"CITING OF DOCUMENTS NOT BEFORE THE HOUSE"

HC Deb 01 March 1972 vol 832 cc572-702

It says: Another rule or principle of debate may be here added. A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevents counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in.

I maintain that that is an authoritative statement of what is clearly a rule of procedure of the House. I do not argue that this is a rule which applies to anyone other than a Minister.

On the same page "Erskine May" goes on: Members not connected with the Government have also cited documents in their possession, both public and private, which were not before the House: but though the House is equally unable to form a correct judgment from partial extracts, inconvenient latitude has sometimes been permitted, which it is doubtful whether any rule but that of good taste could have restrained.

If I may continue with the point—

The Chairman

Will the hon. Member in the course of his remarks explain to which documents he is referring, as that has not been done?

Mr. Morgan

It is my respectful submission that this is a rule which by now is so well established as not to allow any discretion in the Chair. It is a rule of absolute import. It is a rule which applies only to Ministers of the Crown, but it is my submission and that of my hon. and right hon. Friends that the Amendments that we are dealing with concern the generality of Clause 1 and, therefore, scores or perhaps hundreds of documents. Since it would be impossible for the Minister to be able to deal properly with any one of these documents until such a document is within the confines of the House, clearly such a Minister would not be able to apply himself properly to any question asked by any of my hon. or right hon. Friends about that document.

You kindly asked me, Sir Robert, to state which documents I had in mind. Clause 1(2) says: 'the Treaties' or 'the Community Treaties' means, subject to subsection (3) below, the pre-accession treaties, that is to say, those described in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act…"— taken with the treaty relating to accession.

Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 says: Any treaty entered into before the 22nd January 1972"— I ask the Committee to note that date— by any of the Communities (with or without any of the member States) or, as a treaty ancillary to any treaty included in this Part of this Schedule, by the Member States (with or without any other country). I understand that there is a voluminous bundle available for any hon. Member who wishes to claim it, amounting to some 40 pounds avoirdupois, of treaties published up to and including 10th November, 1971. I further understand that there are a few treaties entered into since 10th November, 1971. That is the first class of documents with which we are concerned on this point of order.

There is a second class of documents. I refer you, Sir Robert, to page 9 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 4862, Article 3: 1. The new Member States accede by this Act to the decisions and agreements adopted by the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting in Council. That is the Council of Ministers. They undertake to accede from the date of accession to all other agreements concluded by the original Member States relating to the functioning of the Communities or connected with their activities. It is not the date on which a State becomes a member of the Community that matters, but the date of accession. As far as I know—I should be glad to be corrected by Ministers—none of the documents which record any of the decisions of the Council of Ministers has been published.

There are two crucial classes of documents, treaties entered into between 10th November, 1971, and 22nd January, 1972, and each and every one of the documents recording all the material decisions of the Council of Ministers. It would be improper to proceed with any of the general Amendments dealing with the Clause until such time as those documents are available for every Member.

Mr. Loughlin

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I want, with due respect, to refer to the remarks you made when I made the original point of order in relation to the provision of papers. You said, it seemed to me at least, that you accepted the validity of the point that I made, except that I did not give you chapter and verse. It is true that I cannot give you the date of the debate to which I referred, when Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster made the Ruling. But surely it is not my responsibility to do that? It is the response of the learned clerks at the Table to advise you as to whether Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster did or did not make that Ruling.

In the debate, at three o'clock in the morning Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster was brought back into the Chair. It was because there were points of order arising from the non-provision of papers that the Speaker was sent for. When the position was explained to him, he there and then gave a Ruling. He ruled that the debate could not continue and should stand adjourned and said that he would give a specific instruction that the requisite papers should be available to hon. Members.

11.30 p.m.

If you accept, Sir Robert, as you appeared to do, the validity of the point of order that I put to you, except that it was inadequate in that I did not give chapter and verse, the learned clerks now having been informed of the circumstances in which Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's Ruling was made, I submit that it is incumbent upon them to let us know the date and the terms of the Ruling. As you yourself said at one time, it would be a negation of the will of the House of Commons if the minority thwarted the majority. It is also a negation of the high principles of the House if the majority overrides the minority in a heavy-handed way.

If you require the document to be laid before the Committee, I repeat that you only have to look at page 9 and the first three lines of Article III to see the inadequacy of the papers available to us. if we cannot proceed with the right kind of papers, the Leader of the House ought to move to report Progress so that Mr. Speaker can rule on the original ruling of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster.

The Chairman

I hope I shall be able to answer that submission quicker than it took the hon. Gentleman to make it, although I am making no reproach on him for that.

The Chair is not called upon to force the laying of any documents. The only thing that is a rule is as was read out by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan)—that if a Minister quotes from a document he must lay that document on the Table. I know that what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has said was said in good faith, but it is not in accordance with the facts. We will, of course, look up that Ruling by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, but it will take some time. I am, however, certain that we shall find that it did not lay down that it is the duty of the Chair to insist upon the laying of any documents. It is for the Government to decide what documents they will lay, and the only command they have on them is, as I have said, what was stated by the hon. Member for Cardigan.

Several Hon. Members

On a point of order—

The Chairman

Mr. English.

Mr. English

Since I started this, perhaps you would allow me, Sir Robert, to comment briefly on it.

Several Hon. Members

That is not a point of order.

Mr. English

The Chairman called me. On that point of order, Sir Robert, I suggest, first, that it is a well-established principle that when a document refers to another document, if hon. Members have a right to see the first document, they also have a right to see the second. In other words, all that you have said in relation to a Minister quoting documents orally applies a fortiori when the documents concerned are in writing and one is quoted in the other. In this case, in a document which the Government have laid before us—the Act annexed to the Treaty of Accession—there are mentioned decisions of the Council of Ministers. One of my hon. Friends made a slight slip when he said that we had not seen any of the decisions of the Council of Ministers. Some have been published, but not all are in the Vote Office. This is a matter of vast importance.

Because one of the unpublished documents is the equivalent of our House of Commons Journal, the first thing that we do not know is the total number of documents not so published. Yet by the document placed before us they are all referred to, because it is said that we are acceding to all of them, whether or not we are sure that they have been published. I can prove that at least one has not been published in English. I have made detailed investigations, and I have had the assistance of the staff of the House, and I can say that a very important one has not been published in English, still less put in the Vote Office, and still less made available to us. I submit that in accordance with the normal rules of procedure of the House that document should be laid before us.

Sir Robert, you said that it was not your responsibility to force the Government to lay a document. I accept that; but it may be your responsibility to say that it should be laid, which is not quite the same thing. In this case the Government originally showed every willingness. On several occasions the Leader of the House said that all necessary documents would be laid before us in the English translation, and he has produced 41 volumes of regulations and dozens of volumes of treaties. There is no doubt that a considerable job of work has been done to fulfil that assurance, but it has not been fulfilled completely.

The document that I can show not to have been published refers to the rules of procedure of the Council of Ministers. Yesterday, Sir Robert, you were kind enough to say that one Amendment, which related directly to that document, may be in order at a later stage. The German Parliament—although there is nothing in the treaty to say so—is allowed to have an observer from the Bundesrat in the Council of Ministers. That is not in the treaty. Presumably, in the rules of procedure of the Council of Ministers there may be a decision on that point.

It is a common rule of most Legislatures that they should meet in public, and there is nothing in the treaties to say that the Council of Ministers should not do so. It is Article 18 of its rules of procedure that says that it shall meet in secret. Nobody ever obeys it, but it would be interesting to ascertain the real position. There will be some difficulty on the part of the Government to lay that document, because I believe that the Treaty of Rome says that the Council of Ministers shall pass its rules of procedure—a not uncommon practice with all Legislatures. The Council of Ministers, however, has never got farther than having provisional rules of procedure.

I suggest that we are on a most important point—a point of great substance. Before we can pass anything into the law of this country we must know what it is.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman will agree that he has made his point. I have to make mine, and it is that that has nothing to do with me. As I have explained, the laying of documents is not at the direction of the Chair, except insofar as it was stated by the hon. Member.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

Order. I think we will have Mr. Cormack this time.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Cannock)

On a point of order, Sir Robert. May I submit that what we are seeing this evening is a gross abuse of Parliament. We are seeing parliamentary anarchy upon the Floor of the Committee. I would respectfully urge that we take up the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and ask for the Leader of the Opposition to come and try to instil some discipline into his disorganised troops.

The Chairman

I do not think there is anything I can add to that.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton)

Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack)—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

It was raised by the hon. Members' Whips and put into his mouth.

Mr. Spearing

I noted the hon. Member's remarks and those of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) with care. The hon. Member for Cannock and I have both been in the House of Commons for the same time. He and his hon. Friends have said there is something dishonourable and undemocratic about the way in which some of my hon. Friends are raising points of order. I wish to put my point of view because this is something which I do not understand and neither do my constituents. Some of these Amendments have been ruled out of order. I will take three, Amendment No. 24 dealing with fisheries, No. 32 dealing with New Zealand and No. 33 dealing with British dependent territories. Amendment 24 says—

The Chairman

Order. I am sorry but I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed on that point. The House has decided on the Amendments which he is mentioning. Perhaps he could address the same point to some other Amendment.

Mr. Spearing

May I explain why I was referring to them, Sir Robert, not in terms of the Ruling that you have given? It may be that in Committee hon. Members can debate these matters as a whole. On our discussions on the White Papers it has not been possible to have a debate of three or four hours on a particular point about these treaties. If we had been able to debate these Amendments that sort of debate would have been possible, and I was looking forward to such a debate, as I am sure was the hon. Member for Cannock. As a result of your Ruling it will not be possible to have that sort of debate. At what stage will it be possible to have a concentrated debate of three or four hours on issues which are disturbing the country? It has not been possible fully to comprehend any treaty or Bill without that sort of debate.

At what stage shall we be able to have that sort of debate? Without that, the hon. Member's remarks about this being unworthy do not stand. Without that, Parliament is being gagged and cannot have the sort of debate it has always had, which must take place if all the implications are to be understood not only by hon. Gentlemen opposite but by the country.

11.45 p.m.

The Chairman

I cannot pre-judge my selection. The hon. Member will have to see what happens when the time comes. I have given the selection for us to get on with, and there is nothing to stop us. I should have thought that there was a lot of work before us on what has been selected. I cannot answer questions relating to the future until the time comes and we see how we get along. However, I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. J. C. Jennings (Burton)

May I raise an entirely new point of order, Sir Robert? I do so, as you well know, with some reluctance. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I hope that hon. Members will give me credit for some deep thought and anguish on this question. I voted with the Government tonight out of loyalty to you, because I am one of your Panel of Chairmen. But that does not prevent me from being worried about the future in this Committee. It is because of that that I wish to make two specific points.

The first relates to your Ruling about future conduct in this Committee and future Rulings. You have been kind enough to rule on Clause 1, and you ruled that a large number of Amendments were out of order. Of those which were left you were then obliged to make your selection. You then told the Committee that you had ruled certain Amendments out of order. You used a very significant phrase, which brings us to the kernel of the matter over the next few months in this Committee. That was that your reason was "the nature of the Bill".

You then proceeded to define that term, and you used the phrase "legal nuts and bolts". This brought the study by the Committee within a very narrow purview. Because of that, you cancelled out some very important Amendments. I say this in no spirit of criticism. I tried to catch your eye yesterday to help the Committee, and I am doing so in that spirit now.

You further said that this was not a Bill dealing with the Treaty of Accession, that it was a legal nuts and bolts Bill, and that any Amendments designed to vary the treaties could not be in order. You based your Ruling on a part of the Bill which has no statutory force—the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. By the rules of this House, no Amendments can be moved to that part of the Bill. The Long Title is the crunch of the meaning of the Bill. There we get away from the basis of your Ruling and to what should have been ruled upon. That says it is to Make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities…

The Chairman

It grieves me very much to have to call my hon. Friend, such a distinguished member of the Chairmen's Panel, to order, but I am afraid that I must do so because he is going back on the position which the House has taken. I know him so well that I am sure he will not persist in this which is something that has been done already and has been dealt with. I hope that he will do what I ask.

Mr. Jennings

I submit entirely to your Ruling, Sir Robert. Actually, I was leading from the past to the future. In view of your Rulings on Clause 1, this Committee has to consider how you will rule on Clause 2 and subsequent Clauses. I see you shake your head; but you will have to make Rulings on Clause 2 and Clause 3. Clause 2 is the crunch of the Bill, and if you make the same type of Ruling on Clause 2 as you have made on Clause 1 that will obviate a very wide discussion on what is included in "making provision".

The Ruling that has been made places the validity of the whole Bill in jeopardy. You have used the phrase "provisional selection", and you have shown by accepting another Amendment that you are wide open to further Amendments being put down. Therefore, you ought to take your provisional selection back—I say this in good faith—and look at it again. You should also take the whole Bill back. We are prevented from discussing many matters in the Bill, particularly in Schedule 1(1), which delineates the principles. In view of what has been ruled, the Bill is now entirely out of order. You and your legal advisers and the draftsmen—[Interruption.] I am talking sense, and I know I am. I have had experience of draftsmen and of legal advice when I have been in the Chair so often. I am sure that you will be bound to look at this point, Sir Robert, now that I have raised it and now that the whole validity of the Bill is in question. I ask you to take the Bill back and look at its validity and legality.

