do not like the Governments overall approach. As the hon. Member for Rayleigh said, it is wrong that we have not had proper time to debate common defence and security policy. Many trenchant views are held in the House on that and it is wrong that we cannot debate it. Other matters, too, have had scant attention.
I say to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that we were not consulted on the business motion. My only discussionsformally and informallywith the Government have been to ask for more time.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have long believed that, if we are to have timetabling, which apparently now applies to all Bills, it should essentially be for the Opposition parties to decide how best to use the time on the matters that most concern them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government had said to his Front Benchers and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) that there were three days in which to cover the clauses that we are considering, and had allocated three generous timetables, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the nationalist parties could have reached agreement on how to divide them so that the most important amendments, in the opinion of critics, would take up our time? Instead, we have the Governments best offer of what seems to them to be most convenient and right in dividing up the available time.
Mr. Davey: I strongly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We often go through a charade and pretend that the House controls the Government when the Government railroad matters through. We should change the rules to allow the Opposition parties a much greater say. Perhaps we should consider other legislatures, which have business committees and do things differentlyin my view, more democratically.
I made the point to the Minister that we should have extra timeat least an extra dayto debate especially common defence and security policy. If he has a chance to answer the debate, I hope that he will explain why he has been unable to provide that. Not doing so is wrong and undermines the process. As someone who is
pro-European and supports the Lisbon treaty, I stress that such actions do not help the Governments case. That is why they are misguided, and really should withdraw the motion and start again.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): I shall be brief. In compensation for breaking a solemn manifesto pledge to hold a referendum, the Governmentthe Prime Minister himselfpromised that the House would be given an opportunity to debate in Committee, line by line, the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, which effectively incorporates the constitutional treaty on which they promised us a referendum. We have not had that line-by-line consideration. The House has not hadand will not have, if the Government motion is passedthe opportunity to debate a single line of the numerous and important clauses in the treaty that affect immigration, asylum and border control, to consider a single amendment or to take a single vote. In other words, the Prime Minister will break a second promise if the business motion is passed. I find that disgraceful.
I find it appalling that a Minister who is personally so charming and agreeable can be party to such a duplicitous attempt to prevent the House from having what it was promised.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): The Government must think again. There is no doubt that there is much in the Lisbon treaty to debate; there is no doubt that we have not debated it; and there is also no doubt that Oppositions always make that claim, but on this occasion the claim has very serious truth in it.
The Government promised us line-by-line scrutiny but they have not given us the same length of time as the previous Conservative Government gave the debate on Maastricht. They have made debate difficult with their novel procedure and they have wrongly accused my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) of going along with that procedure when he manifestly did not. They have upset their own supporters, who see that the motion is utterly unfair, and have made Conservative Members who believe in the treaty of Lisbon extremely angry about the process that they have introduced. I hope very much that they will withdraw the motion.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Views on the EU and the Lisbon treaty transcend the party political spectrum. There are a number of amendments tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends who wish to discuss the implications for public services. We hope that the Chairman of Ways and Means will look on them preferentially, but it seems very unfair that our debate is again being shoehorned into a very short time. There is also the issue of the referendum. As I said in my earlier intervention, we are now, in effect, discussing two referendums. Again, it would be only right and proper
It being forty-five minutes after commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Order [28 January].
(Clause 3, the Schedule and Clauses 4 and 5)
Further considered in Committee.
[Sir Michael Lord in the Chair.]
Next Section | Index | Home Page |