House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Dec 1992

Column 143

Points of Order

3.30 pm

Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your help in urging a review of the way in which Standing Order No. 20 procedures are organised. It is clear after yesterday's disgraceful performance by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), that the Labour party is using those procedures to smear him

Madam Speaker : Order. Standing Order No. 20 applications come to me. If there is any criticism whatever about the way in which they are handled, that criticism lies with me. If the hon. Member or any other hon. Member wishes to criticise the way in which such applications are handled, a substantive motion must be tabled, and I shall see that it is debated.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on today's Order Paper and, in particular, to the instruction that stands in my name. Indeed, it has appeared in my name on every Order Paper since the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

The instruction has not been selected, nor has new clause 22, which deals with the same subject--to empower the House to hold a referendum in Scotland to bring Scotland in line with the principle of subsidiarity.

Can you explain, how the House can meaningfully debate the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is based on the principle of subsidiarity, when excluded from such consideration is the only means available to apply subsidiarity to Scotland? Do you agree that the real world should, at least at times, impinge on our discussions in this place, especially as everybody in Europe knows that we cannot have European union without subsidiarity at every level, including in relation to Scotland? Why should we even refuse to debate the subject?

Column 144

Madam Speaker : I can deal with the instruction which stands in the name of the hon. Member because it is within my remit to do so. The instruction, I must tell him, is plainly not in order. As he and the House know, I do not give an explanation in respect of the selection.

The matter of the government of Scotland, a subject of great importance not only to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) but to the whole House, is not cognate to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. So it is out of order, and I am therefore unable to call the hon. Member to move his instruction.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : There is no further point of order. I have dealt with the matter.

Mr. Walker : No, it is a fresh point of order.

Madam Speaker : If it is another point of order, I will hear it. I cannot hear further points of order on that matter.

Mr. Walker : You, Madam Speaker, will be aware that this unitary Parliament was created by the Act of Union in 1707 and that this Parliament cannot be bound by any decisions of previous Parliaments under our unwritten constitution. I seek your guidance on matters as they affect Scotland under the Act of Union, whether or not the Maastricht treaty, if it were to be enacted in the Bill before the House, would change substantially the relationship between Scotland, the unitary Parliament and our unwritten constitution. While it does not refer directly to what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has raised, it is an important aspect of the Union of the United Kingdom and it must be addressed before we proceed with the Bill.

Madam Speaker : That is a somewhat hypothetical matter and not one for me to deal with at this stage. The House must proceed, as it determined to proceed after Second Reading, with the Committee stage of the bill. We must leave it at that for the time being.

Column 145

Coal Mines (Closure Review)

3.35 pm

Mr. Bill Etherington (Sunderland, North) : I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to specify the procedures to be followed when the closure of a coal mine is proposed ; to require assessments of efficiency, profitability, contribution to import substitution, competitiveness with other fuels and related matters ; to set criteria for the approval or disapproval of a proposed closure ; and for connected purposes.

I wish to introduce the Bill to try to prevent any repetition of the disgraceful scenario following the announcement by the President of the Board of Trade during the recess which led to the infamous 13 October statement. I believe that such a Bill is long overdue. The country was told in 1984, when the modified colliery review procedure was placed before the deputies' union, NACODS, that the procedure would be sacrosanct. Unlike certain Ministers and many hon. Members, on the Opposition Benches, I understand what "sacrosanct" means. It does not mean that, when things turn a little nasty, the procedure is totally ignored. The procedure has now fallen into disrepute, and I would like to see something replacing it on a statutory basis.

It was all very well for Lady Thatcher and the then Energy Minister, Mr. Peter Walker, to assure the House that the review procedure would be followed. As time went on, they went missing from the House. Statute law does not go missing ; it continues.

Two issues make me certain beyond doubt that we need to take this matter out of the hands of the Department of Trade and Industry. On 12 October I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade, asking for some borehole information on the coal measures off the Northumberland and Durham coast, information going back to the late 1950s and the early 1960s. Today I have been informed by the Energy Minister that the Department of Trade and Industry has no such information and that if I require it I must approach the National Geological Survey or British Coal. This leads me to believe that the disgusting decision taken in the recess was taken without proper knowledge of the subject.

What makes me even more convinced that that is the fact that in answer to a question from me in the House the President of the Board of Trade stated that he could not understand why people were buying nuclear or gas- generated power if it was more expensive than coal. If that is his understanding of the subject, we badly need a review and we badly need to take it out of the House, the Department and the Ministry.