The Chairman

The hon. Member knows that he cannot ask me to take the Bill back, because he knows that has nothing to do with me and that I can do nothing of what he has said. No doubt he meant that for other ears than mine.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert, which was raised with all seriousness by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), who is one of the most senior members of the Chairmen's Panel. This is a point which I have been seeking to make for some time. I have been here throughout the day's proceedings without seeking to intervene until now.

I fully accept your Ruling that the past is past, and the only submission we may make to you now is about the future. You will recall that the system in Standing Committee upstairs is that if points are not raised at the appropriate time—namely, at the beginning—one cannot raise them later. Many Chairmen upstairs have often ruled that that is the appropriate time to raise matters, and we have learnt this over the years.

My point is a point of substance. You, Sir Robert, have made your first selections. Any hon. Member who wishes to put forward a certain point of view on an Amendment in the future cannot wait until all the selections you have made are exhausted and then come along here and claim a manuscript Amendment, with the excuse that he did not prepare his Amendments in advance. Obviously, that would not be in order, and it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Chair has granted such a manuscript Amendment. Hon. Members will now have to start preparing their future Amendments, and I submit that this matter concerns the future and not the past.

If we are to get busy in preparing further Amendments, the only indication we have of the likely attitude of the Chair is the selection you have so far made and the statement you made yesterday. That statement is the governing factor, as is the decision made today. These are our guidelines in making up our minds in framing future Amendments. My point concerns the desire of right hon. and hon. Members to go beyond the narrow confines which you have laid down in your statement.

The point is that the wider limits cannot now be decided for us by you, but during the debate the Government have argued, and the House has agreed, that all we were debating and deciding today was the Motion concerning your previous decision and selection. The Government have listened to the debate, and, so that the debate can be properly conducted, we are entitled to urge the Government to allow a pause for recon, sideration.

I urge the Government, in the knowledge that they now have as a result of today's debate, to allow a pause for reconsideration. I appreciate, Sir Robert, that this is a decision that you cannot make. You can only accept a Motion to report Progress. We know that the Government control the House, as they do each Standing Committee upstairs. But this new situation should, I suggest, cause the Government to consider seriously whether it would not be wise to undertake a certain amount of redrafting of the Bill so that wider Amendments may be tabled.

12 midnight

I am fortified in my submission by the claim of the Leader of the House that he could have had no prior knowledge of the decisions which you announced yesterday. If that is the position, I suggest that it is now the duty of the Leader of the House to call a pause and to reconsider.

What I am asking you, Sir Robert, is whether you will indicate, in the way in which Chairmen sometimes do, that it would be advisable for the Government to adopt my suggestion and so help the Committee in its further work?

The Chairman

I think I can go some way to help the hon. Gentleman. I should like him and all right hon. and hon. Members to realise that I and my assistants are at their disposal. If hon. Members want to seek advice on what Amendments they can or cannot put down, we shall be only too pleased to help them before they have gone to a lot of trouble and research. We are only too willing to give what unofficial advice we can as to what may and may not be done. I cannot say fairer than that. I think that that is the best answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

I rise on a matter which, as an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency, I consider to be of extreme importance.

Earlier, Sir Robert, you said that it was not in the power of the Chair to determine which documents should be laid on the Table. I accept that. However, it is totally impossible for this Committee to proceed to consider Clause 1 without having a number of very important documents on the Table. I refer to the Treaty of Union, 1707, the English Act of Union, 1707, and the Scottish Act of Union—

Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

They are all in the Library.

Mr. Sillars

We are, after all, sitting as a Committee of the whole House. If one departs from here to the Library too frequently, one risks missing important statements made in the Chamber. [Interruption.] An intervention of that sort from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes my point more pertinent than ever.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

It was not meant to be taken seriously.

Mr. Sillars

I take all Englishmen seriously, especially English Tories. It is on the basis of their votes that we are having so much legislation forced upon us.

It is essential for a proper understanding of the contractual legal relationship between Scotland and England that we have these documents laid on the Table. I do not think it is appreciated by the vast majority of hon. Members that there are obligations between Scotland and England involved in the Treaty of Union.

Mr. MacArthur

Nonsense.

Mr. Sillars

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) says "Nonsense"—

Mr. MacArthur

Read the Act.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)

Does my hon. Friend want me to get the Act for him?

Mr. Sillars

No, I do not need it. I shall quote from someone whom the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire will not rebut. I refer to the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), who is an English Tory Member of Parliament. Yesterday, in making a fairly long statement, he talked about wrecking Amendments. In part of that statement he said: The purpose of the Bill is to bring Community law into the law of England"—

The Chairman

Order. I should like the hon. Gentleman to leave that part and go on to something else, because that is not what we are on.

Mr. Sillars

I think you have misunderstood me, Sir Robert. I am making this quotation to illustrate the point which I have been trying to make about the need for certain documents. I shall not debate the merits and demerits of what took place yesterday or earlier this evening. I will quote again and then go on. The hon. and learned Member for Northwich said: The purpose of the Bill is to bring Community law into the law of England, and if we alter the treaty that is the end of the Common Market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol 832, c. 280.] The point is that the hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the law of England, totally ignorant of the fact that the Long Title of the Bill talks about the United Kingdom, which is made up of several countries, not England alone. Therefore, if we are properly to debate Clause 1 and all the treaties in which the various countries of the United Kingdom are involved, it is essential, for the education of English Tory Members of Parliament no less, that we have before us the Treaty of Union and the various Acts of Union and the amending Acts since the Act of Union of 1707. If it were not out of order, I would suggest that they be made compulsory reading for the benefit of English Tory Members of Parliament, and especially the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Southall)

On a point of order, Sir Robert. I ask you, as Chairman, seriously to reconsider the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).

This is an unprecedented occasion on an unprecedented matter of grave concern not only to this House but to the nation as a whole. I caught you smiling just now, and you seem fresh at the moment. However, I suggest that our long proceedings, into the early hours of the morning if we proceed to consider the Amendments, would be much better accomplished at a sitting time next week when many of us will be fresher to participate in the debate.

The work of Parliament is not only in Standing Committees upstairs and on the Floor of the House but in Select Committees. I am a member of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. In the course of my duties on that Select Committee I have to make an important visit tomorrow pertinent to the Committee's work. Therefore, I should find it very difficult physically to fulfil my duties to my constituents by participating in the debate on these important Amendments which affect their whole future and carry out my duties on the Select Committee.

I suggest, Sir Robert, that the submission made to you by a member of the Chairman's Panel, the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), should weigh most heavily on your mind because in the event of your being so wearied—I suggest that the whole House should go into these matters with their eyes open wide and that you and I should have our eyes wide open and that as Chairman of this Committee you should pay rapt attention and drink in every word uttered—and in the event of your not being able, because of sheer physical fatigue, to fulfil all these onerous duties, it might happen that the hon. Member for Burton, who has gone temporarily to refresh himself to enable him to keep his eyes open in the coming hours, might have to take the Chair.

I understand that that might happen in the event of your not being able to carry out this arduous duty. I have your good health warmly in mind because you and I have had an exceedingly friendly relationship since I came to the House. I have that much in mind although you said in a previous ruling that it is not a matter for you, but it is very much a matter for your constituents and mine that you should be in good fettle to conduct these proceedings.

However, should it so happen that you are not—and in this kind of life in which we work, not only by day but by night, it might so happen—the hon. Member for Burton might be called on to take the Chair after we have been arguing for hours around these important Amendments, which would give rise to detailed discussion. Perhaps that would be halfway through the debate. The proposition from my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale might then again be put to the Chair. What would then be the farcical situation? The hon. Member for Burton would take an entirely different view from yours.

The Chairman

Order. I must come to the protection of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), because if he were in charge he would exercise precisely the same judgment and authority as I do.

I think the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) has made his point. To my mind, we are fairly early in the evening. I am feeling extremely fit. When it comes to 6 or 7 o'clock we might be glad of a rest. There is nothing to worry about. We can go for a long time if the Committee so wishes.

I perhaps felt that in what he was saying the hon. Member was testing out whether I would accept from him a Motion to report Progress. I would not feel justified in accepting it, except from those in charge of the Bill, at a time like this. It is so early.

Mr. Michael Foot

You have said, Sir Robert, that you would not accept any Motion to report Progress except from a Minister or someone in charge of the Bill, and I understand that that is a regular custom, although such a Motion is sometimes accepted from other quarters as well. I ask you to consider, Sir Robert, whether you would not consider accepting a motion from this side or whether the Minister would consider proposing it at this stage for these reasons.

This part of our proceedings has lasted for about 2¼ hours, and many extremely interesting points of order have been raised. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) raised, with regard to the Amendment with which he is associated, a perfectly proper point of order that the House will wish to consider. Points of order have been raised about the further Amendment which you have accepted. We have not been able to examine in detail the effect that this will have on our other Amendments. Questions have also been raised about the documents which hon. Members think should be laid or made available.

12.15 a.m.

These are all questions upon which the House is entitled to have further Rulings from the Chair. You have said, Sir Robert, that we may leave Amendment No. 49 over to a later stage, and we have a perfect right to consider that.

Bearing in mind all these aspects, it would surely be better for the order of the House if a Motion to report Progress were to be moved, so that we could meet next week after all these matters have been considered and hon. Members have been able to carry through the discussions with the Table Office that you have recommended. We should have an opportunity to reflect on these different points of order affecting the future conduct of the Bill before we debate it in Committee.

This would not be a sign of weakness by the Government. I appeal to the Minister in charge of the Bill to move this Motion. He will lose nothing by doing so. When we meet again we shall start on the discussion in a more orderly way. In the interval we shall be able to consider the advice which the Chair has given us in the past two hours.

We are told that we can make representations to the Table Office, but we cannot do that tonight. We are also told to consider what documents are or should be made available, but we cannot do that tonight either. For the sake of the orderly conduct of the business of the House, the Government would be well advised to agree to report progress at this stage.

Mr. Rippon

It will be within the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) adduced much the same argument yesterday. Then we were told that it would make for the orderly progress of business and the better running of the House of Commons if we did not proceed with the discussion of the Bill—without prejudice, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had suggested—but waited until after the substantive Motion which hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to table had been debated. We acceded to that request, the hon. Gentleman having assured us that after the substantive Motion had been considered the way would be open for orderly debate on the Bill.

Tonight the hon. Gentleman says the same thing. I do not regard this as treating the Committee in the way it should be treated. I cannot believe that any of the rights of any hon. Member would be prejudiced by the hon. Gentleman moving his Amendment. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) says he does not know what it means, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale must know its meaning, and perhaps he will now explain it to us. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that course, and then we can deal with other matters as we go along.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

I wish to make an appeal to the Committee.

Hon. Members

On a point of order—

The Chairman

Order. I appeal to the Committee to appreciate that we are abusing our democratic processes if we do not now make some progress with the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Obviously, I cannot make the Committee make progress. I can only appeal to hon. Members, in the interests of our democratic assembly, to behave in a parliamentary way. Perhaps we can now hear something of the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and other hon. Members.

If hon. Members wish to have a long discussion on that, then I do not think the Government would be inclined to ask for the closure. Certainly the Chair would not wish to grant such a request until there had been a considerable discussion of such an Amendment. I hope that I may now be permitted to call the hon. Member to move his Amendment, if he wishes to do so.

Hon. Members

On a point of order—

The Chairman

Order. I trust that hon. Members will hear what the Chair has to say before raising further points of order. I hope we can keep the temperature down. The Committee has been very good so far, and I hope it will continue to be so. As a number of hon. Members have risen to raise points of order with me, I am sure that the Committee will not object if I call an hon. Member from the Government side. Sir Tatton Brinton.

Sir Tatton Brinton (Kidderminster)

The first part of my point of order, Sir Robert, is to ask you whether it is not our rule that points of order should be brief and to the point, and to ask you to rule when a point of order becomes obvious filibustering, of which we have heard a great deal tonight. [Interruption.]

The Chairman

Order. Hon. Members must be fair. When they raised points of order they got a hearing all right from the Government side of the House. They must let the Government side of the House be heard as well.

Sir T. Brinton

Secondly, Sir Robert, how many times may hon. Members raise again a point of order with which you have already dealt?

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

I must reply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) first. The hon. Member is quite right. Points of order should be as short as possible. All hon. Members know that. It is very difficult for the Chair to insist that they be short. I have to be as patient as I can with everyone and try to listen to them all. In the long run, it is only the Committee that can see that our democratic processes proceed. When the Committee decides that there have been enough points of order and that we should proceed, I am sure that we shall do so. I can only appeal to hon. Members and tell them that I am quite sure that that moment has now arisen, and I hope that we shall be able to make some progress.

Mr. Buchan

On a point of order, Sir Robert. Like the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton), this is also the first occasion on which I have been called. Unlike the hon. Member for Kidderminster, I have been present for the whole discussion. Before I come to my main point of order, I must say that it is a bit much for someone who has not been sitting in the Committee to come in and attack not only hon. Members but also, with respect, Sir Robert, the Chair.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. I am sure that he will come on to something of his own.

Mr. Buchan

I felt that it was a necessary preamble, Sir Robert, before coming to my point of order, to say that we so much regretted the attack upon the Chair as well as on hon. Members.

