WALES BILL (Hansard, 19 April 1978)

§ The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith)
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. At the start of our proceedings yesterday I undertook on behalf of the Government to consider the points of order raised by Members of the Committee. The basic concern that they expressed was that a group of amendments selected for debate raising the question of what is commonly called "the threshold requirement" in the referendum on this Bill might not be reached in the debate, and, as a result, it would not be possible for the Committee to reach a conclusion on the matter.
The timetable under which the Committee is operating after 5 p.m. today allows six hours for debate on Clauses 82 and 83. The Government believe it should be possible for the Committee to debate the threshold amendment and vote upon it, and we hope that that will be the case.
The Government are opposed to the concept of the threshold for the referendum and if the opportunity occurs in debate we shall recommend that the Committee does not accept the proposition. Nevertheless, we feel that it would be wrong if the Committee were deprived of an opportunity to express its view on this important question.
If necessary, the Government will technically move Amendment No. 325, although we are opposed to it, to enable a conclusion to be reached. In the light of this assurance I hope that we shall have a debate of reasonable length on the group of amendments in question and reach a conclusion in the normal way.

§ Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. May I ask your guidance on whether my understanding is correct? Do the Government 458 intend to give a facility for the threshold amendment, which has been put forward by Labour Back Benchers, to be voted upon? Am I right in understanding that the Government are now giving an opportunity for a Division on this amendment and therefore giving the Committee an opportunity to come to a decision? There is substantial objection to this clause in the context of the Wales Bill. Whereas we accept the argument that, the House having expressed its view on the Scotland Bill, there is legitimacy in the proposition for a threshold in the case of a legislative assembly, we certainly do not accept that there is any argument in favour of a similar clause being introduced in the Wales Bill because the Welsh Assembly has an executive character—

§ The Chairman
I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) would come to the point.

§ Mr. Thomas
I am seeking clarification. Are the Government giving facility to this amendment to be introduced and voted on in this Committee?

§ Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I point out that the Government are giving Back Benchers no more of a facility than was given at the Report stage of the Scotland Bill when an attempt was made by Back Benchers to reverse an earlier decision of the House on a similar question in relation to that Bill. The objections of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) are completely unwarranted.

§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarvon)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Are we to understand that the Government are providing that, even if debate continues on the three or four banks of amendments that precede the 40 per cent. amendment, thereby precluding debate on that amendment, there will be a vote on it to permit the threshhold to be introduced? Do we therefore understand, as we suspected on the Scotland Bill, that although the Government openly pretend to be against the 40 per cent., they are leaning over backwards to get it into the Bill and stop the Assemblies?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ The Chairman
Order. At this stage, the Chair must give a ruling. Let me say 459 plainly that the Chair is in no position, and has no desire, to interpret what the Government wish to do in regard to any amendment. Under the business motion, it is perfectly in order for the Government to move any amendment when the guillotine falls.

§ Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden)
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I greatly welcome the Government's decision to put forward the amendment in my name, but there are three forms of referendum proposed in various amendments. Is it not an indication that the House is a prisoner of its procedures if, in consequence of the way in which our business is dealt with, we do not have an opportunity to debate the alternatives?
Will you indicate, Mr. Murton, that the amendments that should be selected for debate are those where there is a possibility that the Government are likely to be defeated? All amendments are important to the movers and the Chair has to make a subjective judgment as to their importance, but there are some cases where it is clear that there is a possibility of the House reversing the wishes of the Government, and these are the amendments which we should be given the opportunity to debate.
I welcome the fact that the Government will give us the opportunity to vote on Amendment No. 325, but I invite you to vary your selection to bring forward the group of amendments taken with Amendment No. 103 so that the House may decide this vital issue which, important though the preceding amendments are, must, on any subjective assessment, be more important than the other amendments to be debated after 5 p.m.

§ The Chairman
I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. My short answer is that I am not prepared to vary the selection of amendments. It is entirely a matter for the judgment of hon. Members who have put down amendments to decide which are the most important. If I were to vary the selection, I should be doing a disservice to other hon. Members who have amendments preceding those grouped with Amendment No. 103.

§ Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool)
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Since the announce- 460 ment about the 40 per cent. amendment has come belatedly at the last moment, without any notice being given to the House and at a time when there are considerable fears that selective pairing has been taking place so that hon. Members who would wish to be present for debates and votes are not present, is it not clear that it must offend against the rules of order that, without any consultation with those responsible for other amendments, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdere (Mr. Evans), Amendment No. 325 has been plucked out by the Government with the view, as a result of the ruses that have already been deployed, and the hope that, without debate, the vital issues that should be discussed on a matter of this importance shall not be discussed? Is it not clear that the Government hope that, by stealth, they will succeed in smothering the view that exists in the House and, by stealth and this type of ruse, will frustrate the genuine will of the House and the wishes of the people of Wales?
Is it possible—against the wishes of hon. Members who tabled Amendment No. 325, because they wish to have an open debate so that Wales should understand the issue and to have the debate at a time when hon. Members are not tricked into being absent—that the Government, by this stratagem, may seek to move an amendment that they will invite the House to defeat?

§ The Chairman
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must say at once that nothing of what he said is a matter for the Chair.
As the Minister has said, there are six hours available for debate and three groups of amendments preceding the group that appears to have particular interest for some hon. Members. The matter is in the Committee's own hands. If it desires to debate the fourth group, perhaps it might be possible to expedite debate on the preceding three groups.

§ Mr. Wigley
On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I have given you notice of this point of order concerning Amendments Nos. 310 and 311 which have not been selected due, I believe, to a misunderstanding about which new subsection they refer to. The amendments would provide for the devolution of responsibility for the Countryside Commission in Wales to 461 be facilitated under the Bill even if the people of Wales, against our judgment, voted "No" in the referendum. Responsibility would then rest with the Welsh Office rather than with the Assembly. This is a matter that could stand on its own feet. I should be grateful for your guidance.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member for Carnaervon (Mr. Wigley) was kind enough to give me prior notice that he intended to raise this point of order. I have already declined to vary my selection in respect of a set of amendments in another connection and equally I cannot do so in this case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept my reasons for that decision.