I must say that I am extremely disappointed in the position that the Lord Chancellor has chosen to take on this occasion; he would not have supported it in previous incarnations. I say this because, whatever its shortcomings, this is an important constitutional Bill. It certainly does not go nearly far enough in many directions for my liking; nevertheless, it does contain matters that we ought, quite properly, to debate in this House. However, perhaps just as important are those things that are not in it, and which right hon. and hon. Members would wish to add to the appropriate legislation for dealing with constitutional reform.
The proposal before us—programme motion No. 2—differs from its predecessor in a very important respect, which is, as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, by the insertion of knives. Those knives will curtail discussion. They are designed to curtail discussion. They are there to prevent Members of this House from having the opportunity of debating this constitutional Bill.
The reason why, by convention, we consider the Committee stage of constitutional Bills on the Floor of the House is to enable every Member who wishes to contribute to have their say. Perversely, what we have before us today is a programme motion that puts us in a worse position than if we had been in Committee upstairs. It is normal practice not to have knives until such time as it is clear that progress will not be made without them. I have served on countless Committees dealing with Bills of a constitutional or criminal justice nature over the years. Normally, we have managed to discuss, between ourselves, appropriate ways of progressing business to avoid knives, wherever possible, and ensure that every single clause is given proper weight and proper consideration. That will not happen on this occasion, despite the fact that many more Members may wish to be involved. This might be a modest Bill in what it sets out to achieve, but it is hardly that modest in its physical size—it contains 56 clauses and nine schedules—so it is reasonable that we take a little time in considering it.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Heath
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 3 November 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
498 c756-7 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:47:46 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_595077
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_595077
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_595077