House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Apr 1993

Column 364

the motion again and, before we reach the stage at which it is necessary to proceed to a vote, withdraw it. It would be in the best interests of the House not to have the motion pressed to a vote, to proceed to the remaining stages of the Committee proceedings and the Report stage and, hopefully, to a vote on amendment No. 27. 6.17 pm

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : I make it clear from the start, speaking as the second signatory to the motion, that no personal attack is intended. I do not agree with the attack in the forthright speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on the conduct and motivation of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I take the view that Sir Elwyn Jones, as he then was, took when he moved a similar motion against the Chair in 1972. He said : "Least of all is it an imputation against his good faith and integrity."--[ Official Report, 1 March 1972 ; Vol. 832, c. 434.] There is no such intention.

I respect the Chair, as I believe other Members do. I have considerable regard for those who have the difficult task of occupying it and conducting the business of the House. However, while I have respect for the Chair and its occupants, I do not believe that they are infallible. From time to time, we perform a service to the House and the country when we subject certain rulings to serious debate and scrutiny.

That is precisely what we are doing. Through our actions this afternoon, we have done a considerable service to the House. I refuse to be buried by a load of humbug--the suggestion that Members never have the right to question the Chair about any matter. The people making that accusation know jolly well that it is over 20 years since, on another matter of vast importance, such a motion was moved. Therefore, let us dispense with that argument straight away. Happily, I do not have to go over the background, as that has inevitably been done by previous speakers. I shall turn to what is almost the crux of the matter. Amendment No. 27 was moved from the Front Bench. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who moved the group of amendments, immediately made it plain that, although the lead amendment was amendment No. 7, he was not interested in that one, would not be talking to it and would withdraw it. He emphasised that the debate was about amendment No. 27. It was not only my right hon. Friend who asserted that : the rest of the Committee concurred, because it knew that amendment No. 27 was the most important amendment in the group. The Committee then debated it as such.

We know that the Government were horrified at the prospect of the amendment. The Minister of State said that it would wreck the Bill and the treaty as soon as he heard of my right hon. Friend's intention to insist on pressing the amendment to a vote. We then had the extraordinary incident of the Foreign Secretary coming to the House to repudiate on the advice of the Law Officers what the Minister of State had said. He said that the Minister had got it wrong and amendment No. 27 would have no effect on the treaty's ratification and the conclusion of the Bill. We took that advice with the scepticism that such contradictory advice deserved.

The Chairman of the Committee was not particularly impressed, either. In a statement on 22 February, he said

Column 365

that he was minded to take another debate on the important matter before he allowed a vote on amendment No. 27. The clear implication was that we should vote on the matter, and the Chairman had not been swayed by what the Attorney-General or the Minister of State had said in earlier debates.

We now come to the heart of the matter. What happened? Why did the Chairman of Ways and Means change his mind after serious consideration? He first announced that he would select, not amendment No. 27, but different amendments, particularly new clause 75. He told us that first, I think, on 30 March. He then met a number of anxious hon. Members who thought that that would be a great mistake, and he reconsidered the issue and came forward on Thursday 15 April with further confirmation of his intention to select new clause 75 and not allow a vote on amendment No. 27.

The Chairman's restatement led to considerable concern in the Committee and, after a long period of questions to the Chairman of Ways and Means, there was a debate in which the matters were thrashed out yet again. We came to the last stage of this when, on Monday, the Chairman reaffirmed his decision not to call amendment No. 27. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, the Chairman has helped the Committee by making statements on the reasons for his decisions. He opened proceedings on 19 April with a statement to the Committee about "the context in which my decision not to allow a separate Division to amendment No. 27 was taken."

He said that the context included a number of factors such as the extent of the Committee's debate

"the clarity and effect of an amendment, and its impact on the Bill."--[ Official Report, 19 April 1993 ; Vol. 223, c. 39.] The Chairman gave an interview, not just on Scottish television, but on BBC2 on Tuesday 13 April, the full text of which a number of hon. Members have seen, and a copy of which I have with me today. The Chairman was specifically asked about his selection of new clause 75 in place of amendment No. 27--indeed, why else would he appear on the programme? The Chairman was reported to have said :

"You have got to go back to the fact that there was a significant Second Reading for the Bill. Therefore, the House had already said, as it moved into Committee, that it wanted the Bill to go through, that it would accept amendments on the workings of the Bill, like the one we have got on the Committee of the Regions, but you cannot wreck the Bill."