All I ask is quite simply that we go back to what we were promised by the Government in 1984. If that comes about, we will never again have the stupid and ridiculous state of affairs in which a Minister has to come to this House and state quite categorically that he needs three months' breathing space.

Column 146

I say again to the President of the Board of Trade that the miners and those who support them have not been fooled by what has been said. We know that the decision to be announced in January or February will be based upon what public pressure can be brought to bear rather than upon the facts of the matter. It is no use Ministers coming to the House and asking for time if they do not intend to do something tangible in that time. Nothing leads me to believe that it was anything other than that.

I went to Wearmouth colliery last week. Perhaps one or two Conservatives know where that is, but I will tell those who do not. It is in the county of Tyne and Wear, formerly County Durham, and it is in Sunderland--not particularly noted for having a good football club, but a place that will be known to most people. I went down the mine at Wearmouth colliery to see a new face which it has cost £20 million to get to over many years. The face is in some of the best conditions that anyone, including me, will have seen in this country. It is in a seam of coal in undisturbed geological strata more than 8 ft thick. Yet that colliery, according to the President of the Board of Trade, was to be mothballed. I was supposed to be thankful for that. It meant that, out of the 21 collieries proposed for closure, it was somewhere between numbers one and four in the rating, so there were at least 17, and possibly 20, behind it. I am not satisfied with that, and there are many other people who are not satisfied with it. That is why I am asking the House to support the Bill.

I should like to pay a tribute here--I have not had an opportunity to do so before--to hon. Members on the Government Benches who supported the miners and those who support them by voting with the Opposition to ensure that a proper review was carried out. We shall be eternally grateful to that handful of Members. One of them has certainly suffered, and it may well be that others will do so, but they have our gratitude. Many hon. Members stated that they were voting only for the review and that their final vote would be based upon what was proposed by the President of the Board of Trade as and when the review was completed. We hope that those hon. Members will join us should we not get the result that we wish to get.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Michael Clapham.

Coal Mines (Closure Review)

Mr. Bill Etherington accordingly presented a Bill to specify the procedures to be followed when the closure of a coal mine is proposed ; to require assessments of efficiency, profitability, contribution to import substitution, competitiveness with other fuels and related matters ; to set criteria for the approval or disapproval of a proposed closure ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

Column 147

Orders of the Day

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[ Mr. Michael Morris-- in the Chair ]

3.44 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I express the thanks of those of us concerned about the Bill for the preparations that you have made, which I hope will mean that we do not have a repetition of what happened in 1972--[ Hon. Members :-- "Why not?"] We had 15 hours of points of order until7 am. The first three amendments on the Order Paper, Nos. 73 to 75 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), some hon. Friends and myself, have not, according to the provisional selection of amendments, been selected for debate by you, Mr. Morris. However, I wish to put to you , in as simple language as I can, some of the reasons why I hope that you will consider the matter before we debate the amendments that you have selected and will reinstate those amendments.

The European union created by the treaty has two components. First, the novel titles, I, V, VI and VII, which create a new entity known as European union, which is contained in articles A to F and title I ; title V on foreign and defence, articles J to J(II) ; title VI on justice and home affairs, articles K to K(9) ; and title VII, the final provisions L to S. The second component already partially exists--the treaties of Rome, Paris and Brussels relating to the coal and steel and Euratom treaties. They are in place now and are not new. The treaty will amend, update and strengthen those with various matters relating to subsidiarity, the European Parliament and economic and monetary union.

In the Bill, the Government have been remarkably economic with the words and those matters, which are contained in at least 238 articles in the treaty of Rome, are subsumed only under titles II, III and IV, despite the fact that the Bill provides for the whole treaty, which is particularly on European union--that is the long title. The items that I have specified appear only in subsection (k), which we are adding to the European Communities Bill. The Bill does not provide for consideration of titles I, III and V, which are important to the House in terms of something new in the treaty.

Therefore, we must ask by what method the House can ratify those important new elements of the treaty. According to the Foreign Secretary, who is not here--the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel- Jones) is present--those matters are an intergovernmental "outer building" and do not involve too much the Community's existing institutions. Indeed, under article C they are required to be a single institutional framework and at least 40 references are made to the Commission, the Council, the court or the Parliament in those new parts of the treaty, so we cannot separate them quite as much as the Minister of State and the Foreign Secretary decide.

