BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 27 April 1972)

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr)
The business for next week will be tas follows:

§ Mr. Wilson
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's decision to impose a guillotine on the European Communities Bill will be regarded 1775 in the House and in the country as an intolerable abrogation of the rights of the House, and that, whatever view any hon. Member may take of the terms negotiated, the Bill robs Parliament of its right of debate on fundamental constitutional issues? Is it now the Government's view that, on top of that, they should gag the House even on the main Bill itself by restricting the timetable? Will he confirm that it is not the Government's intention in the Motion to set up a Business Committee, as is usual in these matters, but that within the Motion there will be an allocation of time for the individual Clauses? Is he aware that it will be necessary for Amendments to be moved, Amendments which will affect the rights of every hon. Member, not just the two Front Benches, and that there will need to be time to move them, debate them, and vote on them? It seems necessary to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is a protector not only of Government interests in the House but, primarily, of the rights of hon. Members throughout the House. In view of that, will he now reconsider this dictatorial decision?

§ Mr. Carr
I am aware also that the House has a duty to see that all parts of the Bill—the more important the Bill, the more important the duty is—are adequately debated. It has become clear from the quite exceptional number of days and hours of debate given to the Bill, and before the Bill to the basic subject, that there will be no adequate plan of debate unless there is an allocation of time, laying down a reasonable plan of debate. That is the purpose of the Government's Motion. When it is tabled, I think the House and, indeed, the country will see that the time allocated is not only generous but wholly exceptional compared with anything that has gone before. It is our intention that the Motion shall contain, built into the Motion itself, an allocation of time for each and every Clause. The object of that is not to limit the rights of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The object is to ensure that each and every Clause and Schedule shall have a reasonable amount of time for debate, and, therefore, we shall avoid what I think we are all aware of sometimes when we have timetable Motions, which is having 1776 many things jumbled up together at the end. If the right hon. Gentleman would wish to make representations before the tabling of the Motion, I shall be glad to hear them.

§ Mr. Wilson
When the right hon. Gentleman states the principle of adequate time for the debate of all the Clauses, a principle which he can mouth, but which he has not implemented in either his present or his previous capacity, how does he justify the fact that we are already under guillotine on the Housing Finance Bill, with totally inadequate time for that? Does he consider there will be a better facility for the House to debate all the Clauses adequately under a guillotine than if we continued with what has happened so far, a free consideration of all the Clauses of the Bill?

§ Mr. Carr
Having considered the amount of time that has been taken, and bearing in mind that after 88 hours of consideration in Committee we have reached subsection (1) of Clause 2, and that the House by a substantial majority has expressed itself strongly in favour of implementing the terms of the agreement as well as the principle of entry into the Common Market. I am convinced that it is the wish of the House that that decision shall be given effect. I am satisfied that it would not, and could not, be given effect unless we now adopt a very reasonable, generous and wholly exceptional plan of debate.

§ Sir Robin Turton
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that in seeking to impose a timetable on a constitutional Measure he is breaking parliamentary tradition? I appreciate how he has said he will discharge this grave responsibility, but will he bear in mind that Clause 2 is of much greater importance to the country than any other Clause in the Bill? Therefore, will he secure adequate time to debate it and consult not merely the Opposition but all those right hon. and hon. Members on both sides who have a very grave concern about the provisions of the Bill?

§ Mr. Carr
Yes, Sir. Of course I realise that this is a very serious step to take. I believe that a plan of debate is essential if the will of Parliament, as 1777 expressed last October, is to be implemented and at the same time each and every Clause and Schedule of the Bill is to have a reasonable time for debate. I and the Government would have wished that we could arrive at a voluntary agreement about what that plan of debate might be. I make no complaint about it, but, unfortunately, such a voluntary agreement has not proved possible. Therefore, we came to the conclusion that we had to take this step.
I remind my right hon. Friend that there have already been two days on the first subsection of Clause 2. I think that he and the House will find when they see the Motion that full account is taken of the special importance of the Clause.