As you correctly said, Sir Robert, we face a serious situation. This serious situation requires serious consideration—[Interruption.]—and not this kind of flippant interruption from Ministers. The position we now face and the difficulty that has arisen is that for many weeks on Committees we have been told that we cannot discuss certain problems in Committees—and you are responsible for Committees, Sir Robert—because they could be discussed on the Floor of the House under the E.E.C. legislation. That has been the position over the last five weeks, for instance, on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We are now finding it difficult, because of the Ruling that has been given, to pursue matters which we could not pursue under British legislation dealing with Britain because it was referred to the Floor of the House. The Ruling yesterday and the decision today are now making it impossible for us even to examine legislation to deal with Britain inside the very Committees of the House of Commons.

With respect, Sir Robert, this is a serious situation. Recognising as you do, Sir Robert, the seriousness of your Ruling, and remembering the very powerful point put forward by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings)—and, may I add, I regret very much—

An hon. Member

Tedious repetition. Where is the point of order?

Mr. Buchan

—some of the flippant and frivolous remarks made by his hon. Friends—that the nature of the Bill was suspect, what is now the position before us? The position—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Member said that he would put a point of order to me. He should tell me what it is about so that I can follow what he is saying. At the moment, it does not seem that he is raising a point of order. I want to hear it.

Mr. Buchan

I am coming to the kernel of the point of order.

Mr. Cormack

Filibuster.

Mr. Buchan

We have had a debate today. The purpose of debates in this House is not only to reach a decision but also so that we can reflect on the points raised. I suggest, Sir Robert, with all respect, that many fresh points have been adduced throughout the day to which the Chair, the Table Office and the Conservative Party should be giving consideration.

The introduction of a new Amendment suggests that the way is open for further consideration, and I would ask you to use your authority Sir Robert, to allow us to wait until Monday to let the Table reflect as well as letting the Government reflect upon their conduct. Fresh matters could then be discussed, if necessary upstairs, as well as the serious fundamental matters in the Bill. I hope, Sir Robert, that you will take the opportunity over the weekend to reflect on the kind of discussion that has taken place today.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

May I refer to a phrase you used, Sir Robert, when you ruled a few moments ago? You said that the House could go on all through the night. With the greatest respect, that is not the issue. Many of us believe that this is of vital importance to the future of the House and the nation. Many of the points that have been made, particularly those by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), the right hon. Gentleman for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) are not issues only for the House of Commons. Some hon. Members opposite think they are jokes. But that is not so with hon. Members who have to report to their constituents on what we are trying to do here.

The three hon. Members I have mentioned have argued that there is material—[Interruption.] May I ask you, Sir Robert to ask those hon. Members who have been out dining to go back and finish their cigars so that we can carry on with the important business of deciding whether Britain's future is in jeopardy? That is what the Bill is about. In order to be able to examine all that has been raised here this evening and for you to confirm all your Rulings, certain documents and information should be made available.

The Chairman

I understand the hon. Member's point, and I have ruled on it. There is no obligation on the Chairman to force the Government to lay documents, as I have indicated.

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

On a point of order. Is it not your responsibility and that of the Chair, Sir Robert, to safeguard the reputation of the House? Is it not perfectly clear that continuous repetitions of points of order on which you have already ruled, which have now been running for over two hours, are nothing, other than a determined effort to delay progress of the business of the House? Therefore, is it not the responsibility of the Chair, as well as safeguarding the rights of the minority, to safeguard the right of the majority and of the Government to be able to make progress.

The Chairman

I am sure the Committee will realise that life is a little difficult for me at the moment. I am trying to think about various things in "Erskine May", listen to hon. Members, decide what to do and hope that hon. Members will help me. So far they do not seem to be awfully co-operative. I hope they will improve as the night wears on. I am trying to do all I can to safeguard the dignity and honour of the House.

I think that all those raising points of order have one main matter in mind, which is that they are thoroughly dissatisfied with what they deem the Government to have done, which is no concern of mine. Circumstances are such that I have to sit here and try to deal with them. So if they do not choose to have any mercy on me I shall not have any mercy on them. Therefore, I shall sit as long as it is necessary for me to sit here, and I shall not in the least be worn down. Other hon. Members can go out and refresh themselves, but I shall not be able to do that. As we have started on points of order, I must continue with them until they are finished, and that I propose to do. Mr. Fletcher—

Mr. Molloy

I had not finished my point of order.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher (Ilkeston)

I rise Sir Robert with what I hope is an entirely new point of order, a quite legitimate, almost copper-bottomed point of order which arises from a previous submission and fairly rapid researches I have conducted in a recent visit to the Library.

It is clear that the Amendment selected at this late hour, to which we have not been able to give the necessary attention, will involve consideration of certain German legislation, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). Translation of that legislation is not available. I do not make that my point of order, because I am translating it myself. I cannot conclude that complicated work in time to take an intelligent part in the debate on the Amendment, which has so recently, so suddenly and so surprisingly been selected. That places me in considerable difficulties, in that I am prohibited by the very nature of the matter from making the kind of contribution that the contribution already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West inclines me to believe I should be making at this point, since I know a certain amout about the Bundestag from personal observation and from working inside that building before I was elected to this one.

The Chairman

That is very interesting, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his industry, but there is no mention of German legislation in the Amendment, which we have not yet reached. I should be happy to consider that position further if we reach the Amendment.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

Order. Before I take any more points of order I should see whether anyone is rising who has not yet raised a point of order. I call Mr. Stainton.

Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)

In a spirit of the utmost co-operation towards the Chair and towards the Opposition, I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'the'.

Mr. Cormack

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. O'Malley

I rise to two points of order, Sir Robert. Some little time ago, you ruled that the question of the laying of documents on the Table was no concern of yours. If that be the case, would you consider and take into account a Ruling by the Chairman of a previous Committee of the House, the details of which I can recite although I cannot give the exact date?

In 1964 a minor but nevertheless useful Measure, the Protection of Birds Act 1954 (Amendment) Act went through Parliament. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but an important Ruling was made by the Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill, as it then was. As a result of a number of representations by a number of hon. Members on both sides, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who pointed out the Ruling by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster to which he has again referred tonight, complaining that all the relevant documents were not available, the Chairman strongly recommended to the Home Office Minister in charge that it would serve the best interests of progress and be in accordance with Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's Ruling if the Committee were to adjourn until the papers were available.

I submit that you should now take that Ruling into account, Sir Robert, and, therefore, reconsider your earlier Ruling, especially since, as you yourself said, you have not had the opportunity to look up the numerous precedents. I suggest that precedent is very important and that if we are to operate our procedures the Ruling to which I have referred may well be a binding one.

Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman a few minutes ago complained that we were not making progress with the Bill although the Government had made available the first opportunity to debate the Motion of censure on the Chair. But he neglected to mention that the so far abortive proceedings in Committee were proposed by the Government after Ten o'clock. You yourself have said that you want to see us proceed democratically, and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has suggested that you should safeguard the dignity of the Chair. I think hon. Members on both sides will agree with those general sentiments.

But how can one uphold the dignity of the Chair in these circumstances at this hour when we are faced with very difficult Amendments, including an additional Amendment of which we knew nothing? I submit, Sir Robert, that you should reconsider your decision on the question of putting the Motion to report Progress, because that would be the best way of preserving the dignity of the Committee. It would also be the best way for the Government to be assured of proper progress and proper discussion of important Amendments. It would also be the best way for the Chair to conduct an orderly democratic and dignified Committee.

12.45 a.m.

The Chairman

The hon. Member has put a very fair point, and I should like to answer it. I still feel that I cannot accept such a Motion at this early hour. It is very early. We shall be sitting much later than this on many occasions next month. Tonight is nothing. I cannot accept such a Motion at this hour unless it is proposed by those in charge of the Bill—when I shall consider whether or not I shall accept it.

Meanwhile, the task of the Committee is to proceed with its work. It is still my duty to beg the Committee to change its mind and get on with the job. Nearly all the hon. Members who are seeking to raise points of order now have already raised points of order. I see that there is one new hon. Member rising, whom I shall call to raise his point of order. I would think that all those who are rising—at any rate, on the Opposition benches—should be satisfied with having made their points. I have dealt with them as best I can, and I think that we should now get on with our work.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)

. Further to the points of order that have been raised. Is it not a fact—and will you so rule, Sir Robert—that Amendment No. 49 has been duly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) and duly seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack)? May we therefore proceed with the debate?

The Chairman

That Amendment has not been moved because points of order arose before I could propose it.

Mr. Ross

I listened very carefully to your reply to my hon. Friend, Sir Robert. An Amendment is not before the Committee until it has been put by the Chairman; so the question does not arise. The hon. Member should learn a little about the rules of order.

My hon. Friend put a serious point asking you to consider again what you said about the availability of documents. Any ruling that you give here affects other Committees now sitting. If your ruling is to stand in relation to the availability of documents it may mean an alteration in what has hitherto applied, certainly in the Scottish Standing Committee; namely, that the documents necessary for the proper consideration of the Bill are always there, and insisted upon, and if they are not there the Committee adjourns until they are made available. That tradition has gone on for a long time. I ask you to reconsider what you have said about the availability of documents, Sir Robert.

Mr. Loughlin

On a point of order. I raised it fairly early on, but you appeared to have some doubts as to the accuracy of the submission that I was making, Sir Robert. For the purpose of greater accuracy I have procured the relevant report of the debate, which was on 29th November, 1961.

I want to corect two statements that I made when I first raised the matter this evening. I said that the Speaker had adjourned the debate. This was not so. The Adjournment was moved by the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Iain Macleod.

Mr. Gorst

Tedious repetition of mistakes. Sit down.

Mr. Loughlin

The second correction is that the time the debate ended was not 3 o'clock but 11.33 p.m. Having made those corrections and drawn the Ruling to your attention Sir Robert, I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will follow the example of his predecessor. It was specifically ruled that the requisite papers should be before the House. What the Chancellor said on that occasion was: I have always understood the sense of the Ruling over the last two Sessions to mean that these documents were not necessarily made available, but if there is any doubt, and it is clear from what you have said, Sir, that there is doubt, I m very ready, if I may, to ask you leave to accept a Motion to adjourn the debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th Nov., 1961; Vol. 650, c. 586.] There is a lesson there. No one could claim that the late Iain Macleod was biased in our favour, but he had a great respect for this House.

Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South-East)

He did not abuse it.

Mr. Loughlin

You will accept, Sir Robert, that the points I have raised have been serious, specific points of order worthy of your consideration. If that has not been so I would have expected you to rebuke me. Where there was an element of doubt arising out of the Speaker's Ruling on the non-production of papers, the Government had the courage to adjourn the debate. In the light of that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to take this opportunity and have the courage of the late Iain Macleod.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

On a point of order, Sir Robert. My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) has sought to assist you by moving Amendment 49—

Mr. Heffer

If he can move that Amendment, this is the Reichstag!

Mr. Chairman

Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will not let bad temper come into this. I am sure I know him well enough to know that.

Mr. Heffer

rose—

The Chairman

Order. I will call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in a moment, when I have called the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir. H. Legge-Bourke).

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

You have not called me yet, Sir Robert.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge said in moving the Amendment—

Mr. Loughlin

No—it has not been moved.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

My hon. Friend said—

Mr. John Mendelson

The Chair ruled that it has not been moved.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

My hon. Friend said that he was seeking to assist the Chair—

Mr. Loughlin

He was cheating.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

My hon. Friend said that he was seeking to assist you, Sir Robert. While I am sure we all admire enormously the immense patience which you have shown in the last 2¾ hours—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—nevertheless, we are seeking to help you in any way we can. In particular, we should like to know from you whether it is your wish to continue taking points of order which we feel have already been taken ad nauseam, or whether you want us to make progress on the Bill—which means that we should now have a discussion on the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved.

The Chairman

It is true that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) made an attempt to move the Amendment, but other hon. Members rose on points of order before he could complete, or before I could hear him complete, that Motion. Therefore, I am bound to call a point of order when it arises. I am afraid that, much as I would like to be assisted by the hon. Member, I must carry out the rules of the House, even if it seemed to some hon. Members that they were being abused a little. It is only fair now that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who has something particular which has sprung to his mind, should be called. I will then call the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge.

Mr. Heffer

I believe that everyone in the Committee will accent, Sir Robert, that you have acted tonight with great dignity under great difficulty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but a suggestion has been made—I do not mean just on the Amendment which you did not call—that it would be possible for hon. Members to move Amendments which are not their Amendments and that they could then be discussed.

If the Committee accepts that situation, then this House has ceased to be a democratic body and will have become like the Reichstag in Fascist Germany. That is precisely what some hon. Members are trying to allow to happen now, by introducing a Bill which is taking away our basic and democratic rights.

The Chairman

I wish that all points of order which have been raised tonight had been as easy to answer as that one. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will realise on reflection that what he has said is not correct. Anyone can move an Amendment on the Notice Paper. He will recollect that on Standing Committees hon. Members who are not even on the Committee can put down Amendments and have them moved by hon. Members who are on the Committee—

Mr. Heffer

This has never been done.

The Chairman

I have seen it done myself. So far as the rules of order go, it is perfectly in order—[Interruption.] Order. It is perfectly in order for any hon. Member to move another hon. Member's Amendment—

Mr. Heffer

Not across the Floor.