In selecting the amendment of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)--one of his hon. Friends will no doubt move it--and the other amendments in the group, all relating to title I, articles A to F, you may allow

Column 148

us, Mr. Morris, at least to debate title II. Debates about foreign affairs, security, justice and home affairs may follow later. But, Mr. Morris, you have selected the amendments on line 9 of sub-paragraph (k), which is the pipeline to the European Communities Act. That simply adds those matters to the automatic or near automatic obligation of the House and the United Kingdom to the obligations contained in the original treaty. It in no way allows us to deal separately with the major items that I have outlined. Even if they are debated, as they may well be, whether or not they go into sub-paragraph (k) or are left out, that is no way to find out whether the House approves them. All we are doing is making them automatically effective.

Therefore, I submit that if we are to ratify, which is surely what this is all about, the matters relating to European union and its foreign policy, justice and home provisions, which are important to everyone, we must have some free standing amendments.

The amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney propose that we would give a specific debate to each of the titles and have a vote on them, just as we would on a statutory instrument, and approve them or not, as the case may be, to enable the Government to ratify the treaty. But at the moment we do not have that opportunity under the Bill or under the amendments.

There will not be a specific debate on those matters as there would be on a statutory instrument on, for instance, dog licences. The House would be able to decide yes or no on such a statutory instrument, but not yes or no to ratification of those important titles of the treaty.

There is an even greater reason why we must have separate debates on those matters away from subparagraph (k). Foreign affairs and security are matters for the royal prerogative. Having made inquiries, I understand that the Government do not necessarily require the Bill to ratify the European union articles of the treaty.

Under the treaty, all that the Minister has to do is to send a certificate of ratification to the Italian President. Therefore, we are not in a position to say yes or no despite the fact that we shall be handing over to other bodies the power of the royal prerogative itself.

Unless the three amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend, or something similar, are selected, perhaps at a later stage, the House will be deprived of debating the specific importance of the articles, of the surrounding edifice of the European union, in a manner which is less specific than would be the case under a statutory instrument for domestic legislation for a dog licence.

Unless we can do so, the process of ratification by our own constitutional requirements which the treaty provides will not have been followed because we shall not have the opportunity specifically to discuss and vote on those important matters relating to European union.

Several hon. Members rose --

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. I shall rule on one point of order at a time. We have plenty of time ahead of us.

The hon. Gentleman makes his point of order with his usual thoroughness and conviction and puts it in as

Column 149

succinct a form as he was able, even though it was pretty long. I can provide him with an answer, but it will be rather short. Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 provide that certain parts of the treaty are to be ratified only when the House has agreed to ratification. This is not a Bill to ratify the treaty. I repeat that : this is not a Bill to ratify the treaty. Therefore, amendments to put a limitation on ratification are beyond the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, I may say, in respect of the hon. Gentleman's concluding words, that although I cannot anticipate amendments that may be tabled in future, of course I will consider any such amendments--but I am not promising anything at this stage.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have three brief, genuine points of order. [Laughter.] I can assure right hon. and hon. Members who are laughing that nothing has made me more sick than sitting through all those European debates when Governments of both parties have deliberately restricted discussion. Why cannot we debate a referendum clause? Right hon. and hon. Members have made several attempts. I tabled such an amendment and I see no reason why you, Mr. Morris, as the Chairman of Ways and Means and being responsible to the British people and to right hon. and hon. Members who want to express a view, cannot give approval to debating amendment No. 70, for example, which does not involve any expenditure. It is just a means of giving everyone an opportunity, whether or not they want to take it, to express an opinion on a referendum.

Your Clerks, Mr. Morris, have been more than helpful, but is it the case-- as I fear--that the Bill has been drafted in such a way as to prevent right hon. and hon. Members from expressing a view on whether there should be a referendum? Despite the restrictions imposed by not having a money resolution, would it not be possible to have a vote on amendment No. 70, which would give right hon. and hon. Members the right, not to express a view, as some of them want, but to say yes or no to whether the people of this country should have some say in handing over their freedoms and liberty without their specific permission? Could we not have a debate, on any clause or amendment, on whether or not there should be a referendum?

Several Hon. Members rose --

The Chairman : Order. I will deal with points of order one at a time.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there cannot be a vote on amendment No. 70, simply because it is out of order at this time-- [Interruption.] Order. May I respond? I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I cannot select any amendment that is out of order. That is the rule of the House. However, if the hon. Gentleman shows his usual ingenuity and continues with his usual degree of

creativity--doubtless assisted by right hon. and hon. Members on his own side and across the Floor of the Committee--he may yet succeed. The hon. Gentleman must be clear that there is no money resolution associated with the Bill. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman keeps trying.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.