§ Mr. Michael Foot
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Bill on which he is introducing the Motion—a unique Bill, as he himself has said—is one for which the Government had a majority of only eight on Second Reading? [Interruption.] That is the relevant matter on the Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate also that the arrangement of the timetable that he is proposing must be a matter for the House to discuss in the open, and must not be settled in any hugger-mugger way behind the scenes, particularly because he has introduced the guillotine at what might be described as the most sensitive part of the most significant Clause in the Bill, which changes the whole constitution of the country?
Since it is so difficult for some of us, and perhaps for others in the country, to understand how it can be claimed that the full-hearted consent of Parliament could be secured only by the operation of the guillotine, will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that in the debate on Tuesday the Prime Minister will be here—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the Leader of the Opposition."]

§ Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South-East)
And both your Front Benches.

§ Mr. Foot
I know that others may not think so, but some of us regard this as an extremely important question. Since some of us cannot see how it can be understood that it can be claimed that the full-hearted consent of Parliament has been secured for a Measure which is passed through its stages only 1778 with the operation of the guillotine, will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the Prime Minister will be here on Tuesday to defend his pledges to his country and to defend his personal honour?

§ Mr. Carr
It would be intriguing to follow the hon. Gentleman in his rather topsy-turvy description of events. Entry into Europe on these terms has been approved by a very large majority of the House. Had there been a free vote on the Opposition side as there was on this side, the majority would have been overwhelming. We understand that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who share the leadership of the Opposition on the conduct of the Bill, wish to defeat the principle and the decision of the House. It is perfectly honourable to have that wish. But it has become apparent that we shall not be able to implement the will of Parliament, freely expressed by a substantial majority, without a plan of debate. That is what we are doing, and I believe that that is what the country would wish us to do.

§ Mr. Speaker
Dame Irene Ward.

§ Dame Irene Ward
May I ask my right hon. Friend—

§ Mr. Michael Foot
Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Foot
Mr. Speaker, you permitted me—[Interruption.] On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You permitted me to put a question to the Leader of the House on a matter of supreme importance to the country—

§ Mr. James Hill
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is on a point of order and must be heard.

§ Mr. Foot
You permitted me to put to the Leader of the House a perfectly simple question concerning the business of the House next week. Is the Prime Minister going to be here to defend his word to the country?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The custom of the House is that I should take questions 1779 from one side and then the other. I have indicated my decision. I will not call the hon. Member again now, but will later on, if he rises.

§ Dame Irene Ward
Could I ask my right hon. Friend to help me? I would like a statement next week about the position of C. A. Parsons on Tyneside, which is causing very heavy unemployment. Can he explain to me why it is that we are able to have statements about the Upper Clyde and about Merseyside, where we are putting in Government money, but not about C. A. Parsons, where unemployment is very heavy? I cannot get a Question on the Order Paper because Government money is not involved. I want a statement about the position of C. A. Parsons. Unemployment is just as important to Tyneside as it is to Clydeside and Merseyside.

§ Mr. Carr
Perhaps I can have a word with my hon. Friend to see exactly what it is that she wants a statement about. I will do my best to see that in one way or the other she gets the information which she requires, but I cannot promise a statement next week.

Mr. Bob Brown
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is the convention of the House that if an hon. Member seeks to raise an issue affecting the constituency of another hon. Member, he or she should give notice to that hon. Member. In this case the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has given me no notice, nor, as far as I am aware, has she given notice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short). In fact, the hon. Lady should know that it does not need a statement —

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Dame Irene Ward
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker —

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. A point of order has already been put to me. It is the convention that if an hon. Member is going to make a personal attack or refer to another hon. Member, notice should be given, but the ruling goes no further than that.

§ Dame Irene Ward
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have constituents who work in C. A. Parsons.

Mr. Bob Brown
A damned sight more of my constituents work there than the constituents of the hon. Lady.

§ Mr. Lipton
Is the Prime Minister going to be here next Tuesday to speak in the debate on thte guillotine Motion?

§ Mr. Carr
That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend to decide. But one thing I do know is that he is never far from where responsibility lies.

§ Mr. Kimball
What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take to safeguard the rights of hon. Members on a Friday? Is he aware that the Order Paper last Friday, 21st April, gave no indication that the Bill set down as Order No. 21 would do any more than come from the Standing Committee to the Floor of the House? When a similar manoeuvre was done with the Civil Evidence Bill it went no further than the Floor of the House and proper notice was given. The subsequent stages followed in succeeding weeks. No one objects to what happened last week in principle, but there was no warning on the Order Paper that it could happen.