The Chairman

—if he wishes to. It may be unusual, but it is not out of order.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

Mr. Pavitt.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Willesden, West)

rose—

1 a.m.

The Chairman

I am sorry. I said that I would call the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge.

Mr. Ross

On a point of order, Sir Robert. You are calling the hon. Member on a point of order.

Mr. Stainton

On a point of order, Sir Robert. In defence of my integrity and position in this matter, I hesitate to come into conflict with the Chair, but I must insist that my whole utterance and recital of Amendment No. 49 as printed on the Notice Paper, as will be shown by HANSARD and could probably be verified in the next few moments by a visit to the HANSARD office, did in fact emerge from my mouth. It was seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) before any protest was heard from the other side of the Committee.

This puts me in a very difficult position, I am sure that you will appreciate this, Sir Robert, because if I persist in my assertion that will bring me into conflict with the Chair. I am prepared to meet that situation. I am quite clear as to the occurrence, the timing of my utterance and the timing of the remarks which subsequently came from the other side of the Committee. I therefore again say that there is no mistaking that I formally moved Amendment No. 49.

Mr. Ross

When you called the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) just now, Sir Robert, he had risen to a point of order. When you called him previously, when he says he sought to move something, he also rose on a point of order.

Mr. Stainton

No.

Mr. Ross

It is, of course, in order for any hon. Member when an Amendment is called to rise and move that Amendment, but, Sir Robert, you did not call any Amendment. You called the hon. Member on a point of order. I think it objectionable for an hon. Member to try to abuse the practice of the House.

The Chairman

Yes, I think the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is correct. When an hon. Member rises on a point of order he cannot at the same time move an Amendment.

Mr. Stainton

On a point of order, Sir Robert. I concede the point made by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). This last intervention was a point of order. [Interruption.] I shall proceed at my leisure and not have words put into my mouth.

Mr. John Mendelson

The hon. Member will not deceive the Committee.

Mr. Stainton

It has been remarked that I shall not deceive the Committee. It is not within me to deceive the Committee. I want to make quite clear that when you called my name on the first of the two occasions, Sir Robert, you did not call me on a point of order, nor did I say that I was rising on a point of order.

Your invitation to me, Sir Robert—I cannot recapitulate the precise terms—was an invitation to rise to assist the Chair and the general expedition of the business of the House. I am proceeding at some length because this is an important point. I feel very exposed on this matter—[Interruption.] And I shall not be put off what I am saying by the 16 stone of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) [An HON. MEMBER: "Eighteen stone".] All right, 18 stone.

Your invitation to which I responded was not a point of order—and this can be ascertained from HANSARD—but was an invitation to facilitate the business of the House. At some length, and, I thought, with reasonable courtesy, I prefaced my remarks by saying that my endeavours would be to facilitate both the position of the Chair and that of the Opposition.

I repeat now, so that there may be no subsequent misunderstanding, my own position in this matter, and it was within the hearing of my hon. Friends in the vicinity hereabouts. I completed the formal presentation and recitation of Amendment No. 49 in full as printed on the Notice Paper, and that was seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock before a single squeak emerged from the Opposition benches.

The Chairman

I am sorry about that. It would help me very much if I could be dishonest, but I cannot be dishonest to the Committee. I thought—I can see I was wrong now—that the hon. Gentleman had risen on a point of order, as everyone else was doing. The fact remains that that is what I thought, and I cannot at this stage change my Ruling.

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order, Sir Robert. It was certainly the recollection of those of us on this side of the House that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) rose on a point of order. Indeed, one cannot understand how he would have been called at such a stage in the proceedings if he had not risen on a point of order. Therefore, I do not think there is any doubt on that aspect.

Mr. Stainton

rose—

Mr. Foot

No, the hon. Gentleman has had his chance.

Mr. Stainton

rose—

The Chairman

We can have only one point of order at a time.

Mr. Foot

There are two other aspects of the matter which would make the device which the hon. Gentleman sought to use to disrupt the normal course of the business in the House inoperative. We see from page 506 of "Erskine May", under the heading "Amendments of which notice has been given": If notice has been given of any amendments, the chairman calls on the Member who has given notice of the first amendment which he has decided to select. That would be the process by which you would call an Amendment, Sir Robert. That is laid down in "Erskine May". The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge was unwittingly seeking to escape from that position.

There is also the further fact that this was Amendment No. 49 and the first Amendment you had selected was Amendment No. 96. It was not at all clear from the indications which you give to us when Amendment No. 49 would be called, if we reached that part of our proceedings. I submit this is further evidence of the difficulty which the Committee is bound to get into as long as we try to proceed with business tonight if these Amendments have not been put in an orderly manner.

It appears that there are some hon. Members who thought it would be possible to proceed by having Amendments moved by those whose names were not attached to the Amendments, that they would be able Ito do so before the Chair had called on those whose names were on the Amendments and that they would be able to move Amendments which did not appear first on the Order Paper.

The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge has sought to confuse the Committee, and he has been supported, it seems, by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), following representations made, apparently, by the Patronage Secretary. I do not know whether this brilliant idea came from the brain of the right hon. Gentleman. Wherever it came from, it is a magnificent illustration of the difficulties into which the Committee can get if we seek to proceed on the basis of trying to call Amendments when we have not had a proper opportunity to sort out the Amendments which are on the Notice Paper.

Since you have said, Sir Robert, that you will not accept a Motion to report Progress from this side of the Committee, I urge the Government to consider this as being the proper way to proceed. If we continue, no doubt we shall have fresh occasions such as the attempt by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge to disrupt the business of the Committee by the use of a procedure which it is generally agreed would be condemned on every count that I have mentioned. Apparently some hon. Members opposite are seeking to press Amendments by a process which is not laid down in "Erskine May" or any other authority.

We wish the Committee to be able to escape from this situation. The only way in which it can be done, according to your Ruling, is by the Minister in charge of the Bill moving a Motion to report Progress, although, by this stage, I believe that it would be perfectly open to you to accept such a Motion from this side of the Committee. It is not a question as you suggested, of the feelings of vigour and state of health of different Members. It is a question of whether we are to proceed, when we do proceed to the Bill, in an orderly manner.

There is the further fact, of which I think the Committee is aware, that there is to be a major debate on these matters at the beginning of next week. There is to be a major debate on the position in which the Government find themselves and into which they have pushed the House of Commons on this matter. There is to be a full debate next week on the way in which the Government have dealt with the matter. I suggest for all—

Mr. Rost

This is a disgraceful abuse of Parliament.

Mr. Foot

As I understand it, there will be a debate at the beginning of next week on the subject of the Government's general conduct affecting this Bill. Therefore that matter, too, has to be disposed of before the House can proceed in an orderly manner to deal with this Bill.

For all these reasons, I plead with you, Sir Robert, in the interests of the Com- mittee either to accept a Motion to report Progress from this side or to give an opportunity to the Minister in charge of the Bill to make a similar proposal. I believe that that is much the best course in the interests of the general dignity and proper conduct of affairs of this House.

The Chairman

I still do not feel that the hour is sufficiently late for me to accept a Motion to report Progress, unless it be from those in charge of the Bill, who, as with all Bills, have the undoubted right to propose such a Motion whenever they choose. I do not propose to accept it yet, and I still hope, however vainly, that eventually we shall get to the business before the Committee.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Sir Robert. I seek your guidance with regard to a slightly different matter concerning the statement by the Leader of the House on Thursday, 24th February—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—in response to a question which was put to him by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) during business questions. The hon. Gentleman, a Conservative Member, complained, or appeared to complain, that he was more than concerned how Members of Parliament—perhaps not himself, but Members of Parliament generally—would be able to carry out what they considered to be the double duty of taking part in proceedings in important Standing Committees and representing their constituents on this very important European Communities Bill.

The answer which was given by the Leader of the House to that question was unqualified, in my view. It can be read in HANSARD. The right hon. Gentleman—I paraphrase him now—said that he would do all in his power to see that members of Standing Committees were given a reasonable opportunity to take part in this important debate. He went on to say that he was of the opinion—naturally, he should know—that there were no Standing Committees meeting on the afternoon of Wednesday of this week. In that event, he was implying that hon. Members serving on these Standing Committees would be in a position to take part in the debate. I accept that since that particular statement—

The Chairman

Order.

Mr. Skinner

I have not got to the point yet.

The Chairman

Interesting as it is—I do not know what to call it; what the hon. Gentleman is delivering must have a special name, I am sure—if he could give me an inkling right away as to what the point of order is I could perhaps avoid his doing what he is trying to do.

Mr. Skinner

What I am attempting to do, Sir Robert—I will not cover the grounds which I have already covered—is to draw your attention not only to that statement but to subsequent events which followed it; namely—

The Chairman

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman does that, will he give me his word that he really believes that this is a point for me?

Mr. Skinner

Yes, very much so.

The Chairman

Or does he think it is something which he can conveniently get on with a little more time, because I can see nothing which appears to be a point of order for me to rule upon.

Mr. Skinner

I will try to get to the point much quicker. Yesterday, the Leader of the House communicated with me outside the Bar of the House and informed me that he was, through the usual channels, attempting to see to it that members of Standing Committees like me, who have not been to bed since Sunday night, would be able to attend this morning. Unfortunately, communications must have gone astray since then, because we sat until 6 o'clock this morning.

Hon. Members

Yesterday.

Mr. Skinner

Yesterday. The clock is moving very quickly. I am coming now to the conclusion of my remarks, which brings me to my point of order, that after I had telephoned the Leader of the House at 12.50—not tonight, but last night—the Leader of the House said he would further communication with me on the matter.

Now we are in a rather awkward situation, even worse than last Thursday, 24th February. The Standing Committee is now going to meet at 10.30 this morning again and as yet I have not been able to get any sleep. Can we have the Leader of the House to explain his view?

The Chairman

None of that is for me.

Mr. Emery

It will be within your memory, Sir Robert, that on a point of order about 70 minutes ago you accepted that it was the responsibility of the Chair to safeguard the rights of all Members of the House. It is obviously for Mr. Speaker and Chairmen of Committees at certain times during proceedings to make it clear to the House and the Committee that there has been enough discussion on many matters and that progress has to be directed by the Chair.

May I therefore ask you whether this moment has arrived and whether it should not now be the case, after three hours without the slightest hint of progress being made at all that the Chair should call for the first Amendment to be moved before any other item or point of order is raised?

The Chairman

Unfortunately, I cannot do that, because as soon as somebody rises to a point of order I am bound to take that point of order. If hon. Members choose to abuse the rules of the House in doing that, it is no affair of mine.

I am trying to see a new face. Mr. Charles Morris.

Mr. Charles R. Morris (Manchester, Openshaw)

It will be within your recollection, Sir Robert, that points of order were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about the availability of documents. You said that at one juncture you would reply to those points. At what juncture are we to receive your considered views on those submissions?

The Chairman

I think that is fair. I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. He is not here, but perhaps he has tired of waiting for me. I shall rule on the question of documents in the same way as I have already. I have had the opportunity, like the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), of reading the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster at that time. It was on a very narrow point indeed, and I do not think it is strictly germane to our proceedings; so I stand by what I have been saying in these proceedings all along, that I have no power to compel the Government to lay documents and we must rely on the Government to lay documents as it is appropriate. I have no doubt that as we go along and it becomes appropriate and occasion arises they will do so. There is nothing more I can do about it.

The matter of the Scottish Standing Committee is not for me. The Scottish Standing Committee is a law unto itself. There is nothing I can do to further the business of the Committee in relation to the discovery of documents.

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty)

I regret that I am unable to tell you, Sir Robert, what happens on the Scottish Grand Committee, but I hope one of my hon. Friends will catch your eye and raise this matter on a point of order.

It is an extraordinary experience for me as a comparatively new Member of the House to listen closely to what has gone on this evening. The question has been raised whether it is appropriate for an hon. Member to move an Amendment which stands in the name of another hon. Member. This appears to me to be appropriate where the hon. Members concerned have come to an agreement, but where there has been no agreement and an Amendment standing in the name of one hon. Member is moved by another hon. Member, that appears to be a formula for bullying, if not for a worse kind of totalitarianism.

As there are many Amendments, the question will probably arise again, and I should like your guidance on whether it is appropriate for one hon. Member to move an Amendment standing in the name of another hon. Member without mutual agreement.

The Chairman

If the hon. Member looks at HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that I have ruled on this matter. There is nothing in the rules of order to prevent an hon. Member moving an Amendment standing in the name of another hon. Member.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. John Silkin (Deptford)

It is now three hours since the Leader of the House was here.

Hon. Members

Where is he?

Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

On a point of order. You, Sir Robert, have given many Rulings tonight in the past three hours to which the Committee has listened with a patience equalling your own. You have ruled that it is not possible for the Chair to call on an hon. Member to move an Amendment whilst other hon. Members seek to catch your eye on a point of order. We accept that, but you will have noticed that there has been some repetition of points of order, and I hope it is within your power to cut short hon. Members who seek to raise points of order on which you have already ruled.

1.30 a.m.

The Chairman

The hon. Member must leave it to me to deal with matters as I see best.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot (Brighouse and Spenborough)

On a brand new point of order, Sir Robert. You said about an hour ago that you had, by our rules, to remain in the Chair for as long as points of order continued. Is it not a fact that from the point of view of your physical endurance the will of Parliament could be frustrated by points of order being raised until your physical endurance had been worn down? Should you not hand over the Chair at a certain point to one of your colleagues on the Panel of Chairmen?