Column 150

The Chairman : No. I call Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I draw your attention to clause 3 and to the proposed amendments to that clause, none of which has been selected. The list of selected amendments refers to a "provisional selection", and the remarks that you made a few moments ago, Mr. Morris, were very helpful. When I saw the helpful Clerks in the Table Office after tabling amendment No. 89, I was informed that the fact that there was not a money resolution in the Bill did not debar an amendment such as mine making provision for a referendum. In the terms of that amendment, a money resolution is not necessary--but before the amendment could be implemented, the Government would have to table a Ways and Means resolution.

Have amendment No. 89 and the others on clause 3 been rejected, or will the published provisional selection be supplemented by further examination of amendments that have not been considered so far--including amendment No. 89? Or was your reply, Mr. Morris, to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) an intimation that my amendment is debarred because of the absence of a money resolution? When I saw the Clerks, I was informed that my amendment was perfectly in order for selection and debate, even though the mechanism for implementing it was not available in the Bill. I share the view of the hon. Member for Southend, East that the House should have an opportunity to debate the question of a referendum--and if that proposal were carried, it would be up to the Government to provide the machinery and the Ways and Means resolution to put it into operation.

It would be an important denial of the debating powers of the House if such an amendment were not selected and considered. If the amendment is defective, clearly we shall have to devise one which is not, but when I submitted my amendment I was told that it would stand, and that it could be debated. My information was that the House could consider a referendum. If it does not do so, millions of people will question the validity of the House in ignoring that possibility.

Several hon. Members rose --

The Chairman : Order. One at a time.

Several hon. Members rose --

4 pm

The Chairman : Order. May I rule on the point of order that has already been raised? I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for raising it, but I am afraid that the information that he was given on amendment No. 89 was not correct. The amendment is out of order as it stands. I re-emphasise to the hon. Gentleman and to all hon. Members that the list is a provisional selection of amendments. We are starting on clause 1 ; the hon. Gentleman, understandably, is raising questions about clause 3, so he has a little time to get his amendment in order.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I make a general point about the difficulties involved in interpreting the meaning of the treaty? As you know, with domestic legislation the words that a Minister uses in advancing his argument about the meaning of a clause have now become

Column 151

more important and binding, because, following a recent decision of the House of Lords, the Minister's words may be considered when the wording of the legislation is being construed. Furthermore, if by chance the House of Lords, or even the Court of Appeal, gives the words of a statute a meaning that was not anticipated, it is relatively easy--I do not pretend that it is very easy--for the Government to introduce amending legislation, and sometimes even to rectify with retrospective legislation any injustice which may have been done because of the misunderstanding about the wording. Here we have an entirely different situation. We are not dealing with domestic legislation which will be interpreted by the House of Lords, and which is subject to possible amendment by a sovereign Parliament. If the treaty is ratified, it will be interpreted first by the Commission, which has the right of initiative, and secondly by the European Court.

It is important to understand that the Government have already made some extremely wide assertions about what the treaty does not do. At the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister--

The Chairman : Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is addressing a matter to which I can attend rather than Government policy.

Mr. Budgen : Indeed, Mr. Morris. You have enormous power and influence over these proceedings, and as we struggle to understand the meaning of the treaty, the very raising--or even the half raising--of your eyebrow will cause the Government to jitter with fear. If you were to say that you thought that an external objective explanation of what the treaty meant would assist the House, I expect that thet Government would immediately accede to your suggestion. I shall explain briefly why I think that that is necessary. For instance, at the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister made five points about the treaty which I, as a pompous lawyer--[ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] If my right hon. Friend had made those assertions before any judge who happened to be even half awake, they would have been described as very brave.

My right hon. Friend was brave enough to say, for example, that the treaty had nothing to do with immigration. I invite the Committee to look at the treaty. The Committee will see that it deals specifically with immigration. After my right hon. Friend's splendid and brave speech, which was so well received by the Tory party conference, all of whose members had read the details of the treaty with great care, no doubt--

The Chairman : Order. The Tory party conference is not a matter for the Chair. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the publication HMSO 13409, which I imagine he must have in his possession. I am not of a mind now to call for an external and objective assessment. I move on, therefore, to Mr. Winnick.

Mr. Budgen : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris

The Chairman : Order. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman. Several hon. Members rose --

Column 152

The Chairman : Order. I call Mr. Winnick.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). As we are beginning our deliberations in Committee today--we know why we are beginning them--it is important to realise that the Bill is the most crucial legislation that could come before the House. I am sure that you take the point, Mr. Morris.

If the Bill is passed, the constitutional arrangement of the United Kingdom --we will argue this when we come to the details--will undoubtedly be changed. Many of us believe that the change will be for the worse, although I realise that that is not a matter for the Chair, but a matter for debate.