Clearly, the Chairman considered that amendment No. 27 is or was a wrecking amendment. He made clear his views on new clause 75, the alternative choice, when he said :

"What it really says"--

new clause 75--

"is that, yes, the Bill can go through, but the House shall have to have a vote after the Royal Assent on whether or not it wants the social chapter."

There is a world of difference between amendments with such different effects. Despite what the Attorney-General said, amendment No. 27 would wreck the Bill and bring it to a halt. We know perfectly well that new clause 75, backed up by new clause 74, would have no such effect, and the Bill would receive Royal Assent.

surprisingly, the Government have said that they would have no difficulty in accepting new clause 75. They have no difficulty with that new clause, because they know that it will not stop the Bill and ratification of the treaty. The new clause is sufficiently vague not to lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : I refer my right hon. Friend to the words of new clause 74, which states that the Bill cannot come into force before there is a debate on the social chapter. Therefore, it follows that the Government could not ratify the treaty before that debate has taken place.

Mr. Shore : We shall see what the Government have to say and whether they would find any difficulty with it when we reach that stage. As we well know, as the vote on the social chapter is to be taken after Royal Assent, it will have an entirely different effect from a vote on amendment No. 27, which would prevent the Bill from receiving Royal Assent. There is a major difference between the two. I do not understand why it is said that, because amendment No. 27 stops or wrecks the Bill, it cannot be voted on because the House has given the Bill a Second Reading. Surely, if it were considered a wrecking amendment, it should never have been called in the first place--indeed, it would not have been called in the first place. The Chairman allowed it to appear among the selected amendments because he did not consider it to be a wrecking amendment. If it was a wrecking amendment, it should have been disqualified from the start, but it was not.

Secondly, and even more puzzlingly, the Chair has already allowed a number of amendments--after they have been properly selected and debated--to be put to the vote. We had votes on amendment No. 79, which sought to remove the clause and the protocol relating to excessive deficits. It was selected, we debated it and then voted on it. No one could deny that the effect of my amendment No. 79 would be to wreck the Bill--it would have virtually torn the heart out of economic and monetary union.

The same was true, not only of my other amendment No. 81, which was similarly voted on and rejected, but of a number of other amendments which would have wrecked the Bill, and which were moved, debated and voted on. They would have prevented the treaty from being ratified.

Mr. George Robertson : Perhaps I can stop my right hon. Friend going down this route. Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made it clear that we are arguing, certainly from the Front Bench, that the Chairman of Ways and Means has already said that amendment No. 27 has integrity and does not fail the test.

I know that my right hon. Friend does not have the pleasure and privilege of living in Scotland, but if he had, he would have seen BBC Scotland's admirable "Scottish Lobby" programme at 12 o'clock on Sunday, on which the Chairman of Ways and Means was interviewed again. He said that, had subsequent amendments not been tabled, he supposed that there might well have been a vote on amendment No. 27. Therefore, my right hon. Friend's argument on the basis of the first interview does not stand, because the Chairman has told the wider world, certainly Scotland,

Column 367

that amendment No. 27 has integrity. That is the argument that we shall be using on Report to convince you, Madam Speaker, that you should select it.

Mr. Shore : My hon. Friend is confusing the House, and not for the first time. He is contradicting the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who spoke earlier and his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the shadow Foreign Secretary, both of whom have made it plain that there is a world of difference between amendment No. 27 and new clauses 74 and 75, and that they will continue to plead, argue and persuade that there should be a vote on it.

If there is a vote on it, that will not please my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), as it will have the effect, at least for a time, of bringing the treaty and its procedures to a stop. That is a matter on which we fundamentally disagree. That brings me to my last point, which is why I think that this is such an important matter.

Mr. Spearing : My right hon. Friend is making an important point about whether or not the Chair can select, let alone put to the vote, a matter which he regards as a wrecking amendment. Surely the whole problem is the difference between wrecking the Bill, which I do not think my right hon. Friend's amendment would do, and wrecking the treaty, which might well happen if the Bill becomes an Act. We are in a double-decked situation.

