HC Deb 30 July 1997 vol 299 cc371-80

4.—(1) This paragraph applies to—

  1. (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments,
  2. (b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords,
  3. (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.

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 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.

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.

5.18 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

As the Lords amendments relate to tax, it may be convenient for the House if I were to assist it and clarify the position by asking three precise questions.

First, are we correct in understanding that a single person who earns £30,145 a year would be required to pay an extra £660 in taxation if a Scottish Parliament were to raise the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound? That would be an 11 per cent. increase in that person's income tax bill. Do the Government expect companies to compensate their employees for that large increase, thereby increasing inflation and making Scottish business less competitive?

My second question refers to the White Paper, which projects that a 3p in the pound increase in the basic rate of income tax will produce £450 million of extra revenue. Where does that figure come from? If the tax produces only £250 million, what happens then?

I made inquiries of the accountants Ernst and Young, and Mr. Ian Hunter said that it was likely that the figures went back to 1995. Eight per cent. of the UK total yield of £1.6 billion would be yielded by 1p on income tax. But there is a problem. Are we talking about earned income or savings? If it is simply earned income, the revenue accruing is likely to be well under £450 million. Could that be clarified?

Thirdly, Scottish businesses suffered injustice over many years when making larger rates payments than their counterparts in England. The uniform business rate seeks to resolve that obvious anomaly. Why, then, should that successful system be devolved to the new Scottish Parliament, which will then have the ability to increase the rates paid or even to restructure the entire system? Is that not going against the level playing field offered to Scottish businesses?

Some comment on those questions at the Minister's convenience would be valuable before we proceed.

5.21 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I want to follow briefly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said. Like him, I recognise the need to be brief, for the reasons that he outlined, but I wish to voice my strong objections to the guillotine motion.

My right hon. Friend is entirely right when he says that there is no justification for this guillotine motion on either narrow or broad grounds. The plain truth is that we can sit here until 10 o'clock without infringing the usual procedures.

The first question that the Minister might care to answer is why we do not have five hours, which would at least take us up to 10 o'clock, which is the usual time for the completion of such business; instead, the debate has been limited to three hours. My strong suspicion is that the Government do not wish to debate the substantial amendments.

In any event, the House will shortly go into recess for three months. If the Government were seriously concerned about debating the amendments, they would postpone our three-month recess by a day or two, or even more. Again, the House might suspect that Ministers do not want to debate the amendments.

That brings me to my last point. I do not believe that the House, either now or at any other time, can properly debate devolution for Scotland or Wales until we see the proposals for England. That is because no plan for devolution in Scotland or Wales will prove sustainable or durable unless it is fair to England. There are a variety of reasons for that. I shall not weary the House by repeating them today, but the House is entitled to know what plans the Government have to make the proposals for Scotland and Wales fair to England. No one has told us that.

On the contrary, the Government have proposed a range of ad hoc measures, such as the reform of the other place and an elected mayor for the city of London. There may be merit in those measures, but we are entitled to see the broad frame of their constitutional proposals. I would wish the debate to go on for day after day, month after month, until we know how the proposals will be made fair to England. We should be concerned with the needs not just of England but of Scotland and Wales. Unless the proposals are fair to England, they will not last in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted that the White Paper on Welsh devolution specifically says that one reason why the people of Wales should be encouraged to vote yes in the referendum is that, otherwise, they would be left behind by the devolution proposals in England, about which we, and they, have not been told?

Mr. Hogg

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government are clearly, on their own account, seeking to be fair to Wales. The one issue that they have not thought to address is that of fairness to England. I wish to see the debate enlarged for as long as may be necessary to address that question.

5.25 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) speaks for England; we would have expected no less of him. When he was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he used to act for England, even though he had responsibilities that covered the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a different memory from me.

I am delighted that the Opposition will not force the motion to a vote, or I would have found myself voting for a guillotine motion, a rare event in my parliamentary career. Those on the Conservative Benches who were members of the previous Parliament voted for many guillotine motions, and I am sure that Labour Members will find themselves voting for many guillotine motions during this Parliament. I seldom, if ever, vote for guillotine motions, but I certainly would have voted for this one tonight if it had been forced to a Division, and I shall say why.

I asked the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about the number of people who had voted in the other place. I do not have the exact figures, but I understand that about 200 peers voted on the amendments that we will consider tonight. That is 20 per cent. or less of the total composition of the House of Lords. My goodness, it was lucky that there was not a 40 per cent. rule in the other place when it was addressing those questions.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

rose—

Mr. Salmond

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment if he is fortunate.

