House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Apr 1993

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex) : Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), in this interim period, while my right hon. Friend

Column 36

looks wisely and cautiously at whether other options should be exercised, will he look at the ability of the international organisations to deal with the vast increase in the number of refugees? Will he, for instance, look at what is happening to aid which is going to refugee camps for Bosnians in Croatia? I understand that the Croatians have already closed some of the Bosnian refugee camps in their country and that they are dispersing the Bosnian refugees, the Muslims, either to notional camps or sending them closer to the fighting lines. That needs looking at at this stage.

Mr. Hurd : I think my right hon. Friend must be right. I am not familiar with the details, but if he would like to amplify what he has said I will make sure that it receives urgent consideration. Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Speaker : We must now move on.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : I have a Standing Order No. 20 application to hear first from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). 4.32 pm

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : I wish to apply, under Standing Order No. 20, to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the future of Bosnia."

I think that the tragic events unfolding in Bosnia in recent days, reinforced by the exchanges that we have just heard on the statement, self- evidently meet the criteria of Standing Order No. 20. I will therefore put this application simply. When, in God's name, are the elected representatives of the people of Britain to be given a full and proper opportunity to discuss in the House of Commons the evil genocide, murder and systematic rapes which are part of the unmitigated aggression of Serbia? When will the House be given an opportunity to speak for the people of Britain on the biggest crisis facing Europe since the end of the second world war?

Madam Speaker : I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons for it. I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Column 37

Points of Order

4.35 pm

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance about an article that appeared in The Guardian today in which the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)--who has left his place, despite the fact that I notified him that I would mention the matter to you--deliberately sought to link me to the assassination in South Africa of Mr. Chris Hani, an incident that I utterly deplore. The hon. Gentleman has not a shred of evidence, but alleged in The Guardian that he was already making complaints about the matter in the House through the proper authorities. Will she advise me as to how the matter can be dealt with under our Standing Orders and what she is prepared to do about the conduct of the hon. Member for Neath, who has previously made allegations--

[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady is referring to a "she". Who is "she"?

Mrs. Gorman : No, I am not. I am referring to the hon. Member for Neath. I said that he was not in his place, but he has since returned. Without having a shred of evidence for doing so, the hon. Member alleged in The Guardian today that I am linked with the assassination of Mr. Chris Hani in South Africa. It is also reported in The Guardian that the hon. Gentleman is raising the matter in the House with the relevant authorities. Will she--meaning yourself, Madam Speaker--advise me on how the matter can be dealt with and how the hon. Member for Neath can be reprimanded for his discreditable conduct?

Madam Speaker : Does the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) wish to make a point of order in response?

Mr. Peter Hain (Neath) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have made no allegations against the

Column 38

hon. Lady, who is being extremely misleading in making that suggestion. I said that there is evidence, reported in both The Independent and The Guardian, of links between the Conservatives and the Western Goals Institute and the Conservative party in South Africa--one of whose ex-Members of Parliament and leaders has been charged in connection with the Hani assassination. The Prime Minister needs to get to the bottom of the matter, and the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is seeking to obfuscate the matter.

Madam Speaker : Thankfully, I have no responsibililty for what one Member of Parliament says about another. The hon. Members must sort it out among themselves.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the decision that you have just taken on the Standing Order No. 20 application of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), but you would probably agree that, in view of on-going events, there is need for an urgent debate on Yugoslavia. Through your good offices, Madam Speaker, would you ask the Government--I see that Ministers from the Foreign Office are present--to ensure that there is in the House a full debate, not merely questions, on the subject at an early opportunity?

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is trying to use the Chair of the House to put questions that are not relevant now. As he knows, the business of the House has nothing whatever to do with the Speaker. I have let the statement run for quite a long time today, and I have deliberately sought to call every hon. Member who was disappointed last week during the statement. I keep accurate records and, with one exception, I have been able to call every hon. Member who was disappointed last week. I hope that the House will help me to keep up what I consider to be a reasonably high standard.

