Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty)

I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Lady, who is a great parliamentarian, and who has done a great deal to uphold the honour and dignity of this House during her time in it. We are today faced with an absurd motion, because the Government are again breaking their promise. I have twice in this House questioned the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, by asking him what he is going to do about this Bill when it comes before us if we are not to have a referendum. My own position on referendums is that I would prefer that we had not departed down that road in 1975, but we have now established a precedent for holding referendums on constitutional issues, and this issue certainly qualifies. However, if anything might have made me waver and return to my former belief, it would have been the Prime Minister saying, ““There will be no timetable. There will be an adequate and proper opportunity for Parliament to debate and discuss the treaty and all its ramifications, as it will bind this country for a long time to come.”” Although there are many aspects of this treaty that I personally do not find offensive, I cannot say that it is inconsequential or unimportant: it is very consequential and very important, and we should have a proper opportunity to discuss it. That the Prime Minister has produced this timetable motion is an abdication of his pledge to put Parliament back at the centre of our national life. Here we have before us this ridiculous and insulting series of propositions, meaning that, on these various days, we will have one and a half hours to debate however many amendments have been tabled. I think it was the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey who said that tomorrow, 27 amendments are down. You will barely have a chance to read them, Madam Deputy Speaker—or whoever is in the Chair—because there will not be an opportunity to debate and discuss 27 amendments. It is vital, in dealing with issues of major importance, that Front Benchers have a reasonable time to explain the propositions they are putting before the House and to take interventions. The Minister was exemplary in that regard this afternoon, but as I pointed out earlier—my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) referred to this in his excellent speech—he took virtually an hour and a half just to deal with that. If we are to have adequate Front-Bench speeches of explanation, and adequate, probing Opposition Front-Bench speeches—I include both Opposition parties—that seek to expose the fallacies of whatever is before us, what time is there, then, for Back Benchers to come in? It is utterly crucial that Parliament does not hand over not only all Executive authority, but all prime debating time to those on the two Front Benches.