I cannot conceive of any other measure that will come before us for many years which could have such a crucial bearing on the future of this country. That is true whether one takes a critical view, as I do, or whether one takes the view that we should go down the federal road, which I believe to be the whole purpose of the treaty. I ask you simply this, Mr. Morris : what opportunity can we be given to say, either as a House of Commons or as a Committee, that the people of our country should be consulted?

You, Mr. Morris, have said that the selection of amendments is provisional. Those who have a view different from the view of those of us who are critical may share the belief that the British people should be consulted. If that is not the case, and if we are to debate measures that, in so many ways, will change the constitutional arrangement of our country and which will take substantial powers away from the House of Commons--there is no doubt that that will happen if the treaty comes into effect--what opportunity will the British people have to express their views?

The British people may come to the view that the treaty is right we do not know. In the 1975 referendum, the British people voted in the way that I did not want, but at least they were consulted. I choose my words carefully and I make no criticism of you, Mr. Morris. It will be a tragedy both for the House and for our country if we pass into legislation the provisions of the treaty concerning the United Kingdom without being able to say to the British people, "Here is your opportunity to speak."

The Chairman : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I can say to him only what I said to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I suggest that the hon. Gentleman works with him. I recognise the importance of the issue. However, I have to be bound by the rules of the House, and matters have to be in order.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I ask you to guide the Committee? There seems to be a small but vociferous minority of Members who are attempting to impede the Bill. Will it be possible for you to remind the House that the Bill was passed with a substantial majority? Those of us who are members of other Committees, such as Standing Committees, very much desire to participate in this Committee and not merely to listen to impeding and blocking points of order. The Bill should go ahead with all haste.

The Chairman : The Chair does not feel impeded at the moment.

Column 153

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. There is something very sinister about this affair. I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who kicked off with his point of order regarding certain amendments. I listened to a couple of other hon. Members talking about the need for a referendum. I also read the papers this morning. For the first time on this issue I was able to read briefings in almost every so-called quality newspaper about how the Chairman of Ways and Means would deal with hon. Members who happen to have an alternative view to that of the two Front Benches on the common market and on Maastricht. That is sinister.

You should understand, Mr. Morris, that you are sitting in that chair because of the democracy that is practised in this country. Under the treaty, in some circumstances it is likely that some of those powers will be eroded, yet those briefings suggest that the Chairman of Ways and Means is going to take action to stop Members of Parliament representing their constituents, 68 per cent. of whom in many of the surveys that have been conducted want to get out of the Maastricht treaty and do not want anything to do with it. However, when my hon. Friends and others try to call for a referendum, we are steamrollered because of the briefings that we have already read. I regard that as a distasteful development and it should be stopped. It is high time that we stood up for the people of Britain, the majority of whom want to say no to Maastricht. The House of Commons, on occasions, is supposed to represent the views of the British people. I get the clear impression that, generally speaking, when the two Front Benches are in agreement, the Chair goes along with it. I am waiting for an answer in the negative to that. I have been a Member for a considerable time, and it has always been the case that, when the two Front Benches agree, and we have the Liberal Democrats throwing their weight behind them, Back- Benchers' views are treated with disdain, even though we represent a massive majority of the people outside. I believe that we should discuss that amendment on a referendum, and I do not--

Mr. Budgen : On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman : Order. I cannot take a point of order on a point of order. Mr. Skinner was just concluding.

Mr. Skinner : I did not ask you to give way. Whose side are you on? Typical of lawyers.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : The hon. Gentleman has only just referred to Conservative colleagues as his hon. Friends.

Mr. Skinner : I never called him my hon. Friend--read the record. I am not that big a fool. The hon. Gentleman might be in the same Lobby as me on these occasions, but that is as far as it goes.

We are going to have a proposition for a referendum in the future. It is just conceivable that it might happen after Edinburgh. The game now is that the Government of the day want to go to Edinburgh without anybody being able to say that we have made a very important decision in the House of Commons to table an amendment on a referendum. I regard that as chicanery. It is high time that the Chair and the House of Commons, irrespective of the two Front Benches, understood that those of us who have a different view from that of the Front Bench, and believe

Column 154

that the common market has been an unmitigated disaster from beginning to end, are fed up with British families having to pay £18 every week to bail out that tinpot club. It is time that the voice of the British people was heard and not stifled by anybody, including the Chair--and no more briefings.

Several hon. Members rose--

The Chairman : Order. I am most grateful, but let me rule on this point of order. I re-emphasise that it is a provisional selection.

Mr. Skinner : Who did the selection?

Next Section

Home Page