§ 11.31 p.m.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Peart.
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot hear two hon. Members at once.
§ Mr. GurdenOn a point of order Mr. Speaker. I understood that the Adjournment debate was to be for my speech and not for the Leader of the House. I am being asked to facilitate Government business by giving up my time. I would never have believed that I should help such a Government in such evil business. But if I am informed and guaranteed that I shall have equal time to put the case which I would have put on the Adjournment tonight, I will be prepared to help the House of Commons.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have much sympathy with the hon. Member. I never promise anything. Mr. Peart.
§ Mr. Edward Heath (Bexley)On a point of order. Would you kindly inform the House, Mr. Speaker, under what arrangement the Leader of the House is being called to address it when you have previously arranged and announced that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) had the subject for the Adjournment?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is always the practice of the Chair to call the Front Bench, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Shouting does not help.
§ Mr. HeathWith the great respect which is due to you, Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall in my time any precedent for a Member of the Front Bench being called when Mr. Speaker has allocated the Adjournment to an hon. Member. My hon. Friend said that if there were an undertaking that he would have equi- 1320 valent time for the Adjournment, he was prepared to give way to the Leader of the House. But no such undertaking has been given to him. Therefore, there is no reason why he should give way to the Leader of the House at this point
§ Mr. PeartOn a point of order. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) was prepared to consider the convenience of the House, I am sure that representations made to you, Mr. Speaker, would be considered sympathetically.
§ Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)On a point of order. In view of your Ruling a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance? May I recall to you that on a previous occasion, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to make a statement and you had allotted the Adjournment to me, you clearly ruled that unless I gave way and surrendered by Adjournment, as I did, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not make a statement on the Adjournment on a matter of major importance? With respect, does not that Ruling cover my hon. Friend's point?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf I remember rightly, I ruled very diplomatically. I cannot pledge myself ahead, but I shall always look sympathetically on the case of an hon. Member who loses his Adjournment. I am jealous of the rights of back benchers in this House. Mr. Peart.
§ Mr. GurdenFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for your comment. May I, with respect, ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more specific in his guarantee. or his assurance—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerWith all respect to the Leader of the House, he cannot give any guarantee at all. What the hon. Member must do is have some confidence in Mr. Speaker. Mr. Peart.
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, does not your Ruling mean that some other back bencher is to be deprived of his Adjournment half hour? Could 1321 not the Leader of the House give Government time to my hon. Friend for his Adjournment?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is the most ingenious suggestion of the evening.
§ Mr. PeartWith permission, I should like to make a short statement on business.
In view of the rate of progress on the Committee stage of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill, the Government will ask the House to consider a timetable Motion. The Motion has been tabled—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. One thing that every hon. Member has in common, I believe, is preserving the good name of Parliament. Whatever one's opinions of the issues which divide the House, throwing Order Papers in the House does no good to one side or the other. Mr. Peart.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am with every hon. Member for the expression of feelings, but within a commendable field of restraint.
§ Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not correct that the Home Secretary a short time ago begged to report Progress and seek leave to sit again on the basis that we had made progress? How can the right hon. Gentleman be followed by the Leader of the House now saying that there has not been sufficient progress—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is not a point of order. That is a point of argument.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) will indicate audibly that he wishes to raise a point of order, it will help Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Smethwick)rose—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am trying to gather whether the hon. Member for Smethwick wishes to raise a point of order.
§ Mr. FauldsOn a point of order Mr. Speaker. Is it not within the possibility of your office to reprimand a little more 1322 forcibly than you have done?—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I want to hear the hon. Member for Smethwick—[Interruption.]—in defence of the order of the House. [Interruption.]
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Has not the Chair inadvertently allowed the House to be led astray? A moment ago the Home Secretary begged leave to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. [Interruption.] It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that this side of the House did not vote against it because the general impression at this stage was that we should continue with the Bill in the normal way tomorrow. If the House had been told that the proposition was to be followed by a Guillotine, we might well have voted or acted differently. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I cannot judge what the House would have done if it had known what was going to happen next.
§ Mr. PeartThe Motion has been tabled and will be taken as first business at tomorrow's sitting. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We can fight these battles in the Parliamentary way.
§ Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a matter of sharp practice for the Government to indicate to the Opposition that we would be sitting again in normal precedent tomorrow and, without any indication at that time that there was likely to be a timetable Motion, then, the moment they have obtained the reporting of Progress, to move the Guillotine? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The question of the timetable must be taken tomorrow.
§ Mr. PeartI said that the Motion has been tabled and will be taken as first business at tomorrow's sitting. The business that we had arranged for tomorrow will be taken in the following order: Remaining stages of the Family Law Reform Bill [Lords], remaining stages of 1323 the Iron and Steel Bill and the remaining stages of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].
§ 11.44 p.m.
§ Mr. HeathFor most of us in this House, and for most of the time that we have been in the House, it was not permissible to interrupt business in order to make a statement. It is only in recent years that in matters of vital national importance and, on occasions, international importance, such as the occasion used some 18 months ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chair has accepted that at the time of the Adjournment there should be an interruption of business, and the hon. Member concerned with the Adjournment has voluntarily surrendered his time in the general understanding that it would be granted to him on some other occasion.
The House has always accepted that a matter of vital national and international importance should have priority over whatever else was happening in the House. But what do we see tonight? We see no such situation. We have heard the most disgraceful abuse of the procedure of the House by the Leader of the House that, in my time in the House, I can recollect. He is abusing the Adjournment purely for party political purposes. What is the emergency which has forced the Leader of the House to come along at this time and take the Adjournment and announce a Guillotine on this Bill?
