| Previous Section | Home Page |
The Chairman : The hon. Member keeps saying that he will be brief. I think that he has made his point and I recognise the strength of his feeling. I have given careful thought to the new clause, which, if I may say so, reflects a distinctive view of the effects and significance of the Bill. Despite that, and the range of support for it, I regret that I am unable to alter my original decision not to select it for consideration.
I say as an Englishman that "prorogation" is an English term. I am advised that the Parliament of Scotland was continued in 1706 and not prorogued.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Will you confirm that, if your decision is sustained, there will be a class of amendments or new clauses that will be debated and then voted on immediately? That, but for the chance of selection, is a normal occurrence. But for the fact that amendment No. 27 had to take its turn with other amendments in the order of voting, there would have been no time for any decision to be made.
If the precedent is supported--it is an important and, in my view, a dangerous one for the functioning of the House of Commons--and amendments are not voted on immediately following debate, we shall be refused a chance to vote for or against them in any future circumstances. I find that disturbing.
If the proposition were put to the House of Commons in those terms, I think that it would be rejected by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, bearing in mind particularly the fact that the order of selection is in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means and not those of the Committee. The Chairman can select the amendments on which he wants to have second thoughts to ensure that they are voted upon at a stage subsequent to the debate. That being so, he can use the opportunity to decide that there will be no vote. That is alarming.
I hope, Mr. Morris, that even at this stage you will reconsider the matter. There certainly will be criticism that the procedure that we are discussing works in favour of the Government when your function is to act as a neutral Chairman. The fact is that your decision supports or is in
Column 47
favour of the Government. As amendment No. 27 was the one amendment of which the Government were fearful, that suggests to many both inside and outside the House of Commons that it is not a neutral position.I have one further point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman : No. I take one point of order at a time. I wish to make it clear to the Committee that I am, have been and will continue to be entirely neutral in the handling of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will study my statement on voting. He should study it. I have created no precedents for voting on amendments.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) talked about the precedents that are created by these proceedings. You will recollect that, on Thursday, I raised with you the important interview that you gave on the BBC "Westminister Live" programme. You rebuked me for not having a transcript of your important remarks. I say immediately that I was much humiliated by your rebuke, and I apologise for not having a transcript. I have now, as you know, supplied you with a transcript of your historic interview. It is plain that the first consideration is that the occupant of the Chair cannot give reasons to the Members of the House of Commons for his or her decisions. The transcript reveals, however, that you gave reasons to the viewers of "Westminister Live". Presumably that means that you have set a precedent by which the Chair, which I assume includes the Speaker, gives reasons to television viewers but not to the House of Commons.
That is a most interesting and modern precedent of widespread importance. I hope that you will confirm that it is to be followed by the Chair in all its manifestations. It would seem that our attendance in this place is entirely unnecessary. The main thing that we must all do is buy a television set.
The Chairman : I note once again that the hon. Member did not quote directly from the transcript. He will have to take it from me that I gave no reasons to the viewers. I merely positioned the debate. 5.15 pm
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have no wish to personalise the matter--I accept entirely that you have responsibilities in the Chair--but I wonder whether you will accept the point that has been made repeatedly : that we, as Members of the House of Commons, have responsibilities, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said at the beginning of these exchanges.
You will know from your long experience of the House of Commons, Mr. Morris, that, when Members, whether in the minority or otherwise, feel that they have been cheated out of a debate or a vote that they believe should have taken place, feelings will run extremely high. I remind you that, last Thursday, you accepted--obviously, I am pleased that you did--a motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to the effect that the Committee should report progress and sit again. That was all that the Committee could do to show that it wanted a vote on amendment No. 27.
Column 48
Perhaps I might remind you, Mr. Morris, that, when it came to a vote, and when we were in the Division Lobby, we received the message that the Government were not appointing Tellers. We could only come to the conclusion--I accept that it is not your business to come to such a conclusion--that the Government knew that they would lose the vote. As a matter of fact, the motion was carried without a vote. That was the only way in which we could show our opposition to and criticism of your decision.As the matter will not go away--the points of order this afternoon show that--I beg you, Mr. Morris, to bear in mind the views that have been expressed, including those from the Liberal Bench. Undoubtedly, Liberal Members are much in favour of the Bill. Indeed, they could be even more enthusiastic about it than the Government. Nevertheless, on Thursday, they expressed their point of view, which was similar to that of those of us who are critical of the Bill, on amendment No. 27. If you cannot do so now, Mr. Morris, I ask you later to reconsider the issue and to bear in mind the strength of feeling, which, I repeat, will not go away.
