Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that, as a matter of principle, when a Bill dealing with the constitution is before the House it should not be the subject of a programme motion. The House of Commons ought to have an opportunity to discuss these important matters, especially given that when the Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill he talked about this Government's terrific record on the constitution and said that this Bill was an addition to it. However, I am not absolutely convinced that the reasons advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome are necessarily the right ones. I was present on Second Reading and I recall that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) poked fun at the Lord Chancellor, saying that this Bill had a grand title but there was nothing in it. To be perfectly frank, the Opposition cannot have it both ways: they cannot say that the Bill is also weighty and important. I agree that the subject matter is, and even I poked fun at the Lord Chancellor, despite the great respect that we have for him, saying that given the history of what the Government have done on the constitution, this should have been a much more substantial Bill.