Column 39

Orders of the Day

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15 April]

[ Mr. Michael Morris

in the Chair ]

4.39 pm

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : In view of the character of the Bill before the Committee and the views expressed by hon. Members, both in the Chamber and privately, in connection with amendment No. 27, I think it right to make a further statement about the context in which my decision not to allow a separate Division on amendment No. 27 was taken.

In arriving at such a decision on an amendment, any occupant of the Chair must have regard to a number of factors, including the Committee's debates, the clarity or effect of an amendment, and its impact on the Bill which, if brought into effect, must be both workable and understandable. In the very nature of this case, there can be no exact precedent.

Amendment No. 27 deals with certain aspects of the United Kingdom's position with regard to the agreement annexed to the protocol on social policy. So do new clauses 74 and 75. After lengthy representations from the hon. Members concerned, I have decided that I should not alter my decision on amendment No. 27, but that further debate on the social protocol, which the Committee is to have, should be led by new clause 74, with which new clause 75 will be grouped. I remind the Committee that I am prepared, at the appropriate time, to permit separate Divisions on amendments Nos. 225, 268, 426 and 420.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful for the further consideration that you have given to this very important issue, and for your courtesy in making considerable time available for us to meet you to discuss the whole nexus of issues.

I cannot, however, let this occasion go by without saying that the Opposition have not changed their views about the significance of amendment No. 27, and nothing in what you have said today convinces me that we should change it. As I have made clear many times, amendment No. 27 is in order ; it has been debated ; and there remains no valid reason for not allowing the Committee to vote on it.

I do not wish to sound churlish when I say that we should express some gratitude to you, Mr. Morris, for accepting a vote on new clause 74, in respect of which my argument is the same as it was for new clause 75. I do not regard new clause 74 as an alternative to amendment No. 27, nor do I believe that it can be reasonably or realistically posed in those terms.

Last week, I asked for time for further consideration, and you were good enough to agree to that. I do not propose to pursue this matter indefinitely, but I want to make two further points about this decision. The first is to do with the Government's statement last week about accepting new clause 75.

Column 40

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote on 5 April to the Local Government International Bureau expressing a view about the Government's attitude to the amendment carried by the Committee in respect of the Committee of the Regions. In his letter to Mr. Dickson-Smith, the Minister of State said :

"No final decisions have yet been taken either on the allocation of seats between the different parts of the United Kingdom or on what sort of representation should be nominated to the Committee." But the House of Commons has taken a decision on that matter ; by a significant majority, it voted in favour of a particular method of allocating the seats.

In this letter, we have something similar to what I accused the Government of last Thursday--a clear, and in this case quite unequivocal, sign from the Government that they may not accept the will of the House in this matter. The Minister of State denied my charge in respect of the Government briefing on new clause 75. He cannot deny what he has personally written to the people making representations to him from the Local Government International Bureau.

Secondly, I refer you, Mr. Morris, to column 685 in the Official Report of 22 February 1993, when you said :

Committee would have a vote on amendment No. 27. I remain completely unconvinced by the arguments against such a vote taking place, and I repeat what I said last week--that we shall take our unanswerable case to the Speaker, for this matter to be determined on Report.

Several hon. Members rose --

The Chairman : Order. I should like to respond to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I request that he study with care the words that I have spoken this afternoon, which I accept he has not heard before. He will want to reflect on them.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the selection of amendments and the votes flowing from them are always

provisional--that is what it says at the top of the Notice Paper. Thirdly, new clause 74 will lead the debate, so it is the whole basis of that debate, and I therefore think it has a higher standing than the right hon. Gentleman has provisionally said it would have. With regard to the Committee of the Regions, the right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the Committee that all Members of the House are bound by any Act of Parliament and the matters that flow from it.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I thank you for what you have said today. Will you clarify for my constituents whether having a debate on new clause 74 will mean that the protocol which fixes this new tax will probably be considered after ratification of the treaty, not before it, as would happen with amendment No. 27?

The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that he should read the amendment and put his own interpretation on it.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. You quite properly said on Thursday, and you have repeated today, that the House has entrusted you, as Chairman of Ways and Means, with a

Column 41

responsibility for determining whether amendments will be called or voted upon, and that you are not obliged to give your reasons. But you will also be aware that the Government have laid great emphasis throughout the debate on the fact that this Bill is to be considered by the procedures of parliamentary democracy.