The Chairman

I am greatly obliged for the hon. Member's solicitude, and perhaps I overstated the position originally. I do not think there is anything sacrosanct about my remaining in the Chair. It is, generally speaking, convenient if whoever is in the Chair when a series of points of order begins remains in the Chair to preserve continuity; but I might avail myself of the hon. Member's suggestion a little later. Meanwhile, I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is anxious to put a point of order to me, and I would like to hear it

Mr. Heffer

My point of order, Sir Robert, concerns an earlier Ruling in which you may have been mistaken. "Erskine May" says on page 506: After the first appearance of an amendment on the notice paper, the names of Members attached to it are reduced to six, but the names of Members who subsequently support it are printed below"— and there is then a reference to note (m) at the bottom of the page, and that note reads: If the Member in charge of the Bill adds his name to an amendment his name appears at the top. the passage continues: and to the right hand side of those six names on one occasion only. This arrangement, which was begun in connection with the committee stage of the National Insurance Bill in session 1911, has been adopted for the committee stages of all public bills and for bills before the standing committees. If the Member or Members who have given notice of an amendment are absent, or do not desire to move it, the amendment can be moved by any other member of the committee". Two conditions are laid down there; the first is that the hon. Member or hon. Members are absent and the second is that they do not desire to move it. It cannot be argued in this case that either of those conditions has been met. It is surely not correct to say, therefore, that any other hon. Member may move the Amendment. May I ask you to consider whether, obviously unwittingly, you may have misled the Committee by your earlier Ruling on this subject?

The Chairman

I see what the hon. Member is driving at, but it is a question of the interpretation one puts on the word "desire". A perfectly valid interpretation would be that they did not intend to move it at the time, and that would not preclude literally any other hon. Member moving it—[Interruption.]—but this is an entirely academic point because I have already ruled that as long as someone rises to a point of order no one else may rise from another part of the Committee and move an Amendment, such as has been tried. So we are not furthering our proceedings by this because it is not germane to anything we are considering.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Cormack

With all due respect to the Chair, Sir Robert, it is right that you should call hon. Members from each side of the Committee alternately.

Further to the point of order just raised, Sir Robert, I want to indicate, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), that he did what he sought to do because the business of the House was being mani- festly frustrated. There is ample opportunity for the fullest possible debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I am sure that you, Sir Robert, will correct me if I am wrong in that. All these tremendously important issues, which are as important to my hon. Friends as they are to hon. Members opposite, can be debated at great length by any hon. Member who wishes to speak during the Committee stage.

My hon. Friend sought to move the Amendment because he felt that we ought to have at least the beginning of a debate before the Committee rose. I was delighted to try to support him. He was the person who was behaving with due deference to the democratic traditions of the House of Commons, which have been frustrated continually tonight. Some form of magisterial rebuke from you, Sir Robert, is now called for.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. There is an abuse of the rules of the House going on. There is no doubt that the situation which we have in hand now is not a normal one. I think that hon. Members know in their hearts that it is not normal, and that they are deliberately trying to frustrate the business of the Committee. It is their business if they do so. If they choose to make a mockery of our parliamentary proceedings by not allowing them to continue, that must lie at their door. Nevertheless, I have to see that the rules of the House are carried out, and as long as hon. Members choose to rise to speak to me on points of order—

Mr. John Mendelson

Perfectly in order.

The Chairman

—there is nothing I can do to stop them. Be it upon their own consciences.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

Mr. Orme.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

When the Committee had that rebuke from the Chairman of Ways and Means, he should have directed his remarks also to the Government side. The Chairman of Ways and Means is beginning—if he is not careful—to become involved in the politics of the Bill—

Hon. Members

Oh!

Mr. John Mendelson

Very near to it.

Mr. Orme

I say this—

An Hon. Member

In all seriousness?

Mr. Orme

Yes, in all seriousness. When earlier the Chairman was asked about reporting Progress, he said, rather flippantly, that it was early in the evening and that we would see how we went on, and that he would not contemplate it within the immediate or even near future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) made the point to the Government at the beginning that we had many valid points to make and that we should not start on the Bill until next week. We have now been discussing it for about four hours, and we have not started to debate Amendments. I do not believe, Mr. Mallalieu, that the Government are going to make progress. In the interest of the House the Chair should reconsider whether it is appropriate to accept a Motion to report Progress.

The attitude of the Chairman, who has just left the Chair, puts the Committee in a very difficult position. I and my hon. Friends do not want to drag the Chairman into the politics of the Bill, but I am afraid he is putting himself in that position.

I believe it is now in the interest of the House for the Chair to weigh up the impasse that has now been reached and consider the war of attrition that the Government are trying to wage on the Opposition and accept a Motion to report Progress. Some of us are used to the Government acting in this way. We went through the Industrial Relations Bill, and we know what the Government did in a democratic manner on that occasion.

You should now accept a Motion, Mr. Mallalieu, similar to that moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. I am sure one of my hon. Friends would be quite willing to move it. I suggest that you address the Government in the way the Chairman never did and ask the Ministers in charge of the Bill if they do not consider, in the interests of making progress and of not creating a great deal of friction in the early hours, with hon. Members having to go on to Standing Committees in the morning, that such a Motion would be appropriate. I believe the Government were advised by one of my right hon. Friends that to report Progress after the vote at 10 p.m. and to sit next week would be in the interest of everyone. He did so, I know, not to delay the Bill but so that it could have an automatic start at 3.30 next Monday. We are therefore in a very difficult situation.

We shall have to go through a long hot summer on the Bill, as well as through the spring, and there will be a great deal of argument, passion and debate. But it was absolutely essential from the Government's point of view that they should get off to a correct start. I believe they were panicked into this by some of their back benchers, who were asking for a fight to be put on tonight. The Chair and its advisers should consider making a recommendation to the Government in the interest of business and of the House. A Motion to report Progress should be accepted, to let us get on with our business later today and return to the Bill when the real political battle will have to begin next week.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Pavitt

I first ask your guidance, Mr. Mallalieu, on an entirely new point of order that has arisen from the recent events in the House. If an hon. Member seeks to move an Amendment but fails to do so, is it then imperative, and a rule of the House, that his vote should follow his voice?

Secondly, on the question of papers being necessary for the proper discussion of the Bill, I wish to raise an entirely fresh point, which does not arise from the incident referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). I was in the House on the evening to which he referred, and I remember the incident only too well. It created a parliamentary precedent, as far as I am aware.

When we discuss the Bill, we shall have the problem, of the right interpretation of the Treaty, one of the papers that hon. Members on both sides have been requesting. I have the Treaty of Rome in a 1959 edition—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The laying of papers has been dealt with many times. It is not a point of order, for the Chair has no power to order the laying of papers.

Mr. Pavitt

With due respect, Mr. Mallalieu, I know the whole question of papers has been raised. I am raising a new point, that the copy of Article 58 of the Treaty of Rome in the Library has one effect upon the medical profession of this country and the 1959 translation that I have has a totally different effect. Therefore, when the Committee discusses Clause 1, and especially one of the Amendments of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), it will find the situation different if the copy in the Library is the basis for discussion instead of the other version. This point should be taken into consideration on the question of the necessary documentation to deal with the Amendments, and especially for the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

The Second Deputy Chairman

As that comes from the hon. Gentleman, I should be very surprised if it were not true, but whether it is true or untrue it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Emery

On a point of order. Twelve minutes ago the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that the Chairman of Ways and Means was becoming involved in the politics of the Bill.

Mr. Orme

In danger of becoming involved.

Mr. Emery

I took down what I believed was said. If that is what was said, is it not imputing that the Chair is taking a political view and not the unbiased and entirely independent position it has always taken? Should not that remark be immediately withdrawn as an imputation on the Chair?

Mr. Molloy

On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has urged that we should proceed with the Bill. Since saying that, he has risen several times on points of order which have helped to prevent progress. He should make up his mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), quite correctly and wisely, warned that there was a danger of the Chairman of Ways and Means getting involved in the politics of the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing a criticism of the Chair, the way to do it, as he should know from the experience of these last two days, is by putting down a substantive Motion. That I do not understand him to be attempting to do. I think that he was making passing reference towards the Chair. I hope he will not dwell on that too much.

Mr. Molloy

I was not making a passing reference but correcting the hon. Member for Honiton's incorrect impression of what my hon. Friend said. The hon. Member, rightly, also raised the question of freedom of speech, but his idea of freedom of speech seems to be that the Opposition should behave as he feels they should. I submit that we should adhere to "Erskine May", which says on page 70, dealing with "Necessity of Freedom of Speech": Freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every free council or legislature. Its principle was well stated by the Commons, at a conference on 11th December, 1667, the conference which resulted in the reversal of the conviction in 1629 of Sir John Eliot and others: 'No man can doubt,' they said, 'but whatever is once enacted is lawful, but nothing can come into an Act of Parliament, but it must first be affirmed or propounded by somebody: so that if the Act can wrong nobody, no more can the first propounding. The members must be as free as the houses; an Act of Parliament cannot disturb the state; therefore the debate that tends to it cannot; for it must be propounded and debated before it can be enacted'. We are attempting to do this.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. This is not a point of order in Committee, however interesting it may be as a statement from "Erskine May."

Mr. Molloy

I will explain why I think it is a point of order. I suggest that there has never been a Committee stage in the history of the House of Commons like this one. "Erskine May" was not written in one week; it was the work of centuries. The probability is that we are contributing to it tonight in the interests of freedom—and, as some of my hon. Friend would say—the safety of our State.

I beg you to consider, Mr. Mallalieu, what has been submitted by many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite—that since we have got ourselves into difficulties the Minister in charge should now take the advice given by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and report Progress and ask leave to sit again so that a fresh and intelligent start can be made on one of the most important Bills ever presented in the House of Parliament.

Mr. Crouch

I seek to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) relating to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who made a disgraceful attack on the Chairman of Ways and Means, suggesting that in the exercise of his position as Chairman of the Committee tonight he had been partial polititically. That is not the normal type of behaviour indulged in by the hon. Member for Salford, West. This is the first time that the hon. Member has intervened, and perhaps the lateness of the hour caused him to exceed his normal careful deliberation in pursuing and presenting his views.

I ask you to ask the hon. Member for Salford, West whether he is prepared to withdraw his allegation. I would point out that in the witness of hon. Members the Chairman of Ways and Means has been handling the debate with the greatest patience, impartiality and dignity. What we lack in this debate is stronger leadership from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to control his own irresponsible Members, who have been continuing to raise spurious points of order for the last four hours.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I have already dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I need not return to them.

Mr. Kinnock

On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Directly before he left the Chair, Sir Robert used the word "mockery" in the answer that he was making to certain points of order. I should be the last to try to deny the Chairman of the Committee the opportunity of making his opinion known, but I think that he might want to think again about the use of the word "mockery" in the circumstances.

Can you tell us, Mr. Mallalieu, whether Sir Robert is likely to return to the Chair during this sitting, so that we can take up this point with him? I am sure that he would not want us to go for any length of time between this and our next sitting making speculations about his use of the word "mockery".

The Second Deputy Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Sillars

I took grave exception to the remark made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), that the Chair had been inundated with specious points of order. Earlier this evening I made a submission to the Chair in relation to certain documents that should be laid on the Table, and I received no reply from Sir Robert. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) tried to elicit an answer when I received no reply, but he was not fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair. Some time later my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman come to the point of order without taking more time?

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Sillars

I am aware that you have only recently come to the Chair, Mr. Mallalieu, and I was seeking to assist you. My right hon. Friend made an important point about the Scottish Grand Committee, saying that it was the practice there for all relevant papers and documents to be laid on the Table, and if they were not the Chairman has been known to adjourn the Committee—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. This point has been dealt with several times. I hope the hon. Member will not persist with it.

Mr. Sillars

I am sorry to seem to be arguing with the Chair, Mr. Mallalieu. Your predecessor in the Chair, replying to my right hon. Friend, said that he did not have any knowledge of what went on in Scottish Standing Committees and gave the clear impression that he did not care much what went on. That may be unfair, but it was my interpretation of the manner in which he said it. That is not good enough for us. The practices of Standing Committees are borrowed from the rules governing debate in the Chamber. If the Chairman of Ways and Means says he does not think what happens in our Committees is important we may find that things we have taken for granted in them—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We are not in Scottish Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman must use a little more ingenuity.

Mr. Sillars

One problem of Scottish Members is that we cannot bring to bear the intellectual might of English-oriented Members.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Is that a point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Sillars

Yes, it is, because the Chair has to preserve the rights of back benchers. I have pointed out how an hon. Member confused England with the United Kingdom and used the term as synonymous. My point is that any decision made here can be translated to a Standing Committee concerned with Scottish affairs and affect the long-standing rights of that Committee.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I have told the hon. Member several times that that is not a matter for the Chair. The laying of documents is not for the Chair. It is in accordance with the practices of the House and it is not in the power of the Chair to alter it.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

I would like to address you on an entirely original point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Your predecessor in the Chair a few moments ago accused the party opposite of making a mockery of the procedures of the Committee. I would not quarrel with that because we have all heard a number of frivolous points of order raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the last two or three hours. I appeal to you in the interests of humanity. In my view, you and your predecessor have shown patience, good humour and pertinacity in listening to us. The fault does not lie with you, Mr. Mallalieu, or with the Chairman of Ways and Means that we are in this difficulty, but with the Government because they have tried to introduce a fraudulent and unconstitutional piece of legislation. When this House is threatened with having its powers and rights undermined by an unconstitutional piece of legislation, it is bound to defend itself by whatever is the most effective means.