§ Mr. Carr
I understand the point. What happened on Friday was entirely within the rules of order and procedure. If it were to be changed, it would be necessary for us to change our procedure, which is not a matter, directly at least, for me. But I understand that hon. Members may feel concerned. I have read what you, Mr. Speaker, said at the time concerning the fact that an important matter can go through without warning. Perhaps the Select Committee on Procedure, which has the right to look into these matters, could take note of this and give it consideration.

§ Mr. C. Pannell
No less than five Bills have gone through this Parliament without opposition in exactly the way complained of by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), but he and his hon. Friends have only just awakened to the fact. The only new factor is the relevation of the ineptitude of hon. Members opposite.

§ Mr. Carr
That may or may not be true, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) is usually pretty alert on these matters. We all agree that what happened was fully within the procedures of the House. But it is not just a matter of this case. We should consider whether it is right for things to go through without a general warning to hon. Members as a whole. The Select Committee on Procedure may wish to consider it.

§ Sir F. Bennett
A number of questions have been asked about whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be here next Tuesday. It is a matter for him and others to decide. Can my right hon. Friend give any indication whether we shall have the presence of the right hon. Gentleman who originally acceded. by his application for entry, to the Rome Treaty, or is his return from the United States only temporary?

§ Mr. Carr
I am glad to say that that is no part of my responsibility.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
While we are on the subject of private Members' business on a Friday, will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the Night Assemblies Bill, which came out of Committee only yesterday and is apparently to be set down for tomorrow's business? Hon. Members will only be able to put down starred Amendments for Report stage. Yet the Bill has aroused a great deal of comment in the country and has caused fears about civil liberties.

§ Mr. Carr
I believe—I would like to look into this—that I can assure the hon. Member and the House that it is not proposed to take that Bill until tomorrow week, not tomorrow

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
Reverting to next Tuesday's business, would my right hon. Friend say whether he endorses the judgment of The Times this morning that the quality of debate on this Bill has been high and that there has been no delay? Will he say whether there is any precedent for guillotining a Bill the proceedings of which are the subject of such tributes and in respect of which no allegation of delay or obstruction is, or could be, made?

§ Mr. Carr
I certainly wish to make no criticism of the quality of debate, which 1782 I believe has been high. I think, however, that all observers must admit that it has also been extremely long. I do not think any of us can forget some of the early proceedings on the Bill. The time still to be allocated for the proper debate I have described will in itself be exceptionally long. I have no doubt that the total amount of time on the Floor of the House will be exceptional not only by all past standards but for any Bill of any comparable nature and will be adequate to proper debate.

§ Mr. Fred Evans
You are settling a hundred years of history.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must confess myself in difficulty. I am wondering how I can protect the Opposition Supply day.

§ Mr. Orme
Would the right hon. Gentlemen tell us whether the decision to go ahead with the guillotine means that he has been guaranteed the support, for instance, of the Liberal Party to see that this iniquitous Measure is passed? Has it said that it will sacrifice its liberal traditions to help impose the guillotine on this House? As the Prime Minister finds this matter so amusing, would the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to carry out his promise not only to Parliament but to the people? Does he not think that the British people are entitled to decide this and not a laughing Prime Minister?

§ Mr. Carr
I am bound to say that 1 find that question about the intentions of the Liberal Party rather surprising from an hon. Member who has not been, to my belief, notable for his support of free votes on this issue. I have, of course, received no undertaking from the Liberal Party on this. It is entirely up to it how it votes on the night.

§ Mr. Kilfedder
Will my right hon. Friend say how much time will be granted for the debate to take place on Monday week on the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order? Will he arrange before this takes place for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement in this House next week explaining why the shooting of the IRA terrorist leader Joseph M'Gann was referred to the Director of Public 1783 Prosecutions, a step which has caused consternation and amazement to the soldiers and to law-abiding people in Northern Ireland?

§ Mr. Carr
I will certainly draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Shore
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the damage that this announcement of the guillotine will do, not only to his own reputation and that of the Prime Minister, but also to the reputation of this House and to the whole respect for democracy in this country?