The Chairman : I accept that feelings run very high, and that is why I have given the matter the care and attention that I have. At the end of the day, I have a job to do, and I have done it to the best of my ability.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As an overwhelming majority of Members of the House of Commons are in favour of the Bill, would it not be in order to move on to a debate on principle? Those who wish to vote for the social protocol can do so when we come to new clauses 74 and 75. That reflects the overwhelming majority of those who are in favour of the Bill. As those Members would wish to express their views clearly, your position is entirely understandable, Mr. Morris, given that amendment No. 27 is entirely unclear in its application. Therefore, I believe that your decision is to be supported.
The Chairman : I note the hon. Member's view.
Mr. Stephen Byers (Wallsend) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I take up your decision to select for debate and decision new clause 74. You will be aware that, in the context of both amendment No. 27 and new clause 75, the Government used the advice of the Law Officers to wriggle out of a debate and a vote on the issues raised by the amendment and the new clause. I have no doubt that, in the light of your decision to select for debate and Division new clause 74, some of the best legal brains will be subjecting the new clause to detailed scrutiny.
Is it your view, Mr. Morris, that new clause 74 does not mean only that the Bill, when enacted, cannot come into force until the House of Commons has had a chance to debate and vote on the inclusion of the social chapter? In this instance, the constitutional position is different from the legal position. Constitutionally, Her Majesty's Government cannot move to ratify the Maastricht treaty until such a debate and vote have taken place.
The Chairman : That is a matter for debate when we get to it.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In your statement explaining why you would not allow the Committee a vote on amendment No. 27, you said that the Chair would not allow a separate
Column 49
Division on an amendment if the Chair believed that the amendment was insufficiently clear and had doubts about its effect on the Bill. In saying that, you were in effect the custodian of the Bill rather than the custodian of the rights of the Committee.The amendment's effect was perfectly clear to the Committee : it would have involved the disbursement of public funds to pay for the implementation of the social chapter by the 11 other members of the Community. You, as Chairman of Ways and Means, have a responsibility to ensure that the Committee has a chance to vote on it. Will you duly reflect again?
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman is beginning to move into the argument again. I ask him to study the words that I used. I said that, in arriving at such a decision on an amendment, I was giving general guidance.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In the event of either or both new clauses 74 and 75 being withdrawn, would you need to reconsider your decision on voting on amendment No. 27?
The Chairman : That is hypothetical.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : I should like to associate myself with the remark, because the abandonment of so many amendments and our right to vote on them has enormous constitutional consequences for the running of the Chamber. I remind you, Mr. Morris, of what you reminded us of last Thursday, to which the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) also referred. You said : "We are some way off a vote on amendment No. 27, and other developments may occur at any time, but at this juncture I am minded to take seriously the need for a further debate before the Committee votes on that amendment".--[ Official Report, 22 February 1993 ; Vol. 219, c. 685.]
All the subsequent arguments of which you advised us were about whether there would be a debate before we voted on amendment No. 27. If your ruling stands, you will be setting a precedent whereby the Committee will not be sure whether we can move and vote on amendments, because you are setting aside all votes on virtually all amendments tabled by Members of good standing. How do we express our view? That is why I wish to associate myself with the burden of the argument made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
The Chairman : It is the hon. Gentleman's right to interpret as he wishes, but his interpretation is not necessarily shared by the Chair or anyone else. My words to the Committee were very clear right from the start : I am totally impartial in this matter. Hon. Members will have to accept that, whether they like it or not. They can put whatever interpretation they like on that, and everyone--not least the hon. Member for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)--should recognise that statement from me.
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : Will you please advise us, Mr. Morris, how the Committee is to express its wish to vote on amendment No. 27? What means and procedures are available to the Committee to do so?
The Chairman : Hon. Members can make representations but, at the end of the day, the power rests with the Chair, and the Chair has ruled.
Column 50
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : We know that you have given very careful thought to the selection of amendments, Mr. Morris, because you tell us so. You have told us that selection depends on the clarity and effect of an amendment. In that case, under amendment No. 27, my constituents in Stroud are being asked to pay through their VAT towards implementation of the social chapter in other countries. Shall I have an opportunity to vote on that issue? If clarity is so important, why has new clause 74 appeared, as it refers to a motion yet to be tabled by a Minister of the Crown? How can there be clarity when the motion has yet to be worded?