Therefore, I suggest that, in the interests of the constitutional survival of the House and the physical survival of the Chairman of Ways and Means, by far the best course in all our interests, including your own, Mr. Mallalieu, would be for you to intimate to the Government by whatever are the appropriate or usual channels that the time has come when a Motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again should be moved and accepted.

Mr. Clinton Davis

Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu, I should like to support the point of order of my hon. Friend, but on another ground. A number of hon. Members have taken a great interest in the proceeding relating to the E.E.C. from the very beginning, in particular the Liberal Party, who are not here tonight—

Mr. Orme

Or any night.

Mr. Davis

They may have made a decision not to participate beyond a certain hour. Whatever views one may form about the activities of the Liberal Party, they have taken a great interest in this subject. They are to be denied the opportunity of debate unless the House is allowed to adjourn. That equally applies to other independent Members. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Get to the point of order."] The point of order is that it would be an abuse of the House if we were to consider these matters in the absence of these people, who have certain minority rights, about which the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) prattled for so long.

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order. I make no apology for seeking to make a little progress. Would it not now be in order, Mr. Mallalieu, for you to ask the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to move his Amendment? He must know why he wishes to move it. Once the debate had begun, we could then adjourn and go home.

Mr. Loughlin

Oh, they want to go home.

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

On a point of order. It will be in your recollection, Mr. Mallalieu, that your predecessor in the Chair admonished certain hon. Members because he contended that they were making a mockery of Parliament. I believe that that was directed against the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), who tried to move the Amendment. Nothing could bring this House into disrepute more quickly than what they were trying to do—move an Amendment with which their names were not associated and which they would have voted against. That would be making a mockery of our parliamentary democracy.

I have been a Member for a fair number of years. [Interruption.] I shall be a Member longer than many hon. Members opposite. They come and go like butterflies. Sir Robert gave a Ruling tonight which seemed to be a completely fresh one. In essence, he said that he could not accept from the Opposition a Motion to report Progress, but he could accept such a Motion from the Government. I have never understood that that was solely the prerogative of the Government.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. Is the right hon. Member putting to me that I should reverse a Ruling made by my predecessor in the Chair this evening?

Mr. Fernyhough

I am putting to you, Mr. Mallalieu, a question about what has governed the Committee of the whole House for all the time that I have been a Member. I want to know whether throughout the proceedings on this Bill the Chair will rule that no Motion to report Progress moved by the Opposition will be accepted. That, I think, would be an affront and completely out of keeping with what has happened over the years in which I have been a Member. I should like to have your Ruling on that.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The right hon. Member cannot expect me to go back on a Ruling which has been made earlier this evening.

Mr. Fernyhough

I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Second Deputy Chairman

If that is moved now from any quarter, I am afraid that I cannot accept it.

Mr. Buchan

I want to follow the point of order which has just been submitted. I do not think the House in Committee can find itself in a situation in which the Chair can at any time say that never in any event can it alter a previous Ruling. If previous Rulings are wrong, it is necessary for the wellbeing of the House that those Rulings should be altered. Secondly, there is the direct and simple question as to whether the Opposition have the right to seek that a Motion be put. I do not think we have had a satisfactory answer to that.

The point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) was extremely important. It related to documents being made available to the Committee. A point which was alarming and which we should like you to reconsider, Mr. Mallalieu, was that it was not necessary, nor did it matter, what went on in a Scottish Committee. Our anxiety arises from the fact that what happens in the Committee of the whole House can spread to other Committees. On this the rules for other Committees are based. Production of a number of documents has been refused. The question that has arisen is to what extent further Amendments may be worthy of consideration. The first Amendment came after a period of reflection, and it may be that a further period of reflection might lead to further Amendments being considered.

2.15 a.m.

Involved in a number of the Amendments which so far have not been allowed by the Chair are matters which are already written into yet another treaty; namely, the Act of Union in relation to Scotland and England. In particular, I would draw attention to Article XVIII of the Treaty of Union. It says: That the Laws concerning regulation of Trade, Customs and such Excises, to which Scotland is by virtue of this treaty to be lyable, be the same in Scotland, from and after the Union as in England; and that all other Laws, in use within the Kingdom of Scotland do after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by Parliament of Great Britain. I come to the crux of the matter in regard to the refusal of Amendments, on which we ask for a period of reflection. It goes on to say: With this difference betwixt the Laws concerning publick Right, Policy, and Civil Government may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom; but that no alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right, except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland. The point which arises, and which has become extremely important, is that the Act of Union on the question of private rights in Scotland cannot be altered except for the utility of the subjects within Scotland. If any one of the Amendments which so far have not been selected impinge on this Act, this calls in question the whole Treaty of Union.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Member has spoken for a number of minutes and so far I can detect no point of order.

Mr. Buchan

I am sorry, but I thought I had made clear that an Act exists in this country in relation to the laws of Scotland and the laws of England and that a distinction is made in that treaty. It makes a difference between private right and public right and says that this cannot be altered except in relation to Scotland.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I am in the Chair in Committee seeking to make progress with a certain Bill. The hon. Member is talking about completely different things and is raising no point of order whatever.

Mr. Buchan

This illustrates the difficulty which has arisen, because on every single one of the Amendments I would ask you to adjourn the Committee to reconsider this problem of public right policy.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order, The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have no power to reconsider these Amendments.

Mr. Buchan

The point that I am coming to is not whether you have the right now, but that we need to give ourselves time for reflection. Already after a period of reflection one further Amendment has been brought forward. We now seek to move a Motion to report Progress so that further reflection can be brought to bear. I should like to ask whether this section of the Act of Union was part of the argument which did not allow these Amendments to be considered. If it were not, we require that reflection to be given.

For these reasons, I ask you again that such a Motion should be accepted in the interests of the political health of the country, of the union between Scotland and England, and of the rights of the people of Britain.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Reconsideration of selection is not for me—

Mr. Buchan

It has happened today already.

The Second Deputy Chairman

It is not for me in the Chair to reconsider selection—

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham)

Send for the organ grinder.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Member for Renfrew. West (Mr. Buchan) knows that perfectly well. As for a Motion to report Progress, I have already said "No" to that within the last five minutes.

Mr. Buchan

If it is not up to the Chair to reconsider selection, who brought forward Amendment No. 49? Can he be asked to reconsider?

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman should know that it is the Chairman of Ways and Means who does this, and not the present occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Many of my hon. Friends may still have points of order to raise, and they are entitled to do so. But I have a suggestion to make to the Committee on a point of order which may be of some assistance. I make it partly in response to what was said by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who seemed to make the suggestion in a slightly different form from that suggested by other hon. Members. I think it has some attraction.

I have argued throughout the whole of this evening's proceedings that the proper way for the Committee to proceed was for a Motion to report Progress to be accepted, when either we could have a discussion on the Motion or it could be carried, and the matter could go through on that basis. I understand that the Government have resisted that. I think that they have been wrong to resist it, because the points of order raised have been substantial ones from all sides, and it would have been better for the Government to have agreed quite unconditionally to move a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Notwithstanding that, I suggest that the Minister in charge of the Bill should move such a Motion. We could then have a discussion about how we should deal subsequently with the matters before the Committee. Such a Motion would enable the Committee to discuss matters openly in the hearing of everyone. Everyone would know what had been arranged. I have had no discussions with hon. Members opposite on these matters, but if such a Motion were moved by the Minister in charge of the Bill probably it would be accepted by the Chair.

The Government are asking that we should proceed to the first group of Amendments and to move them. We have the strongest objections to proceeding to that discussion, because we wish to look at the form of the Amendments in the light of the earlier decision of the House. We also wish to look at those Amendments in the light of the changed Ruling of the Chair about the Amendments which can be selected and the change in the arrangements which arises generally. So we are not in favour of proceeding to a discussion of those Amendments. That is one reason why we have raised these matters, which we think are substantial and should have been considered and could have been better dealt with by the methods we have proposed. However, the Committee is in this difficulty.

I suggest that if the Minister will move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again we can then have a discussion, in which my hon. Friends can take part, on how we should proceed. If the Minister will move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, I can then make my comments on how we should proceed. However, I cannot exclude any of my hon. Friends from taking part in the discussion, although I shall not encourage them to do so, because I shall make a suggestion as to how we should proceed when we have a debate on the Motion, which would then be in order.

When that Motion is withdrawn and we return to the question whether we should go to the Committee stage, I should then get up and formally move the group of Amendments under No. 96, which leaves out the question of No. 49 which we wish to consider to see how it affects—

Mr. Loughlin

My hon. Friend is giving way.

Mr. Foot

My hon. Friends, if they disagree with what I am saying, are entitled to make their own speeches. I am safeguarding their rights to put their views before the Committee. I am not disputing their right to do so and the Government have no right to dispute it. I am trying to help solve the situation in the interests of the Committee, if my hon. Friends will only listen to what I have to say. If they disagree with what I am suggesting, they will have their full democratic rights protected to be able to put their views and they may be able to persuade me or the Government.

I understand that the Government, under the point of order which I am raising—I admit that it is a rather extended point of order—

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior)

It is reporting progress.

Mr. Foot

If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to a method to get him out of his difficulties he is not being sensible. I am making a suggestion to help the Minister. Possibly the best assistance that the Minister of Agriculture can give is to leave the Chamber.

I will repeat my suggestion so that there is no misunderstanding. If the Minister will propose a Motion to report Progress and that is accepted by the Chair, we shall then be in a position to have an orderly discussion on the Motion and anybody can speak as to the next procedure. If it comes to that stage, I will be prepared, if the Motion is withdrawn, to move formally the first group of Amendments. Then, if there is this undertaking and agreement by the Government that they will immediately move again the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, I am sure that at that stage the Committee would be prepared to concur.

If my hon. Friends disagree with the proposal which I am making, they are, of course, perfectly entitled to put their arguments when the Motion is moved to report Progress. I am seeking to escape from the deadlock in which the Committee is now caught in a way which I think protects both sides.

2.30 a.m.

I understand that the Government think that their prestige is at stake. I do not think that they are right to believe that and I have been trying all evening to persuade them that it is not, but if they believe that their prestige is at stake on the formal moving of the first Amendment, I will move it formally. I am not prepared to make the general statement of the case for the first group of Amendments because I still hold the view that we have a right to examine them and the fresh situation which has arisen because of the Ruling of the Chair at the beginning of our proceedings.

Mr. Emery

rose—

Mr. Foot

The trouble about giving way is that I am on a point of order and we have been told we must not give way when we are on points of order. That is a reasonable proposition.

That is the way I see out of the difficulty. I have had no discussions with anybody about it, but have merely considered what I thought was a reasonable way of trying to approach the matter.

I cannot give guarantees to the Government of what will happen if they move to report Progress except that if they do, I will carry out the proposition I have suggested.

Some of my hon. Friends have raised points of order and others may wish to do so, and some might be more in order on a Motion to report Progress than they would be as points of order. That is a risk the Government must take in trying to escape.

I would repeat to the hon. Member for Cannock that the suggestion I have made is in full accord with what he suggested. It is an elaboration of it, and it was an attempt to deal with the situation. I believe it is a perfectly reasonable proposal, but the first stage in it is that the Minister should rise to move to report Progress.

Mr. Emery

Am I in order to try to obtain some assistance for the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Opposition Front Bench, taking his suggestion in all honesty as fair and an attempt to be reasonable?

You will realise, Mr. Mallalieu, that there is a possible worry connected with the suggestion which might affect you in the Chair. If the Government move to report Progress, all that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Opposition Front Bench said could be carried out, but it is more than possible that a Motion to report Progress might take up to four or five hours.

I know that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) cannot undertake to control all his hon. Friends and there might be a number of points they wish to make. Can we have an understanding from the hon. Member that if the Government took such action he and the Chief Whip would do what they could to ensure that debate was not protracted, nor that it was debate just to waste time?

Mr. Foot

The exchanges which are now taking place between the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and me and which would take place with the Minister if what I have proposed appealed to him, would take place much better on a Motion to report Progress. I have been arguing that throughout the evening, and that is the best and proper way for the House to deal with the question.

When the Committee is in trouble as to how to proceed with its business, the way to solve it is by a Motion which halts the discussion, so that it can see the way it is going. That is what a Motion to report Progress means.

When the hon. Member for Honiton asks if I can give guarantees of what my hon. Friends will do, I say that it is not a question of guarantees. If they so wish, my hon. Friends have a perfect right to enter such a debate. I am not inciting them to, nor would I stop them as one who has taken part in many debates on such Motions. My hon. Friends may points. I cannot give any guarantee not that have already been presented, and I have no right to tell them not to put their points. I cannot give any guarantee not to listen to what they say and take it into account. I do not want anyone to be under a misapprehension about this, and I want my hon. Friends to understand exactly what I am proposing. They will be as free as I am to recommend to the House what they think is the proper course.