Of course, it is open to the House to appeal against a ruling in the usual manner--by putting down a motion regretting the decision reached by the Chairman of Ways and Means. That is in no way personal ; it is comparable to an appeal to the High Court when a lower court reaches a view that is not accepted by the litigants.

Because this is a matter of enormous procedural importance, quite apart from the merits of the Bill, if this judgment remains, "Erskine May" in all future editions will entrust to future Chairmen of Committees the right to disallow votes on amendments which they do not believe merit a vote. In this case, the social protocol was considered of such importance that the Government highlighted their requirement for an opt-out at the Maastricht treaty negotiations, so from their point of view it could hardly be a more important issue--whereas you have said that, in your judgment, it is not an important issue. That also raises certain consequences.

As you know, Mr. Morris, I have told your office--the Public Bill Office-- that I am minded to table such a motion. If a motion of this kind is tabled, may I take it that you would not feel able to take the Chair of the Committee until the matter was resolved? It has long been the practice of the House that, when a motion commenting on the Chair is on the Order Paper, the Chairman concerned does not sit until the court of appeal--in this case the House as a whole--has met. I should be grateful if you would advise me on that, because this is a matter of fundamental importance, and I have a feeling that, when we read the statement that you have made this afternoon about the basis on which amendments are selected--that they must be clear and that you must know their effect on the Bill--it may turn out to be equally important. It has never been my understanding that the Chairman had any responsibility for considering either the intelligibility of an amendment or, for that matter, its effect if introduced to legislation.

For all these reasons, I hope, Mr. Morris, that you will appreciate that this relates not to yourself but to the procedures of the House concerning this Bill and all future legislation.

The Chairman : I note what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have not spoken for as long on this important Bill as many hon. Members who are in the Committee. That is why I find it somewhat surprising that even such an expert on parliamentary affairs as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has such great difficulty with the fact that, having ruled out of order amendment No. 27, you have decided that there should be not only a vote on new clause 74 but a debate. I listened carefully to your words.

Sir Teddy Taylor : After ratification--that is the difference.

Column 42

Mr. Renton : I suggest that my hon. Friend does not interrupt. His interruptions have become a little-- [Interruption.]

The Chairman : Order. Points of order are matters for the Chair and not matters for debate in Committee one way or the other.

Mr. Renton : I have read new clause 74, which is what you suggested my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) should do, Mr. Morris. It is absolutely clear that there will be a debate on the principle whether to adopt the protocol on social policy. The new clause is not narrowly worded ; it is very broad. It clearly states :

"This Act shall come into force only when the House of Commons has come to a Resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown". I look forward to that debate, which will be interesting and wide-ranging.

Several hon. Members rose--

The Chairman : Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but we cannot have a debate now on new clause 74 and its interpretation. That is why I suggested to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that he should read and interpret the new clause in the way that he felt was right.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Further to the point of order by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), Mr. Morris. I underline what my right hon. Friend said about dealing with procedure rather than personality. You may recall that one of your esteemed predecessors, Sir Robert Grant-Ferris, was in your position in 1972 and made a selection of amendments on which there were points of order for 15 hours. He had to sustain a debate of the type that my right hon. Friend mentioned, but the affection and esteem in which he was held in Parliament was unaffected, although the procedure was important.

We are grateful for your announcement, Mr. Morris. On Thursday you said that, after the debate on which we were about to embark on amendment No. 52, there would be votes on amendment No. 225, if it was pressed, and on amendment No. 268 before the debate on clause 1 stand part. Earlier today, you mentioned amendment No. 426. Will that be debated before clause 1 stand part?