The noble Lords could not have considered the amendments of such momentous importance that they were willing to come in droves from the shires to debate and vote on the future of the United Kingdom, or to bring some wisdom to this House to enable us to consider the matters. [Interruption.] I do not have a brief for the Labour party; nor do I have a brief for the House of Lords. I am merely pointing out that 80 per cent.—four fifths—of the other place did not bother to vote on the amendments that we are considering; unless I am to believe that 80 per cent. of their lordships were caught in an agony of indecision, frozen on the Benches, not knowing whether to put back the Scottish referendum by a week or bring forward the Welsh referendum by a week. Those were the essential decisions which had to be made and which their lordships were considering.

When we debate a guillotine motion, we should consider the substance of the amendments before us and the importance that their lordships wanted to give to them.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)

On the matter of numbers and proportions, the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made very well, does he notice that only a small proportion of Labour Members are here today to debate the Bill? Does that not show that this most important piece of constitutional legislation is not held in high regard by Labour Members?

Mr. Salmond

I do not want to engage in a numbers game with the hon. Lady, but I do not think that the Conservative Benches are packed to overflowing this afternoon. One third of the parliamentary Scottish National party are in their places this evening, and if one third of the other parties were here tonight we would have a fuller House.

The hon. Lady makes my point for me. The absence of her hon. Friends and Labour Members shows that the Lords amendments are not particularly important. Members of the House of Lords did not turn up to vote for them, and Members of the House of Commons have not turned up to vote them down. We should draw the conclusion that the amendments do not constitute points of substance. I regret that. I hold no brief for the House of Lords or for the Labour party, but we have a revising Chamber. [Interruption.] I welcome the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the leader of the Welsh National party, to the Chamber. Yet again, the national parties are well represented.

We should look to a revising Chamber to put to this House points of real substance.

Mr. Ancram

The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the leader of Plaid Cymru has just come into the Chamber. Could it be that the good representation on the nationalist Benches reflects the fact that nationalist Members understand more clearly than the Labour party that the proposals being put to Scotland and Wales in the referendums will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, and that is what they want?

Mr. Salmond

That representation shows the dedication of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. We are good parliamentarians, even though we have not drafted the legislation. The right hon. Member would do well to leave the future of Scotland and Wales to the judgment of the Scottish and Welsh people. Whatever destination we want for the people of Scotland, one thing on which most democrats are agreed is that the decision will be made by the people of Scotland and Wales, who will be judge and jury.

I hold no brief for the House of Lords, but I had hoped that a revising Chamber that was considering the first referendum in the United Kingdom since 1979 would make points of real substance. Two issues could have been debated tonight if their lordships had felt that these matters were significant. An amendment that examined or asked people to think about the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and popular sovereignty would have been worth an extended debate in this Chamber. What a pity that such an amendment is not before us. Their lordships seemed to think that other issues were more important.

We could also have discussed a three-way referendum, which is supported by the majority of people in Scotland. The referendum could have been a choice between independence, devolution and the status quo. The right hon. Member for Devizes is nodding. I remind him that, when I put such an amendment to the House in May, Conservative Front Benchers sat on their hands and did not vote, although many Conservative Back Benchers did so. When the matter was pursued in the other place, it was not thought worthy of taking to a vote. Instead, we have these trivial amendments to change the date of the referendum—as if the people of Wales, having debated this issue for a quarter of a century, will change their minds one way or the other because the referendum is a week sooner or a week later. What nonsense, and what an insult to the intelligence of the people of Wales. Why bring to the House amendments that seek to alter the timetable by one week either way?

When we consider a guillotine motion, we should examine the substance of the Lords amendments. I was astonished to learn that, because of the residential requirements, 140 Scottish peers will be entitled to vote in the referendum. I did not know that there were 140 Scottish peers. I have examined what the fully equipped Scottish laird costs the people of Scotland—and, indeed, the people of the United Kingdom. Far too much, in my opinion, if this is the quality of the amendments that they send to this House.

Mr. Hogg

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond

No.

We would do well to support the guillotine motion, to go forward in this debate and to leave the decision to the people of Scotland.

5.33 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I want to intervene briefly on the issue of the timetable motion. The spectacle of two members of the previous Government declaiming against the evils of the guillotine motion was nauseating. It was rather like Herod coming back after his notorious exhibition and declaiming from the pulpit against the evils of infanticide. We had many guillotine motions in the previous Parliament, which often were not justified and resulted in badly debated legislation. It is intolerable for Conservatives to argue against such a motion now.

I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I cannot remember in which context he made it, but his adjectives "synthetic" and "pathetic" were excellent. Conservative Members have been synthetic and pathetic this evening.

Conservative Members have clearly not read the important report that was published yesterday by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. I am a member of that Select Committee: one or two other members may be present, although I do not see any of the Conservative members. Opposition spokesmen have not listened to what their hon. Friends on that Committee have recommended. We must find better ways of ensuring that all parts of a Bill are properly discussed and that we do not end up with the absurdities of timetable motions. It may be a forlorn hope, but I should like this to be the last timetable motion. In future, we should have programming motions that establish at the outset—by agreement, when that can be achieved—sensible ways of dispatching the business of the House to ensure that all parts of a Bill are considered properly.