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman must make his own interpretation of new clause 74. It seemed an appropriate new clause for consideration as far as I was concerned.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Will you tell the people not principally hon. Members but those who watch our proceedings and read Hansard --why such a decision has been taken by the Chair when a majority of hon. Members want a vote? How is it the Chair can say, "Sorry, we are not having a vote," even though, on 22 February, the same Chair said that we could have a debate and a vote?
People outside, who believe that the Chair is supposed to be impartial, will think that we should have a vote, because a majority--or so it seems-- of members of the Opposition want to vote. People will not understand why the majority have no recourse to further action to get a vote, or even an explanation.
I know of no organisation or society to which I belong in which the Chair is not called on to explain its conduct ; in the Labour party, in a trade union and, I suppose, in big business--although I do not know--it is likely to be called on to do so. The Chair is under so much pressure and, having had a week to think about it, is not prepared to explain how it reached a decision in line with the Government's views--
Mr. Skinner : I have not finished yet.
The Chairman : All right, I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
Mr. Skinner : I want to know why you are leaning toward the Government. Why?
The Chairman : Order. I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Skinner : You have had three days to think about it, and you are still on the Government's side. There is something bent about it. I am not prepared to accept this mumbo-jumbo. You are acting like a Tory Member on behalf of the Government. You cannot convince me otherwise. You have made it clear again and again that you back the Government.
The Chairman : Order. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman in particular, and to other hon. Members who have referred to it, that I am wholly impartial about the Bill. I do not care what manifestations or attitudes any hon. Member takes ; I am wholly impartial. I make that clear to every hon. and right hon. Member in the Chamber now, and to every hon. and right hon. Member who is no longer in the Chamber.
Column 51
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would be the first to acknowledge that it is not the number of hon. Members which decides whether a vote takes place. He will recall many occasions when he has caused a vote backed by very few hon. Members present, and the Chair has accepted it.Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. On BBC2 on 13 April, you said that there had been "a significant Second Reading" of the Bill and that you "cannot wreck the Bill". In saying that, did you not, in effect, explain your decision not to allow a vote on amendment No. 27?
The Chairman : I was merely reflecting the rules of the House in making that statement.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is common ground that amendment No. 27 is quite different in detail and effect from new clauses 74 and 75. It is common ground that amendment No. 27 has been well debated and deals with a distinct and important constitutional issue. It is also common ground that a majority of hon. Members want a vote on amendment No. 27. I know what the Standing Orders say, and I know what "Erskine May" says, but nothing prevents you from telling the Committee why, in these circumstances, we cannot vote on amendment No. 27. My constituents want to know.
The Chairman : I have never noticed the hon. Gentleman having any problem communicating with his constituents, who are right next door to mine. I am not commenting on the hon. Gentleman's alleged common ground.
5.30 pm
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I truly need your help, as a recent recruit to the Chairman's Panel. The procedural aspects of the present dilemma not only fascinate but dismay me- -because, if I maintain my position on the Chairmen's Panel, I may find myself in a similar situation in future.
You said, Mr. Morris, that the Chairman has the right to allow or deny a vote. Does that mean that, if members of the Committee, regardless of whether or not they are in favour of amendment No. 27, were interested in arriving at some kind of democratic determination and tabled a motion this evening saying, "We seek a Division on amendment No. 27", and more than 326 right hon. and hon. Members voted in favour of it, that would be disregarded by the Chair?
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman knows that is not the way that the Committee works, and that such decisions are left to the Chair.
Dr. John Cunningham : I noted your earlier advice, Mr. Morris, to read carefully in Hansard the wording of your statement. That implies that we shall have to study the exact nature of your statement tomorrow. In so far as you spelled out factors as to whether or not amendments should be voted upon, I cannot myself accept that it is the responsibility of the Chair to take account of political judgments about the effect of amendments on legislation.
Column 52
Surely it is for the Chair to rule whether or not an amendment is procedurally in order, not to make political judgments.In view of your remarks, I hope that the Committee will again pause and carefully study your observations--not least because, to coin a phrase, I do not want to throw out the opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27 on Report as the Committee tries to throw out the occupant of the Chair in any motion at this stage.
I hope that members of the Committee will pause and reflect, and will read carefully tomorrow in Hansard your statement, Mr. Morris, and not rush into taking ill-judged decisions that may prevent the House once and for all having an opportunity to vote on amendment No. 27.