You mentioned matters that have to be borne in mind on selection. As hon. Members know, under Standing Order No. 20, the Speaker must take certain factors into account, but gives no reasons. The factors that you mentioned bear positively, if I may put it like that, on your ruling. Can you direct the Committee to other factors contained in another source, either by reference to a book or immediately? You said that the matter was unprecedented, and we all agree with that. What is also unprecedented is that an amendment was selected and debated and the closure was moved. You would not have accepted the closure if the debate had not been thorough. Because of the timing, you have said that the Committee shall not come to a decision. Therefore, the historic basis of selection, motion, debate and question has been broken, because there has been no decision. If the ruling is not changed by some means, that is also unprecedented, and gives rise to great anxiety among certain hon. Members. Several hon. Members rose--

Column 43

The Chairman : Order. I shall clarify the matter. Amendment No. 426, if it is moved, will warrant a separate Division before the debate on clause 1 stand part. I hope that the Committee is clear on that. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman listened with care to the words in my second paragraph, because my statement was important and merits study. The statement guides me and the Committee, because it makes it plain that, every day we meet, the provisional selection of amendments is a matter for the Chairman. That provides for the Chairman to change his selection between one sitting day and the next. Events may cause such a change to take place.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have two questions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : You rang, m'lord?

Sir Peter Emery : Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants? When a group of amendments is tabled for debate, it is not unknown for an hon. Member to ask for a Division on an amendment that had not previously been annotated for a Division. It is entirely up to the Chair to decide on a Division. It has been suggested that the Chairman does not decide on whether to grant a Divison, but that is obviously incorrect, because such power has always rested with the Chairman.

Secondly, if, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) suggested, there is to be a substantive motion, surely it would be right to proceed with the debate and have no more points of order on the selection of amendments.

Several hon. Members rose --

The Chairman : Order. I confirm the right hon. Gentleman's first point, and I am grateful to him for making it. I have no comment on his second point.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Members of the Committee will have noticed that you have accepted for debate some amendments to the new clauses about a referendum, which make the link between consulting the people on the Maastricht process and consulting them on the social protocol. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who is in his place, is quoted in today's issue of The Scotsman as saying that these amendments have

"no chance of being debated or accepted."

That has turned out to be a bad short-term forecast, because, as we see from the selection paper, they have been selected for debate. [Interruption.] I understand why the hon. Member for Hamilton is getting rather upset. His fig leaf for not supporting a referendum on Maastricht is starting to be removed. In view of that statement, Mr. Morris, will you confirm that the choice of matters for debate is made not by the Government or the Opposition, but by you alone?

The Chairman : I certainly confirm that. The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point of order proves that selection is always provisional.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Some days ago and today, you ruled that the Bill's effect is one criterion that you take into account, and that you also take account of its clarity. Without referring specifically to a television programme of which I have a

Column 44

transcript, you reinforce that by suggesting- -quite rightly, I understand--that you would not want to see the Bill wrecked. That brings us to the significance of Second Reading. If the Bill's principle is one of your prime considerations in referring to its effect, will you bear in mind the fact that, on Second Reading on 2 May last year, almost a year ago, the Danish referendum, which significantly changed the nature of the treaty signed on 7 February, had not been held?

Secondly, the question of economic and monetary union lies at the heart of the principle of the Bill. As the Government have withdrawn from the exchange rate mechanism, considering the basis of the Second Reading debate, surely we should not be excluded from consideration of whether to allow amendment No. 27. Do you agree, Mr. Morris?

The Chairman : No.

5 pm

Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will recall that, on Thursday, I suggested that your ruling on amendment No. 27 might well be opposed by a majority of the Committee ; I asked how such a majority could make its view known and expect it to prevail. In the event, you accepted the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to allow the Committee a cooling-off period. I assume that it was hoped that, during that period, you and others might have second and better thoughts.

Nearly every hon. Member who spoke in Thursday's debate endorsed the need for a cooling-off period, and expressed the hope that a different view would be taken after it. The fact that the motion was accepted without a Division strongly supports my view that a majority of the Committee does not agree with your ruling, Mr. Morris. May I ask to what extent you took account of the sequence of events--that is, the debate and its outcome-- when you drafted the statement that you have read out today?

The Chairman : Let me make two points. First, as I was in the Chair for the whole of what the right hon. Gentleman describes as a cooling-off period, it was not a particularly cool time for me. Secondly, I must and do take every factor into consideration, but at the end of the day the buck stops here : I have to choose the amendments.

Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. When my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) expressed anxiety about how he would explain the effect of your decision about amendment No. 27 to his constituents, you said that he must make up his own mind about the impact of the Bill--he had been here long enough to do so. Earlier, in your statement, you said that the impact on the Bill was one of the criteria on which you decided whether to select an amendment for a vote. Will you tell us a little more about the possible impact of new clause 74? For instance, if a vote on it had the effect of excluding the social chapter

The Chairman : Order. I do not wish to amplify anything that I have already said ; I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened very carefully to what I said in my statement.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful for your

Column 45

statement, and will give it the careful study for which you asked. I was, however, disappointed that you stuck to your decision not to call amendment No. 27.

My point of order relates to some extent to what was said by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer). Although you were not obliged to do so, you explained some of the factors that had influenced your decision, one of which was the effect of an amendment on the Bill. Surely this is the crux of the matter. The effects of different amendments are entirely different : amendment No. 27 would deliver a major blow to the Bill--indeed, it would destroy it, which would please me personally--while new clauses 74 and 75 are entirely acceptable to the Government, because they will have no effect on the Bill or the treaty. We want to vote on amendments that are relevant to the Bill, and have some meaning.

The Chairman : The guidance that I have given this afternoon is very general, and can be applied to any and every amendment.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. This is an entirely separate point of order. May I turn your attention to new clause 80, which is entitled "Transferred Powers (Scotland)"? I remind the Committee that the Union with Scotland Act 1706 contained 25 articles committing the Scottish people to full political, economic and fiscal union for ever. The words "for ever" are important.

As recently as last month, in the White Paper "Scotland in the Union", the Government recognised and acknowledged that "for ever" commitment. A set number of Scottish Members of Parliament are sent to the House of Commons : that number is quite out of proportion to the number sent from other parts of the unitary kingdom. That is because section 22 of the 1706 Act--which later became the treaty of Union, having been accepted in its entirety by the English Parliament--clearly laid down the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. It also clearly laid down the commitment, for ever, to political, economic, monetary and fiscal union.

Let me remind you, Mr. Morris, that the Scottish Parliament was never dissolved ; it was simply prorogued. I believe, along with many of the people of Scotland, that Scotland's 72 Members of Parliament are the guardians of the Scottish Parliament.

New clause 80 deals directly with the requirement to debate, and have the opportunity to vote on, the giving away of Scottish and unitary parliamentary, political, economic and fiscal power to the European Community. I believe that failure to debate the matter may have profound legal and political implications in Scotland. I remind you, Mr. Morris, that the new clause is supported by both Labour and Conservative Members of Parliament, and by the leader of the Ulster Unionists.

There are two groups of amendments under which consideration of clause 80 would have been possible. It is interesting to note that, under the groups relating to entry into force, the referendum and the commencement of--

The Chairman : Order. I think that I have the gist of what the hon. Gentleman is driving at.

Mr. Walker : May I make one final point, Mr. Morris?

The Chairman : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it briefly.

Column 46

Mr. Walker : I am sorry, Mr. Morris ; I do not want to speak at length unnecessarily.

When new clause 80 was tabled, the wording in relation to no powers being transferred was carefully chosen. You selected an amendment under the "Transferred Powers" list. You had produced a provisional list of amendments, and--as is in order, I understand--the new clause was carefully and deliberately worded in order to dovetail with the accompanying group, or rather with new clause 75, which was the only amendment selected at the time.

Following the tabling of new clause 74, we have a different grouping of amendments under a different heading. I suggest that new clause 80 could and should have been included : without it, we may face litigation in the Scottish courts that could delay any Bill passed by the House, and the implementation of the treaty. It is no good your Clerk shaking his head, Mr. Morris. He and I know that the matter has not been properly challenged in the Scottish courts, because in the past referendums have dealt with the question of what the people think. That was true of the European Communities Act 1972. When there was any possibility of a challenge-- [Interruption.] This is important, Mr. Morris.

Next Section

Home Page