The prestige of hon. Members opposite is at stake. To show what a great tight they have won they want to be able to go home to their wives and families and say that the first group of Amendments has been formally moved, so that they can go home in triumph.

Many points of order of major consequence have been raised by my hon. Friends. I and those who are associated with the group of Amendments are opposed to proceeding with discussion on the Bill for two reasons. First, we do not believe that the form in which the Amendments are presented to the Committee is clear, and the Committee has not had proper opportunity to consider the fresh Amendments which the Chair has accepted and how the various Amendments fit into one another. Secondly, there will be a debate at the beginning of next week on a Motion to censure the Government on this question, and this is a matter which would be better dealt with before we proceed to Committee stage.

The Government have to take some risks in moving the Motion, but I will carry out my part of the bargain. [Laughter.] I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are jeering at this suggestion that it is not within my power to say to my hon. Friends that they have no right to make their representations to the Committee. I would never have tolerated that when I was a back bencher, and I do not propose to change my principles now I am on the Front Bench. My proposal is the fairest proposal for making progress that has been made for making progress for a long time. If the Government take the risk we shall probably conclude matters earlier than we might otherwise have done. I am not all that optimistic, but I think we have a chance of succeeding, so let us try it. We have not much to lose. Why not regularise the proceedings, have a discussion on the Motion to report Progress and see how we proceed? I will make the response I have promised to make. What will happen will depend on the course of the debate, but at least we shall regularise the proceedings and escape from trying to deal with these matters by points of order.

It would give the Government their futile triumph. It would not give them any real triumph, but it would apparently give them a fig leaf to take home. As far as we are concerned, it would protect what we are most concerned about. A decision not to embark now on the Committee stage would give us a chance to look at the Amendments and their form, and make representations to the Table Office and to the Chair, as it has encouraged us to do during these points of order. [Interruption.] The Minister of Agriculture would do the best service to the Government and the country by clearing off back to the Smoking Room. Every interruption he makes only renders the business more difficult. The Government would be wise to consider proceeding on the basis I have suggested.

Mr. Rippon

The hon. Gentleman says that we have not much to lose by accepting his proposition. There does not appear to be very much to gain by it either. He is wrong in saying that this is a matter of prestige for the Government. It may be a matter of prestige for the Opposition in that they cannot accept the rulings of the Chair and the decision of the House.

We were certainly given the impression yesterday by the hon. Gentleman that if we acceded to his request then and proceeded with discussion of Amendments without prejudice to any decision which might be taken today he would expect to have an orderly progress thereafter. I think that the only way we can hope to restore the dignity of the Committee is by accepting a return to the traditional proprieties and acceptance of the rules of order.

I make a fair suggestion to the hon. Gentleman that, in accordance with the assurance he gave yesterday, he might at least start the proceedings in Committee not just by formally moving his Amendments but by moving them in the proper way and initiating a discussion. Perhaps it is reasonable that we should not at this stage bring that discussion to a conclusion, but it would help many hon. Members to know what it is that he has in mind in the Amendments, which now ought to be proceeded with.

Mr. Foot

On a point or order, Sir Robert. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking to a point of order, but the kind of discussion, proposition, suggestion or argument that he has put to the Committee is, I submit, exactly the kind of argument which should be put to the Committee on a Motion to report Progress. Indeed, you may consider that what he has said was out of order.

The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order. I must be the judge of whether what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was in or out of order. The Committee will agree that I have given a great deal of latitude to hon. Members. I do not think the hon. Gentleman should begrudge it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Foot

I am sure that it was because of the latitude you have given that you permitted the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say what he did, Sir Robert. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite, particularly when we are facing a long Committee stage, if we reach it, must learn the provisions and rules and usages of the Committee. If they do, they will find out what Motions to report Progress are—precisely to enable a Minister to make the kind of statement just made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a point or order.

I want to correct one thing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, which I certainly would have thought to be out of order. He said I had broken some assurance to him. I did not give any assurance to him, either tonight or last night, about these matters, so he must not talk as if I had broken any assurance. His charge is absolutely false. I did not give him any assurance last night. He knows that very well. He has only just cooked it up.

2.45 a.m.

I come to the major matter. What I have suggested is an escape from the situation. All we have had is a response in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman spurned the offer completely. Not merely is he not prepared to put these discussions in proper order; he makes no response. I responded to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). I thought we might be able to ease the position of the Com- mittee as a whole. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for the continuance of this situation if it goes on.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

On a point of order. My point of order, Sir Robert, bears no relation to the selection of Amendments on the Paper but is about the order of those Amendments. You are reported, Sir Robert, as saying yesterday: Let me say at the outset that, in regard to the majority of the Amendments on the Paper, the question is not a question of selection but one of order. That is to say, most of the Amendments—indeed, all of the more important Amendments—have been omitted not in virtue of my power of selection but because they are out of order and could not be called in any circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 268.] That is to say, Amendments which you, Sir Robert, hold to be important Amendments as such could not be taken as Amendments to Clause 1 because they were out of order on that Clause.

You will appreciate, Sir Robert, that Parliament is very sensitive about its method of control over the Bill, not only because it is an important piece of legislation but also because the final form it will take will affect the extent of the control and scrutiny over future Community legislation which Parliament can exercise. Therefore, would you indicate, Sir Robert, whether these Amendments which are, in your words, important Amendments, although out of order on Clause 1, might in some form be in order on a subsequent Clause? If you could indicate, Sir Robert, whether that was the case, it would aid us in the tabling of subsequent Amendments and enable us to consider in a different way the problem which arose over selection yesterday.

The Chairman

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the courteous and excellent way in which he has put his point of order. I cannot, obviously, prejudge at this stage what I would deem to be in order on Clause 2. But I should be very glad to see the hon. Gentleman, either alone or with my advisers, at any time, to help him with what might be put down and might be in order on Clause 2 when the time comes.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

On a point of order. May I, Sir Robert, correct one misunderstanding which may have arisen from what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said just now, when he said that he gave no assurance yesterday? I notice from HANSARD that at about 6 p.m. yesterday the hon. Member said: The Leader of the House should now propose that the Chairman ask leave to report Progress and beg leave to sit again. Such a Motion would presumably be accepted by the Chair. The hon. Member went on to say: If the Government did that, I presume that the Motion would be carried very soon and we should proceed to the debate tomorrow.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 302.] That seemed to me to be a fairly categorical—

Mr. Foot

rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I am on a point of order.

Hon. Members

Oh.

The Chairman

Hon. Members should not object to a little shouting. They do plenty themselves.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I thought I was only helping by reminding hon. Members that I was on a point of order because I always understood that it was out of order to interrupt an hon. Member when he was already speaking on a point of order. It seemed to me that the words which I quoted qualify to some extent what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said when he said that he gave no assurance yesterday.

Mr. Foot

Perhaps I can apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting him while he was on a point of order. I would not like there to be any misunderstanding about an assurance. When a reference was made to the debate proceeding the following day, that referred to the debate on the substantive Motion which took place earlier, as will be seen from the context of what the hon. Gentleman has read out.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is slightly mistaken because at that time he had not referred to the Motion of censure. That does not occur until four columns later.

Mr. Foot

I beg your pardon, Sir Robert, for proceeding further with the point. When the hon. Gentleman examines the point afresh he will see that he is mistaken. I referred earlier to the possibility of a substantive Motion and he will see that I was clearly referring to it. I do not think he or the Minister has the right to suggest I made any assurance which I have broken.

Mr. Frank Judd (Portsmouth, West)

I rise on what I believe to be a new point of order which refers to "Erskine May" at page 275, Manner of notifying weekly programme of Government business". It states very clearly that Government orders of the day are marked in the Notice Paper with a star to distinguish them from those of private Members. An Order Book showing the orders standing for future days is brought out daily and a copy showing the state of the Order Book at the end of each week is circulated to Members (see page 245). For the purpose of informing the House what items of Government business (and in what order of precedence) it is intended to take on Government days, a statement which covers the whole of the following week is made every Thursday normally by the Leader of the House, in reply to a Question by the Leader of the Opposition. The order of business thus notified is seldom varied without a supplementary statement. Was this action taken, Sir Robert? I notice that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who normally sit on the Liberal bench, who have made it absolutely clear that they believe the whole subject to be of absolutely supreme importance for the nation, are not with us. I can only believe the explanation for their absence is that the proper procedures as laid down in "Erskine May" have not been fulfilled.

The Chairman

I think the answer to the point is in the word that the hon. Member has overlooked, which is "seldom". "Seldom" means that the practice may be varied sometimes and that is how it applies now.

Mr. Cormack

I would like to set the record straight. I was very flattered by the ingenious response to my suggestion from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I suggested that if he was prepared to move his Amendment and make his speech, because he must obviously know what he wishes to say, that would be an acceptable way of bringing our proceedings to a satisfactory close.

The Chairman

I had always hoped that something like that might happen, but it does not seem that it will.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I have sat through nearly all these proceedings, Sir Robert, and the first time I sought to catch your eye was when you left the Chair. I have sat through many of the debates on the E.E.C. legislation and taken part in none of them, apart from one intervention to the Minister of Agriculture, because I had such tremendous confidence in my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). But I wish now to raise a couple of matters of order arising from the situation since the Divisions.

In the last Session I had the good fortune to introduce a Ten-Minute Rule Bill to abolish wild hare coursing. In the course of a subterfuge to try to flush out the opposition to the Bill, two of the sponsors acted as Tellers for the Noes. The Ayes won, and the following day Mr. Speaker King made an order striking out the names of the two sponsors who had acted as Tellers for the Noes because of the rule on the collection of voices. Under that rule, the hon. Members for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) and Cannock (Mr. Cormack) having indicated which way they intend to vote by seeking to move the first Amendment, are they precluded from voting against the Amendment?

This is the second Bill of its type in a fortnight on which, for proper reasons, as Chairman of Ways and Means, you have ruled that certain types of Amendments may not be accepted. The first was the Northern Ireland Bill, passed last Wednesday. I understand that the reason was that the legislation concerned was declaratory, and therefore we had considerable difficulty in devising Amendments to show approval or disapproval. The Northern Ireland Bill gave sweeping powers to a subordinate legislature under a most repressive system of law known as the Special Powers Act. How can you, Sir Robert, as Chairman of our Committee—

The Chairman

Can the hon. Gentleman come to his point of order? There is a danger of my losing the thread of his argument before he gets there.

Mr. McNamara

My point is that the Bill is the second piece of this type of legislation, drafted by the Government deliberately to try to stifle amendment and criticism.

I appeal to you, Sir Robert, as one of the custodians of our privileges, to say how best we can ensure that such legislation is not presented in the future, so that we may preserve our rights and exercise our proper function as legislators seeking to amend Government proposals.

3.0 a.m.

The hon. Member for Cannock seemed to be under the impression that when we came to debate the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we could discuss virtually anything, including the Amendments which had been ruled out of order, and in his assumed capacity as Deputy Leader of the House he seemed to think that neither the Patronage Secretary nor one of my hon. Friends could move the Closure. I hope you will guide us, Sir Robert, on these three points; the collection of voices, the type of legislation and the question of the Closure.

The Chairman

The hon. Member has raised three points. On the first, about voting, I suggest that we leave that until it arises. On the second, the drafting of Bills, that is not a responsibility of the Chair. On the third regarding debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", that too is hypothetical and must wait for that time, whereupon I or whoever is in the Chair will rule.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

For at least two of the four-and-a-half hours that we have been debating points of order you have expressed the hope, Sir Robert, that an hon. Member would move an Amendment. Is it possible for you to call the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to do that now?

Several Hon. Members

On a point of order—

The Chairman

That is the answer to the hon. Member's point of order: the fact that hon. Members wish to raise points of order with me.

Mr. Molloy

On a point of order. Have you noticed, Sir Robert, that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is either asleep or ill? Do you think he requires attention?

Mr. Gorst

My hon. Friend is merely bored to tears.

Dr. Gilbert

On a point of order. May I return to the point I was seeking to raise about four hours ago, Sir Robert?

The Chairman

No. If the hon. Gentleman returns to discuss the Amendments which the Committee has already agreed are out of order, he will be ruled out of order.

Dr. Gilbert

I hope I will not be accused of raising frivolous points of order. I was at pains earlier to exclude any Amendments which had been ruled out of order. I hope we have agreement on that point. I am not concerned with the Amendments which come before Amendment No. 96. Therefore, Sir Robert, I am following your instructions as to what will be in order in discussing other Amendments.

I shall spare the Committee reading through the numbers again, although it may be of some assistance to hon. Members. The numbers that I read out before are attached to this very important document. Hon. Members on the Government side seem to want to bring the listing of those Amendments to a stop because they do not want to hear about them. That surprises me, because this is the only information that we have in the document about the reasons why certain Amendments were ruled out of order. You have specified three different types, Sir Robert. I am referring to the Amendments before Amendment No. 96.

The Chairman

Perhaps I may make an apology to the hon. Member. It is my turn to say something. When I referred to "the Amendments before No. 96" what I should have said—and what I did not say, thereby possibly causing confusion in the hon. Member's mind and the minds of other hon. Members, for which I heartily apologise—was that all the Amendments to the Clause, other than those I have selected, are out of order and are covered by the Motion that the House passed tonight. I hope that will assist the hon. Member. I apologise for confusing him and the Committee by saying "before No. 96" when I meant to refer to all the Amendments except those in the list of Amendments selected and the two new Amendments, one of which hon. Members understand to be a paving Amendment. All the rest are out of order.

