Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

I understood, from the Minister's intervention on the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), that there was a sense of incredulity in the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome had put forward the simple proposition that a constitutional Bill that is taken on the Floor of the House gives every Member an opportunity to speak, because this is, after all, the constitution of the United Kingdom that we are talking about. That sense of incredulity is what informs my response and, I think, those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who are sitting on this Bench. It is intolerable that a Minister, in a Government sinking so rapidly, should still assert that they are on the side of Parliament as they tighten the noose around Parliament's neck. It is hubris that brings forward a guillotine motion of this nature. We know that much of the Bill will not be discussed. This is a busted Parliament, and one reason is that the Executive have hollowed out from our responsibilities the very function of this House, which is to debate important matters—treaties, whatever they are—in this constitutional Bill. The very logic of the Minister's argument was to say quite simply, "We've determined what is necessary and appropriate for this House to debate." Many Members will enter the Chamber for specific aspects of the debate, not necessarily for the whole of it. The programme motion takes no account of that, so why does the Bill have in its title the very word "governance"—the "Governance Bill"? The "Governance" of what? We have become nothing. I see tumbleweed blowing down this Chamber and out in Central Lobby. That is what the Government have reduced Parliament to. Do not think that it is not an Executive function—[Interruption.] However sweet the smile on the face, Ministers sit in arrogance, essentially, and the outcome is the same: "Thou shalt not speak unless we allow you to." Every guillotine motion that comes before the House is almost tailor-made—bespoke—and that is what we have again today. The Minister accepts, if I understood his expressions correctly, that we may not reach some contentions in the Bill, and that they will not be debated. That seems to be an extraordinary proposition with which to begin a constitutional Bill, but that has been the difficulty with this Government since they came into office. They cannot discern the difference between the types of Bills, how they are born and how they should be considered. They have seized the Standing Orders of this House, and only the Minister may initiate debates and determine how they are conducted. We will have a Division on this issue; the Government will march into the Lobby; and their own Back Benchers, who have not even been present for the debate, will be summoned by bells. But the bells are execution bells in the end. We are close to a general election, and the process of this Parliament is intolerable. Why should intelligent people come here to be neutered and held down? The Government do not even want to hear the expression of opinion on their own Back Benches, unless it is merely in support of themselves, so I shall willingly vote against this outrageous motion.