Mr. Shore : It would have the effect of wrecking the treaty, and that is the important objective that I, personally, wish to achieve, without any doubt, concealment or apology.

I now come to the final significance of amendment No. 27. Uniquely, it combines two features. First, it is the only amendment moved by the Opposition and properly debated which has been denied a vote. Even people such as myself, now a humble Back Bencher, have had amendments debated and voted upon in the middle of the night. My amendments were far more damaging than anything that was moved by the Front Bench.

Secondly, it is the only amendment on which we and the Government know that they are likely to be defeated. It is the only amendment of serious substance, because there has been so much general tacit agreement among the three major parties and their leadership that the House will not be able to make such a challenge to the Bill and the treaty on any other issue. That unique combination makes amendment No. 27 essential to the good reputation of the House and its continued esteem among our fellow citizens.

6.33 pm

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House introduced the Government's response to the debate in the way that he did. He implied that anyone who was concerned about this issue was critical of my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and I have the privilege of sharing parliamentary responsibility for Northampton. Before he was elevated to his present, highly responsible position, I thought that he was a mere mortal and a human being. Since he has taken on responsibility for the most difficult parliamentary procedure since I have been a Member of Parliament, he has behaved in a most superhuman way. I

Column 368

am not given to ladling on the syrup. The Chairman of Ways and Means has performed magnificently and I am delighted and overwhelmed that a Member for Northampton has responsibility for this Bill dealing with such an important measure. But-- [Interruption.] It is the old political trick of ascribing to people with whom one disagrees motives that they do not have. We are not critical of the Chairman of Ways and Means ; we admire him and the way in which he has carried out his duties and responsibilities. He has been highly responsive, articulate and effective.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that if we want to say anything about the motion we are attacking the Chair. We are not. We are saying something about the motion because we want a vote on amendment No. 27.

As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said when he introduced the debate, where is the court of appeal? The Chairman of Ways and Means has made a decision and some of us disagree. We think that it is an important decision on an important issue. In this House of Commons, are we not able to express our concern and our desire to do something else?

My hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means has performed magnificently. At some stage in future we may have a Chairman of Ways and Means who does not do so, who is culpable and makes mistakes. Is my right hon. Friend saying that in those circumstances the House must roll on its back and enjoy it and do nothing about it? Is that what democracy is about? Is that what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wants the House to do-- not to have a view or a voice on the most important issue that has come before this House, this Parliament and this people in the past 25 years?

I refer to page 405 of "Erskine May". The Chair is not required to give reasons and we all understand-- [Interruption.] Most of us understand why. I respect the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I disagree with him on that point.

"Erskine May" states :

"Selection is made by the Chair"

and one of the things that is taken into account is the prevention of "repetition and overlapping". It may well be that repetition and overlapping were considered when the Chairman was looking at new clauses 74 and 75 and amendment No. 27. But they do not overlap ; they are different in detail. Amendment No. 27 has financial implications ; new clauses 74 and 75 are wholly different and the House knows that. They are different in detail and, by golly, they are different in their impact. The House should be able to vote on both.

The point has been made that we have to protect minorities. It is common ground that a majority in the House want a vote on amendment No. 27. If a minority wants a vote on an important issue, they should have one, but if a majority of the House wants it, should not the majority of the House have a vote on an important issue?

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) brought out the tired old cliche about the Second Reading of the Bill. The Second Reading was nearly a year ago. The world has changed and I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not changed in that long period of time. If a week is a long time in politics, a year is a generation.

Everyone would agree that the treaty of European union is a massive issue. It is irreversible. Once passed, powers will pass from this House to other institutions.

Column 369

Rightly, our constituents are greatly concerned about that. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, amendment No. 27 carries with it massive implications. Our constituents feel that it could make a difference. On this great issue people's perceptions are vital. In this case, as we continue our debates, their perception is that the House is entitled to a vote on such a major issue. If we do not have one, orders will come from European institutions in years to come without the House having been able to vote--

Mr. Milligan rose --

Mr. Marlow : I am coming to a conclusion-- [Hon. Members :-- "Hurrah!"] What a chance to get my second wind.

The perception of our constituents is that the House must have a vote, if possible, on such an important issue.