The Home Secretary, in moving that the House should report Progress, said that it would be uncharitable to deny that the House had made progress on the Bill, It is well known that there are eight major debates on this Bill, which is of major constitutional importance. Today we have concluded two, and the Home Secretary has rightly and generously acknowledged that the House has done this, and done it before midnight. Yet the Leader of the House comes along and in the most inept phraseology, which proves that this is a bogus argument, says that because of a lack of progress he is to move the Guillotine tomorrow. What does this show? Only that the Government have no respect whatever for the traditional Parliamentary procedures, and are engaged in only one thing—trying to save their own life.
1324 We have had today, first, after only two hours' debate, an early Closure on two important Amendments, on the first day of the Committee on an important Bill. Not one hon. Member opposite can deny that this was an abuse, in the first instance, of the procedure of the House. We are engaged in discussing a Bill which, whatever one's views on it, is of major constitutional importance, which affects the citizen and his vote and the area in which he will carry out his obligations to the community. There is nothing more important in a democracy than this.
The plain fact is that the Government, both in this Bill and in the procedure which they are employing, are engaged in what the late right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would have described as a "squalid party manoeuvre". But his successor, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), has sat there throughout the day without saying a word. He and his colleagues are the first to lecture those in Ulster about the proper boundaries and proper voting procedures—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House must learn to listen to what it does not agree with.
§ Mr. HeathThe hon. Member and his colleagues are the first to lecture the Rhodesians about "one man, one vote" and proper boundaries. Yet, in this House, he says not one word on a Bill of political and constitutional importance. In fact, in his view, morality and integrity apply to every part of the world except to himself and his own party.
The Home Secretary has the solemn duty of being responsible for law and order in this country. He himself at this moment is in breach of the law of this country, in the way in which he has behaved over Boundary Commission Reports. Now he compounds that offence by the abuse of Parliamentary procedure which the Leader of the House has just announced.
What about the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has rapidly beaten his exit? He was the man who would reform Parliamentary procedure to enable back benchers, the Opposition and minorities to influence the Executive. What has he done? He has connived in the worst use of the Guillotine in 1325 Parliamentary history. [Interruption.] So squalid has been his party manoeuvre that hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot even bear to have it discussed in the House of Commons.
§ Mr. HeathThe real nature of this Government is exposed. There are no depths to which they will not resort—[Interruption.] However dictatorial, however disreputable and however reprehensible, they will do it in a vain attempt to protect their own lives.
§ Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard a Government Whip move the Motion, That this House do now adjourn. I think that that was at least half-an-hour ago. Is it not the custom of the House that the Adjournment debate lasts for only half-an-hour? Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that the time for the Adjournment has expired?
§ Mr. SpeakerI refrain from making any comment, except to say that it has not expired.
§ Mr. HeathFor eight long weeks the Prime Minister and his colleagues, against the wish of the Home Secretary, were prepared to go on discussing important questions of industrial relations. I did not begrudge them that. But for rights affecting the votes of 36 million people in this country they are not prepared to go on for eight hours before imposing the Guillotine. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. HeathThis is a disgraceful performance—this from a party which is supposed to pride itself on having fought through its history for the rights of the individual and for Parliamentary democracy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite—
§ Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. Heath—are gerrymandering the constituencies and now they are trying to abuse every right of Parliament. [Interruption.] However hard they try, they will come to regret this day because the electorate will surely dismiss any party which has so little respect for our traditional history and the rights of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
§ Mr. SpeakerWhatever good this does to anybody, it does no good to Parliament.
§ 11.55 p.m.
§ Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)I am not quite sure how many more minutes the House is to debate these matters, but I think it would have been a good idea if the right hon. Gentleman had reserved these very powerful arguments he claims to have made for the debate which we shall have tomorrow on the Motion. We must be grateful that at last he has plucked up courage to mention Ulster. People have had their heads bashed in there, and people have had their civil rights taken from them. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that there is something more important than any hon. Member. That is Parliament itself.
§ Mr. FootHaving plucked up his courage, having taken his courage in both hands and at last mentioned the name of Ulster—
§ Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South)On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), but he has suggested that certain civil rights have been denied to people in Northern Ireland. Would it not be reasonable to suggest to the hon. Member that never in the history of—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. and gallant Member must come to a real point of order. This looks like a point of argument.
§ Captain Orrrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Captain Orr, if it is a real point of order.
§ Captain Orrrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I would hope that some hon. Gentlemen would think a little about Parliament itself. Captain Orr.
§ Captain OrrOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That was precisely the point I wished to make. Is it in order for the hon. Member to suggest that civil rights have been denied in a Parliament which has never dealt with matters concerning the boundaries of constituencies?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is not a point of order. Mr. Foot.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have already ruled that it was not a point of order.
§ Mr. FootThe second congratulation which I offer to the Leader of the Opposition is that after many months of silence on the subject he has plucked up courage to mention Rhodesia. He knows that the speech he delivered had nothing to do with the rights of Parliament or the boundaries. All he was concerned with was to try to make himself look like a 1328 Leader of the Opposition. His real difficulty is this—
§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Emunds)On a point of order—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. A point of order, Mr. Eldon Griffiths.
§ Mr. GriffithsOn a point of order Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I want to hear the point of order.
§ Mr. GriffithsMr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance—
§ Mr. Griffiths—about the nature of the debate in which we are at present engaged? As I understand it, we are discussing the Motion, That this House do now adjourn. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The Chair conducts the debate. The debate is perfectly in order. Mr. Foot.
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at one minute past Twelve o'clock.