As I said before, I believe that there is an unanswerable case for tabling and debating that amendment on Report, when any decision will be taken not by you, Mr. Morris, but by Madam Speaker.
The Chairman : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Several hon. Members rose--
The Chairman : Order. I have called every right hon. and hon. Gentleman who wanted to raise a point of order. We will now move on to amendment No. 57.
Mr. Spearing : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is a different point of order.
The Chairman : I make it clear that it must be a new point of order. I note the four hon. Members who sought to catch my eye, and I will accept new points of order from them.
Mr. Spearing : My point of order relates to amendment No. 426, which, if it is pressed, could be voted on four hours or less from now. Whereas amendment No. 27 received enormous publicity and has been considered by you, Mr. Morris, and by the Committee for a long time, amendment No. 426 will not have the same advantage. That amendment, which relates to the proceedings for direct elections to the European Parliament under article 138(3) of the treaty of Rome, calls for those procedures to be fully implemented in the United Kingdom.
Article 138(3) states that the European Parliament
"shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States." There are at least three interpretations of the amendment's implications, coupled with the article of the treaty of Rome to which it refers. One is that the procedure will apply in every member state of the European Community.
Another is that the procedure will be uniform within each member state. If the latter, and that is applied to the United Kingdom, it must be noted that the United Kingdom has no uniform procedure. The procedure in Northern Ireland differs from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to remind the Committee of the debate that we had some days ago. In all honesty, it seems that I cannot win. When I select an amendment on which some right hon. and hon. Members want a vote, I receive a complaint on a point of order from an hon. Member who does not want a vote on it.
Mr. Spearing : No, Mr. Morris.
Column 53
The Chairman : That is my interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
Mr. Spearing : I am asking whether it is in the remit of the Chair to explain the effects on this country's constitution of amendment No. 426. It will mean either that Northern Ireland has to adopt our procedures, or that we will have to adopt those of Northern Ireland.
The Chairman : The answer is no, that is not in the remit of the Chair.
Several hon. Members rose --
The Chairman : Order. I said that I would call four hon. Members who had stood in their places, and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was one of them.
Mr. Cash : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it a Standing Order or a matter of practice as to whether or not reasons are given for selecting amendments and apparently for allowing Divisions? If the latter, by what practice, because page 405 of "Erskine May"--
The Chairman : Order. It is a matter of practice. Mr. Cryer. Mr. Cash rose --
The Chairman : Order. I have called Mr. Cryer.
Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As the Committee will debate the Bill again on Wednesday, can you say whether a motion of no confidence would take precedence over further debate in Committee? It seems to me highly desirable--arising out of your refusal to allow a Division on amendment No. 27--to allow a debate on that issue and to vote on it. Also, would such a debate be limited to three hours, or would it occupy the whole of Wednesday?
The Chairman : Those matters are not for me.
Mr. Knapman : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will acknowledge that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have voiced over the past half an hour deep-seated concern about certain aspects of Committee procedures. You seemed to suggest that right hon. and hon. Members would be restricted to raising one point of order. Is that the case?
The Chairman : I find it rather easier to deal with one point of order at a time. Mr. Walker--this is the last point of order.
Mr. Bill Walker : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Will you confirm that your advice is that the Scottish Parliament has been dissolved? If it has not, why can it not be recalled? The advice given by legal brains in Scotland may run contrary to your advice--in which case your decisions as to what is relevant and should be debated may be subject to revision. The Maastricht treaty goes right to the heart of the treaty of Union between Scotland and England. I speak as a unionist and as a supporter of this unitary Parliament. Because I care so deeply, I believe that we will be in danger of entering into the worst possible political, economic and legal minefield if we get it wrong.
The Chairman : I receive very good advice, especially on Scottish matters.
Column 54
I may comment finally, especially to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), that of course "Erskine May" is all about procedure.Clause 1
Treaty on European Union
Sir Teddy Taylor : I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 1, line 10, after 1992', insert
but not Article 201 in Title II thereof'.
I have been waiting since four o'clock last Thursday to introduce this important amendment, which is the only one in my name to be selected for separate debate. Unfortunately, I have contracted a cold, but I hope that I shall still be able to make an extensive speech. It is a great help to have my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General in his place on the Treasury Bench. We regard him as one of the more constructive members of the Government. While we know that they all have their assets, my right hon. Friend is someone who is constructive, looks forward and tries to solve problems.