"Erskine May" refers to the 1966-67 appendices to the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure by the then Speaker on the Report stage of public Bills. It states that the Report stage is not unimportant.

"The Bill as it emerges from Committee is often a much modified Bill"--

this one has been modified--

"the Opposition"--

I presume, in a wider sense--

"may now have a new attitude to parts of it The deliberations of the Committee, even those which have not resulted in amendments to the Bill, have often been of considerable effect on the thinking of both sides. This reveals itself at the Report stage."

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who spoke of important issues, carefully debated in Committee, but still containing vital matters worthy of a last look. Hence they should be selected for debate on Report. I hope, Madam Speaker, that we will be able to look at this subject again then.

6.42 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : I should like to speak quietly for a moment or two to the Leader of the House and to hark back to what he said at the beginning of his speech. He used the word--I do not think I misquote him--"unpalatable". According to him, what has happened is either palatable or unpalatable, depending on whether a Member is pro or anti-European. That was the gist of what he said.

A number of us feel rather differently. Wrongly, in the view of many of my colleagues, I have from time to time voted on closures and other matters with the Government. I am a Euro-fanatic, if that is the right word, but last Thursday, although I sat here as quiet as a church mouse, I felt increasingly uncomfortable when my hon. Friends were making their points of order. It seems very odd, even to those of us who hold passionately pro- European views, that a vote should be denied us on a matter, whether one likes it or not, of enormous substance. I ask the House's forgiveness if this is not an exact analogy, but it felt rather like being a forward in a football match who knows that he was yards offside but the goal was allowed. There seemed something not quite right about the decision.

I said nothing at the time, but I was greatly influenced by the comments I heard in my constituency over the weekend. I do not suggest for a moment that all our constituents understand the finer points of "Erskine May",

Column 370

but somehow the fact had percolated through that the House of Commons was not acting quite properly--that there was something unfair going on. In schoolboy slang, there was a general feeling that there had been a bit of a swizz.

A deeper question was also being asked. It was voiced, too, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who received a great deal of agreement from the country, last Thursday. It was to the effect that we should ask what the House of Commons is for. The hon. Member for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made the same point extremely eloquently. Constituents ask what the House of Commons is for if it cannot make up its mind on the question of the social chapter. They ask whether we can think of a way of bringing the matter to a decision.

Mr. Milligan : The hon. Gentleman says that amendment No. 27 covers an issue of enormous importance. Can he explain why new clauses 74 and 75 do not cover that same issue, and why what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has described as a ticking timebomb appears to have become a ticking mouse?

Mr. Dalyell : My hon. Friend must answer for himself on ticking timebombs. I am extraordinarily cautious about my use of language, but it is not arguable that there is no difference between new clauses 74 and 75 and amendment No. 27. If there is no difference, all we can say is that a great many serious Members of Parliament believe that there is one.

Perhaps all these are the troubles that arise when Ministers want to have Maastricht a la carte. Once they start chopping and changing, they cannot be surprised when they find themselves in such difficulties. The House should be in no doubt that a great many of our constituents understand a vast amount more than some hon. Members this afternoon have given them credit for. They have the gut feeling that there has not been fair play. That is why I hope that there will be some change of attitude towards this subject.

6.46 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has touched on one of the fundamentals of our debate today. We are talking about the functions of the chairmanship of Standing Committees and of Committees of the whole House, and in particular we are discussing discretion.

Madam Speaker has been telling us that the debate is about the discretion of the Chair. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has let his views be known, allbeit rather loudly ; the views expressed by his colleague, the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), have been delivered with characteristic courtesy and patience throughout this difficult Committee stage.

It has not been denied even by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that if confidence in the Chair is to be sustained, and if our procedures are to inspire confidence in the country, there must be an opportunity for debates of this sort when an important matter about which there are strong feelings arises. I therefore reject the accusations by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who said a couple of days ago, as did the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that there was something improper about holding such a debate. I suggest that, because of the issues involved, this debate is quite proper.

Column 371

The essence of parliamentary debate is the opportunity it affords to ventilate an issue. That is what we are doing now. It is what the Standing Orders allow for. We also, however, operate on the basis of a Question. When a motion is proposed, having been selected by the Chair, we have a debate. There is evidence today that the debate under discussion, in which amendment No. 27 was the main feature, exercised the House, and there were strong reasons why there should have been a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has pointed out that the public expect, as is their right, that if a matter of great importance is debated, it should be brought to a conclusion by a decision.

