EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL (Hansard, 20 June 1972)

§ Mr. Edmund Dell (Birkenhead)
On a point of order. I have recently seen your selection of Amendments, Sir Robert, and I have noticed that you have not selected Amendment No. 9 standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends, in Schedule 2, page 20, line 32, at the end insert: 'or (e) to make any provision for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom, or enabling any such obligation to be implemented under section 2(2)(a) of this Act unless before such obligation arose any proposal by virtue of which such obligation arises has been laid before Parliament and a Committee of each House of Parliament has reported thereto upon such proposal'. I do not see how this Amendment can conceivably be out of order, as it is in no way inconsistent with the objects of the Bill. Moreover, it represents, within British parliamentary terms, a system of control of the Executive which is similar to that used in at least two other European Parliaments which are members of the European Economic Community.
It seems odd in those circumstances that this Amendment should not be discussed, let alone voted upon, during the proceedings on this Bill. I should be grateful if you could tell the Committee why this Amendment has not been selected.

§ The Chairman
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, because it is a good thing that I should make it clear. First, there is no question of the Amendment being out of order. It is not out of order.
But it is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the duty of the Chair to make the selection of Amendments and it is also the unquestioned rule that the Chair 240 does not give reasons for the selection of Amendments. The Chair is happy to receive representations, and frequently does, from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen about Amendments and tries as far as possible to meet those suggestions.
The right hon. Gentleman had a quick word with me about this the other day, and I have considered it. On taking careful advice, I feel that the substance of his Amendment has been discussed on Amendments Nos. 79, 216, 78 and 4. So on this occasion I am sorry to say that I cannot select the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)
Sir Robert, I would join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), urging that you should consider selecting the Amendment. We have not urged this Amendment upon you. Because we have had to make representations to you on so many matters on which you have listened to us so courteously, maybe we overlooked suggesting that the Amendment should be called. I would not like it to be thought that we do not wish it to be called, because we would be very glad if you were able to accept my right hon. Friend's request.

§ The Chairman
That is where the matter must lie for the present, at any rate. I will think further about it, and if I can tell the right hon. Gentleman anything about it later, I will, but I cannot hold out any strong hope.

§ Mr. Dell
I am glad that you have said you will consider the matter further, Sir Robert. You referred to other Amendments on which you thought the substance of Amendment No. 9 had been discussed. I think you will find if you compare the Amendments that this is the only occasion on which the House will have the opportunity to examine this specific mechanism for the House to discuss, through the medium of a Select Committee, matters which will eventually be decided through the machinery of the European Community. Unless we have this opportunity we shall have no chance to discuss this method of operation, which is, as I have already put to you, in practice and in operation in at least two other European Parliaments. It would seem to be desirable that we should have an opportunity to discuss that so far as the guillotine will allow us to do so.

§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)
On a point of order. As you have selected four Amendments or groups of Amendments on Schedule 2 as deserving of separate discussion Sir Robert, and as you have been good enough to indicate just now that in your opinion there may be substance in the contention raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), is it not evident in the circumstances that three and a half hours is a ludicrous period in which to expect the Committee to discuss Schedule 2?

§ The Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman knows that this has nothing whatever to do with me. I will think further about the matter of the Amendment without making any promises.

§ Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney)
On a point of order, Sir Robert. May I draw your attention to another Amendment which we would respectfully submit would have been a useful one to have called and discussed while the Committee was dealing with Schedule 1? I refer to Amendment No. 294, to delete sub-paragraph 6. Faced with the sheer difficulty of deciding what to focus upon when we have so much material and so little time, we sought to focus upon the Treaty of Luxembourg, which is one of the treaties defined among the pre-accession treaties in Part I of Schedule 1. Will you consider, Sir Robert, whether that, too, might be included in the Amendments which you have selected for debate?

§ The Chairman
I do not think I can give the right hon. Member satisfaction here because I have had to rule the Amendment out of order.