The amendment is designed to suggest to the Committee how we might solve some of the appalling problems that face the European Community, of which both its supporters and opponents are well aware. We are well aware, from the small number of hon. Members who attend these debates, that hon. Members do not want to listen to the arguments. Nevertheless, there is a deep-down feeling throughout the House of Commons that things are going terribly wrong with the European Community : that the EC's share of world trade is going down and down, that unemployment in the EC is soaring and that expenditure by the EC is riddled with graft and corruption. The tragedy is that no one has the slightest idea what to do about it.
My impression is that most members of the Government party, who are now sickened with the whole EC business, are genuinely not sure what on earth they should do. They are worried about the EC, but they say, "We've got to support the Prime Minister. The negotiations are too far advanced. We don't know which way to turn, so what on earth else should we do?"
The impression that I have gained throughout the whole debate on the treaty is that hon. Members feel that we are stuck on a tightrope, that we are heading towards a cliff and that we cannot turn either to the right or to the left, or even back. No one, apart from the Liberal Democrats--who, I accept, are sincere people, as we have seen in all our debates on the treaty--seems to be genuinely supportive of Maastricht. No one seems to think that Maastricht will be a good deal. The Government talk about Maastricht, warts and all. They say that they do not want to improve Maastricht, despite warts and all. Some of my hon. Friends say, "Don't worry about the Maastricht treaty ; the exchange rate mechanism won't come back", even though the treaty makes it clear that we must try to get back into the ERM from 1 January next.
In this amendment I am suggesting an answer that might bring all hon. Members, both supporters and opponents of Maastricht, together and solve some of the problems that worry them. The amendment suggests that we should delete article 201 on page 56 of the treaty.
Mr. Marlow : I have read my hon. Friend's amendment. It is a good one. I am looking forward to the rest of his speech. My hon. Friend suggests, in effect, that we should
Column 55
take the Community's budget away. That is a very good idea. However, would not a better way of approaching it be to adopt another suggestion? My hon. Friend is well aware of the fact that about a fortnight ago some Italian either jumped or was pushed from a 16th floor window in Brussels. There are allegations that he was tied up with the Mafia. There are also allegations that £1,000 million of our money has been misapplied through some fraud related to tobacco. Should there not be a total review of the Commission and of all who work in it, in terms of where there is fraud, where there is not fraud, whether money has been properly applied and the involvement of the Mafia in the Commission? Should not that be a matter of great urgency and should not that inquiry take place before there is any further debate on this wretched piece of paper that we are concerned with?Sir Teddy Taylor : I appeal to hon. Members not to pay attention to that. It has been tried time and time again. The trouble with people who are positive about the EC is that we have tried all this before. For example, an organisation looked into all the fraud and all the rubbish. It said that it would do the job for us. Then we had Maastricht. A fraud department was to be set up. According to the Maastricht treaty, the idea is that, somehow, the European Parliament will look into all this. I appeal to my hon. Friends not to be misled by that suggestion. It will not work. We have heard talk of the common agricultural policy being reformed. It cannot be reformed. I appeal to the Committee, and in particular to the Paymaster General, to give a message to the European Community about where Britain wants it to go and how we can make the EC work more effectively.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : Can the hon. Gentleman emphasise one simple fact : that the powers to audit and change the rules relating to fraud and to take action against those found guilty of defrauding the EC have existed since the earliest treaties and that the European Parliament has never chosen to use those powers properly, nor has any subsequent Commission?
5.45 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor : The hon. Lady is so right. I heard her in European Standing Committee A, before I was chucked off it for asking too many questions, rightly saying over and over again that fraud had been proved and that lots of money, which could be spent on helping the poor and pensioners, is being thrown away. The hon. Lady pointed out that the European Parliament has the powers but that they are not being used and that they cannot be used. That is the great tragedy. Instead of laughing at this, I appeal to the House of Commons to say, "Where the blazes are we going?" We all know that the European Community is in a terrible mess, that democracy is being destroyed, that unemployment is soaring and that Europe's share of world trade is going down, so what on earth, I ask the Government, do they think we should do about it?
Mr. Marlow : If, as may well be the case, the Commission is as rotten with the Mafia as gorgonzola cheese is with maggots, who is it that can sort it out? Is it only the Commission, or can Her Majesty's Government
| Next Section
| Home Page |