It is clear that we need not spend a great deal of time on the Lords amendments, but some big issues should have been debated earlier. There would have been a better debate if there had been discussion among all parties to ensure a proper, paced discussion of the Bill. I hope that the Opposition will read the report and understand what their representatives, including the shadow Leader of the House, have signed up to.

It is extremely important to make progress on this legislation. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, in the end democracy will achieve real reform in Wales, Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. It is time that we got on with the job.

5.36 pm
Mr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

In my 14 years in the House, I have voted against many guillotine motions, but I would have been delighted to vote for this one. When I think of the way in which this odd job lot opposite rammed through the poll tax legislation, in spite of the deep distress and anger of the overwhelming majority of people I represent, I have no sympathy for them. In fact, in the past few minutes I have been intensely amused by these whingeing Tories. The Germans have a word for it: schadenfreude. That fits remarkably well.

I have listened to the endless whingeing of members of a regional party of England who seek to deny what the majority of the people of Scotland so ardently desire, a Scottish Parliament. If in the fulness of time that leads to a federal system with an English Parliament, so be it. As far as I am concerned, they can have one. This legislation is a step in that direction.

The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) often voices a confused view on devolution. He advocates an Assembly for Northern Ireland, yet he is opposed to devolution for the rest of Britain. We should ignore the whingeing of the right hon. Gentleman and the other distressed members of what is thankfully a regional party—and long may it remain so.

5.38 pm
Mr. McLeish

I shall be brief, because the Opposition said that they wanted the maximum time for debate.

Mr. Godman

I forgot to ask the question that I intended to ask. For many years, I have argued for an international architectural competition, such as we had for the national museum of Scotland. Has my hon. Friend considered the feasibility of having that underused building, Holyrood palace, as the location for the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. McLeish

I thought that that was going to be a helpful intervention, but I was then worried that my hon. Friend would suggest that the Parliament should be located in his constituency.

The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was very ungracious. As several hon. Members have pointed out, it is breathtaking to hear the Opposition—as they now are—talking about guillotines. They seem to want us to involve ourselves in some kind of collective amnesia, to forget that the past 18 years happened and to believe that there were no guillotines. They want us to believe that the procedures of the House were honoured, and that every convention was observed to the letter.

We will take no lectures. Words such as "synthetic", "pathetic", "breathtaking", "arrogance" and "anger" are bandied about—

Mr. Hogg

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish

Not now.

In fact, the only people who will be angry about the Conservative Opposition's reaction are the people of Scotland and Wales, who see their every ambition thwarted by Conservative Members' failure to remember that 1 May was a catastrophic day in the political fortunes of the Conservative party in both Scotland and Wales. They may have missed the important fact that, on 24 July, we published a White Paper relating to Scotland. To put it mildly, there was a sensationally positive reaction in many parts of Scotland.

Mr. Hogg

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish

In a minute.

Let me draw hon. Members' attention to another date. We have had 1 May; we have had 24 July. Now 11 September looms, and the Conservative party in Scotland—and in Wales, a week later—had better sort itself out. The Scottish and Welsh people are not forgiving of a party that fails to address the realities, and to try to do something positive to help those whom its members purport to represent.

Mr. Hogg

Even if we assume that there must be a guillotine, and even if we assume that we must complete the business today, we must ask why the motion does not provide for a five-hour debate, which would have concluded at 10 pm rather than 8 pm.

Mr. McLeish

I do not think that that question need delay us. We are debating the timetable motion.

I am not inclined to waste any more of the House's valuable time. As Opposition Members suggested a few minutes ago, we need time in which to debate the issue—which I might be able to do if hon. Members stopped intervening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked several questions. He suggested that a single person earning more than £30,000 a year would pay £660 in tax. I think that that is about right, but I intend to write to my hon. Friend confirming the details of where the tax will bite. He also asked about the £450 million yield. The source of that figure is Her Majesty's Treasury.

My hon. Friend asked about the uniform business rate. We have written into the devolution package outlined in the White Paper a proposal that legislative powers for local government should be passed to the Scottish Parliament, and we therefore thought it consistent to pass the power relating to the uniform business rate to the Parliament as well. That means that the Parliament itself will decide on the rate in future. The position would have been exactly the same if the power had been retained at Westminster.

I believe that this is a good settlement, for the United Kingdom, for Scotland and for Wales. Is it not appropriate in the mother of Parliaments for the Conservative Opposition to show a little humility? Will they accept that people have rights and aspirations and send us to the House to speak on our behalf? The timetable motion would expedite the business of the House by allowing a structured debate, so that we can ensure that the Welsh and the Scots have a chance to vote on 11 September. If we value democracy, let us start to debate the substantive items.

Question put and agreed to.