§ Mr. James Hill
Will my right hon. Friend look again at Thursday's business, when we are to discuss the Housing Finance Bill? This is also the day when we shall be holding municipal elections. Would it not be possible to rearrange business so that those who are interested in this vital housing legislation will be able to get back to their constituencies on Thursday?

§ Mr. Carr
I understand the feelings of my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that we must make progress with the Bill on that day.

§ Mr. Maclennan
Returning to the European Communities Bill, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on this side of the House who provided him with his majority of 112 take the view that this is a major Bill involving every single Member of this House and that we are not happy with any time-tabling procedure which would have the effect of stifling the fullest possible debate? Is he aware that many of us, I believe every one of us on this side of the House, believes that there would be no difficulty about this if the Government were to prove less reluctant to withdraw other repugnant legislation and make way for the fullest debate on this Bill?

§ Mr. Carr
I am afraid that I simply cannot accept that. We have sought to obtain some voluntary arrangements and have been quite unable to do so, certainly not because of the time taken by other legislation.

§ Mr. St. John-Stevas
Would my right hon. Friend agree that, however much 1784 one may support entry into the Common Market, no one in this House views the guillotine with anything but a certain amount of distaste—as a disagreeable necessity? Is he aware, therefore, that it is essential that the allocation of time should be uniquely generous?

§ Mr. Carr
I agree with my hon. Friend about that, and I believe it will be found that the time allocated is uniquely generous. When the total time that this House will have spent on the Bill is added up it will be seen to be totally exceptional.

§ Mr. Jay
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the Government try to force through so revolutionary a Bill as this without a mandate a great many people, even though the Measure were to be passed, will treat it as having no constitutional or moral force?

§ Mr. Carr
I do not accept that. The right hon. Gentleman has always been consistent, unlike some of his hon. and right hon. Friend. He naturally wishes to use the right of speech in this House to prevent the Bill ever becoming law. That is contrary to the strongly supported desire of this House as expressed in the vote last October. That has to be recognised.

§ Mr. Redmond
Would my right hon. Friend agree that the whole country will support this step provided that it is seen that there is ample time for full discussion? Is he aware that the only people who will cry "Gag" and talk about the guillotine will be those who want to make political capital out of it? Is it not worth remembering that it was a Liberal Government which introduced timetable Motions to deal with people from the Irish Nationalist Party?

§ Mr. Carr
I do not think I will be drawn on the last part of my hon. Friend's question, but I believe that when Parliament has debated the principles and the details of an important matter of this kind for as long as we have in this House, then, the basic decision having been taken, it is in the national interest that reasonable decisions should be taken provided that there is adequate time for a full debate, which there will be.

§ Mr. Lawson
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a Motion on the Order Paper in the name of some of my hon. 1785 Friends asking for time on the Floor of the House to debate the changes that are working out in local government in Scotland? Will he say that we can be found such time to debate this important matter?

§ Mr. Carr
I have seen the Motion. If the hon. Member looks at the timing of the reports and legislation for England, Wales and Scotland he can expect that there will be time in due course for this but certainly not in the immediate future.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must protect the business of the House. There is an important debate to come in which at least three Privy Councillors and many Opposition back benchers wish to take part. I think we must move on.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was told by the Press both yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening that a timetable Motion on the European Communities Bill would be announced today. When I discussed this through the usual channels, it was denied. Each Thursday the business for next week is announced and we have the opportunity of raising points upon it. It is becoming an almost everyday occurrence for the Government to make announcements to the Press in preference to Members of Parliament. On this occasion the Government have made matters worse in that they have denied the announcement of a timetable Motion and have then announced it. Somewhere in official circles untruths are being told. On being challenged last night the Government should either have admitted it or issued a statement denying it. A reference to all the newspapers this morning will show that my comments are correct.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman is correct, I am not sure what I can do about it. However, I will consider what he has said.

§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. A question was 1786 raised by the hon. Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) about what happened last Friday on the Sunday Theatre (No. 2) Bill. Would it be proper for you, Mr. Speaker, to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should remove the Motions which he has put down to block Private Members' Bills? I have received many congratulations—

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order.