The Chair has a problem because of the link between the Bill and the treaty. In certain respects something that wrecks a Bill may not be selectable or, if it is, it may not be put to the vote. That is for the discretion of the Chair. We are concerned not with the Bill but with the treaty. We have to decide whether the House will provide the Government with sufficient power to ratify the treaty. Therefore, something which may be within the compass of the Bill, because it restricts what can be done, may wreck the treaty. That is a matter for the House and it is not a question on which the Chair should exercise discretion, as would happen in a Standing Committee. In Standing Committees we deal with domestic legislation, which is reversible, and which may be changed by a different Government. Some people want the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to be irreversible in regard to citizenship of the United Kingdom, a matter of momentous importance. Therefore, democracy and the procedure of the House must be seen to work. It is the same with justice which must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The confidence of the population in our procedures must be maintained ; we must demonstrate that our procedure is above board.

Mr. Salmond : The hon. Gentleman's views are held sincerely. When new clauses 74 and 75 came into play, the Chairman of Ways and Means had to make a choice. While we may not agree with the choice, nevertheless it was his choice. We can hardly blame him for making his choice, nor can the hon. Gentleman, given that new clauses 74 and 75 were tabled by members of his party.

Mr. Spearing : Let us go through it carefully. The Chairman had a choice. As matters developed, I suppose we can say that the range of that choice varied. I do not think that any of us would have liked to have been in that position. The point is that when the choice was made, it was exclusive and not inclusive. Something which was reckoned to be a strong possibility--I put it no higher--was excluded. People were disappointed. I will not use the word, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but some people, very distinguished people, reflected a view and said that they were cheated. If people feel like that because a discretionary choice involved exclusion rather than inclusion, we must question the use of that discretion.

I expect it has happened to other people too, but I was moved out of the Chair on one occasion, about 30 years ago. I hasten to add that it was not in respect of any function in the House. The feeling about it was strong and was of great personal concern to me at the time. The incident arose from a ruling which I made when in the

Column 372

chair at a meeting of a voluntary organisation. There was no question of a motion of mild comment or even criticism, which would cover the motion before the House. I was moved out of the chair forthwith because my friends disagreed with a vital ruling which I had made. The matter was resolved, but when I spoke to them afterwards I began to see their point of view. I realised that they had every right to propose a motion to remove me from the chair. I would not agree with it happening here perhaps more than once every 20 years. It should not be done without good reason. Having been Chairman of a Select Committee for nine years, I know the problems. There must be an opportunity for people to ventilate their concern. We are doing so now in a proper, democratic way. If we could not do so, the power of discretion which we put in the charge of any Chair could become wider and other Chairmen might not know that at any time their decisions were under scrutiny. If decisions were not under scrutiny, the power of the Chair would not be exercised with proper caution. Indeed, after a time the power of the Chair would be diminished.

The Chair is a servant of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned Speaker Lenthall. The Chair is a servant of the corporate Committee or of the House, to do what the House wishes. The House wishes its procedures to be beyond reproach so that hon. Members who wish to vote on a motion, having debated it, may do so. Anything which stops that happening raises a question and will be viewed, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, as a bit of a swizz. That might be an understatement in respect of the possible consequences of amendment No. 27. You have listened to most of the debate, Madam Speaker. Report stage is there for a purpose : the Speaker can take an overall view of all the circumstances and is not bound by some of the precedents which are properly adhered to by the Chair of Committees. Whatever we decide now, there will be a Report stage. A matter of major controversy was selected for debate, and was debated. I ask you, Madam Speaker, in your capacity as a servant of the House and, through that, as a servant of the people whom we represent and who expect us not only to debate but to reach a decision, to bear in mind in your judgment all the matters raised in the debate.

Mr. Timothy Wood (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put :--

The House divided : Ayes 337, Noes 86.

Division No. 242] [6.58 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Aitken, Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Alton, David

Amess, David

Ancram, Michael

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Ashby, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bates, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Bayley, Hugh

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Bellingham, Henry

Beresford, Sir Paul

Next Section

Home Page