Dr. Gilbert

I am grateful to you, Sir Robert, and accept your eloquent and gracious apology. In parenthesis, I may say that I am most appreciative of your patience and courtesy to back benchers throughout this difficult sitting. I also mention, in parenthesis, to hon. Members opposite who are feeling very frustrated at our inability to get on with our business that we feel equally frustrated that we cannot discuss those Amendments that we want to, which have been ruled out of order. Frustration is by no means the monopoly of hon. Members opposite. Secondly, the difficulty is due to the way in which the Government have brought forward the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) mentioned the difficulties that we might have in putting down Amendments in future. I understand you have said, Sir Robert, that you might be agreeable to entering into private discussions about this in the next day or two. I want to refer to something that you said in the document that you addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing).

The Chairman

It is part of the business that has taken place. I cannot possibly enter into any discussions about what I might do. We shall have to see about it when the time arrives. I assure the hon. Member and other hon. Members that I shall do all I can to help him in any Amendment he may bring before me, but I cannot go into the question of my letter to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) now because that is part of the decision that the House has taken on the existing Amendments. It does not necessarily apply to anything that might happen either in the future on this Clause or on Clause 2 or later Clauses.

Dr. Gilbert

I am grateful to you, Sir Robert. I want to develop the point. I accept that the decision of the House has been taken with respect to your previous decision, but you have accepted implicitly that the decision of the House did not inter alia instruct you that you might not change your mind.

The Chairman

There is no question of my changing my mind because at the moment I have no mind on those things. That is disposed of; I have made a decision and the House has substantiated it. I will deal in as friendly and helpful a way as I can with anything that comes along either on Clause 1 or on Clause 2 afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman really has a point of order I hope he will raise it now, because other hon. Members are anxious to speak.

Dr. Gilbert

I hope I am not trespassing on the time of my hon. Friends. I am grateful to you, Sir Robert, for changing your mind in that you have admitted Amendment No. 49 and this has raised the whole—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Member is referring to the new Amendment?

Dr. Gilbert

Yes.

The Chairman

I have not changed my mind. It is simply that one Amendment which was tabled was a paving Amendment and could not be moved until the other was brought forward. I would have selected it if the other had been on the Notice Paper yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Kaufman

On a point of order, Sir Robert. It will be within your recollection, since you were in the Chair as Deputy Speaker at the time of the debate on the timetable Motion on the Industrial Relations Bill, that I said that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) had secured election to the House as an adherent of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). The hon. Member wrote and asked me to retract that statement at a suitable opportunity. I regard this as being as suitable an opportunity as there could be to apologise to the hon. Member and to say that he has demonstrated that he is not an adherent of the right hon. Member.

The Chairman

That is very interesting but it is not a point of order for me. I suggest that the hon. Member could have found a more appropriate and beneficial place, from a health point of view, to have made that apology.

Mr. Loughlin

On a point of order, Sir Robert. Many hon. Members will wish to pay tribute to your conduct during these proceedings but you will recall that when you were in the Chair on the last occasion you used certain strictures and said that hon. Members were bringing democracy into disrepute. I am paraphrasing you. In the light of the arguments being used outside about Parliament I would ask you, once HANSARD is published, to look at what you have said. I could forgive you in the circumstances for saying what you did, and I say that respectfully, but I believe that the statement you made did not reflect your attitude to hon. Members and did not reflect the truth.

The Chairman

Order. I do not see any reason to change what I said. I told the Committee that I considered it was not behaving in a parliamentary manner. That is not to say that hon. Members are not within their rights, and that is all I am concerned with. They must be the judges of whether they are bringing Parliament into disrepute by what they are doing. That is not for me. I can see nothing wrong with what I said and no reason to take back anything. That is the best explanation I can give.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

On a point of order. I have not raised a point of order before. With great respect to you, Sir Robert, the way in which you stated that case about the dignity of the House sounded like an insinuation, whereas my hon. Friends are pursuing a well-established parliamentary procedure. We are well within our rights, especially since we have the example of the Government trying to stifle legitimate criticism from the Opposition. We are entitled to pursue our points of order until we get satisfactory answers.

The Chairman

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman: I said that he was within his rights to do so. There is, however, a difference between being within one's rights and what one ought to do. It is the duty of the Chair to give some guidance about what the Committee should do in the circumstances obtaining at the time. I have done that. I have not sought to labour it in any way; I think the Committee will recognise that. Hon. Members have raised their points of order. I have taken them as cheerfully as I could and I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Hall

Could you refer the Committee, Sir Robert, to the Standing Order which requires you to call an hon. Member every time he rises to a point of order, on could you refer to any precedent for doing so when points of order continue for as long as they have done tonight?

The Chairman

What I have been doing is simply the practice of the House. I do not think there is anything unparliamentary in what I have done.

Mr. Hall

Further to that point of order. I understand that what you are doing, Sir Robert, is in accordance with the traditions of the House, and it is the normal tradition to call an hon. Member who rises to a point of order. But looking back as far as I have been able, I cannot find any precedent which allows hon. Members to raise points of order for nearly five hours. Surely the Chair has the right to end points of order at some time, because there is no Standing Order which requires the Chair to call hon. Members.

The Chairman

I do not think I have any right, unfortunately, to stop hon. Members raising points of order. The custom of the House of Commons is that points of order must be taken when they are raised. The Committee must judge whether it is doing well by the House of Commons. It is not for me to say. I have given an indication of what I think. If hon. Members do not choose to take my words to heart, responsibility in the eyes of the country will be theirs.

Mr. John Silkin

There are fairly well-established precedents as to what happens in these circumstances. You are aware of them, Sir Robert, and so am I. There is a former Leader of the House present and I myself am a former Deputy Leader of the House. The precedent of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, on which certain hon. Members on both sides played a part, was very similar. I do not remember that the Chairman of Ways and Means then thought that Parliament was being brought into disrepute. The reason was that the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) never left the House for longer than three-quarters of an hour at a time. The obvious way in which this matter can be dealt with is for the Leader of the House to come here.

Having had some experience in this matter, I say sincerely and clearly that I am astonished that the Leader of the House should not have been here for the last five hours. After all, we have got ourselves into the most awful tangle. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may know a great deal about fish, but he does not know a great deal about procedure. The right person to be present on the Government Front Bench is the Leader of the House.

The Chairman

The right hon. Member will understand that this is not a question for me. I cannot compel the Leader of the House, any Minister or anyone to be present. All I have to do is to deal with the situation as I find it now, and that is bad enough.

Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)

I think that in every quarter of the Committee there is great admiration for the way in which you, Sir Robert, have tackled the situation during the last four hours or more. I have been very conscious of the fact that you have tried very courteously to assist hon. Members who have raised points of order. Your forbearance is a credit to the House.

My point of order may not surprise you because I cannot hide my accent. The fact that I am a Scot is made obvious when I speak. You will realise that those of us who are Scotsmen are very conscious that we belong not to a region but to a country. Clause 1 deals with the question of treaties, and here is something of great moment and importance for the people of Scotland. As you have tried to give advice and assistance to some of my hon. Friends who have raised questions about the Treaty of Union of 1707 and you have tried to be as helpful as possible, you will understand that there are not enough copies of that treaty for Scots Members to study when we become immersed in discussion of Clause 1.

If we cannot have the opportunity to study and scrutinise treaties which are related to Clause 1, I suggest, Sir Robert, that you could assist my hon. Friends and me by seeing that the Government act in such a way that advice on legal matters affecting Scotland can be given to us. As no doubt you are aware, we have a law of our own in Scotland and we cherish it very much. When matters of legality are raised it is not right or proper that we should have to inquire of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General on matters which pertain to the law of my native country.

I suggest a way out of this difficulty by which you can help us. The Law Officer for Scotland is the Lord Advocate. It is clear that if we go on to debate the Amendments which are suggested, Scottish Members will be at a great disadvantage because the Lord Advocate is not present. I hope you will be able to assist me and other Scottish Members, Sir Robert, by saying that the Lord Advocate will be on the Front Bench to give legal advice on Clause 1 and its effect on treaties pertaining to Scotland, particularly the Treaty of 1707.

The Chairman

I am grateful for the kind of remarks made by the hon. Gentleman during the early part of his point of order. I know that a thread of what he said runs through the House on these occasions, and this is what keeps me going. As for the hon. Gentleman's later remarks, he will know that I cannot compel the attendance of Law Officers, but what he said is now on the record. I have no doubt that it will be noted in the appropriate quarters and that whatever action is deemed to be necessary will be taken.

Mr. Foot

I made a suggestion earlier to try to meet the situation, which was not accepted by you, Sir Robert, and was not acted upon by the Minister in charge of the Bill. Therefore, I wish to make another constructive suggestion. It would be churlish of us all not to join in the tributes which have been paid to the courtesy, patience and good humour shown by the Chair during these proceedings, but it is obvious that a continuance of this kind of procedure is bound to cause difficulties for the Chair as well as for the rest of the Committee.

My proposal relates to a passage on page 520 of "Erskine May": The proceedings of a committee on a bill may be brought abruptly to a close by an order, 'That the chairman do now leave the chair'… This would involve no surrender on either side of the Committee.

"Erskine May" continues: The chairman in such cases, being without instructions from the committee, makes no report to the House. A bill disposed of in this manner disappears from the order book". [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can understand that that suggestion might not appear immediately appetising to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they should not jump to conclusions too quickly because the passages on to say though it can be revived by an order of the House. I dare say the Government might be able to win such an order, with a majority of eight, six or five.

If the Patronage Secretary were here, he might have noted the next passage in "Erskine May": When a committee on a bill is revived, its proceedings are resumed at the point at which they were interrupted". We all know where that is, and there will not be any doubt about that.

I do not make this point flippantly though it has its comic aspects. The Government would not lose anything by adopting such a proposition. All they would have to do is restore the Bill to the same situation. They would not have to have the Second Reading again, or the Money Resolution or a new Ways and Means Resolution. They would be restoring the Bill to exactly the position in which it now is by a single, simple vote of the House of Commons. If we followed that course, Sir Robert, we would relieve you of all your anxieties. Both sides of the Committee would be able to retire from the contest with honour. None of us would be victors; none of us would be vanquished. The whole debate would end as an uproarious success.

3.30 a.m.

Those of us who sometimes criticise the procedures of the House of Commons should recognise that in "Erskine May" one can always find a means of escape from the most awkward and difficult situations. I am grateful to those of my hon. Friends who have suggested this one. Here we have a perfect instrument with which to deal with this precise situation.

I beg to move, That the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

The Chairman

I am afraid that I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. John Mendelson

On a point of order. My point concerns the stage that the Committee has now reached and the future conduct of its business. It affects especially the relationship between the Government and the Committee.

As you will recall, Sir Robert, in Standing Committees as well as in Committees of the whole House very often the stage is reached after several hours that the future of the work that the Committee is supposed to do depends upon the relationship between the Government, whichever Minister happens to represent the Government in the Committee, and the members of the Committee. Often, through the Chair, it is helpful to make suggestions whereby an expression of opinion can be elicited from the Government about how they see the work of the Committee progressing.

To some extent the scene was set earlier by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) who said, inadvertently, that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) had made no reference on Tuesday afternoon to the Motion that we debated earlier. In fact, if the hon. Gentleman cares to refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of Tuesday's proceedings, he will see that at 4.30 p.m. my hon. Friend said: At the proper time we shall put down on the Order Paper of the House of Commons a substantive Motion criticising the selection that you have made, Sir Robert. I trust that the leaders of the Government and the Leader of the House will agree that the Motion is of such paramount importance that it should be discussed at the earliest possible date consistent with giving the proper warning and information to other hon. Members of the House of Commons. When we put down our substantive Motion this afternoon, I trust that the Government will make arrangements for the matter to be debated tomorrow afternoon in the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 273–4.] There my hon. Friend was referring to the Motion criticising the selection of Amendments by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Now we have moved to a further stage. A decision has been taken on that matter, and it would be unreasonable to try to elicit information from the Government about what their intentions might have been in circumstances which are now irrelevant and cannot be discussed. However, the decision late yesterday afternoon to table a Motion criticising the Government severely on the way in which the Bill has been drafted creates a new situation.

I do not wish to rehearse the distinction that right hon. and hon. Members have been trying to make between the responsibilities of the Government and those of the Chairman of Ways and Means. That is within the recollection of the Committee. Everybody knows the facts because only a few hours have passed since that debate took place, although we have now moved on to the following day.

This is a new decision of the official Opposition. I stress that this move does not emanate from a small group of hon. Members. Because of your decision earlier, Sir Robert, that you are prepared to accept certain Motions when they come from those in charge of the Bill and that, on certain occasions, you are prepared to accept those coming from the official Opposition, following custom and practice in saying that, I stress that this decision has been made not by an independent group of hon. Members but by the official Opposition. Therefore, it is now incumbent upon the Government in this new situation to give us their advice whether—

The Chairman

Order. I see what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, and it is not at me. He is really trying to get an answer from the Government under the guise of a point of order for me.

Mr. Mendelson

No.

The Chairman

Then will the hon. Member tell me in one sentence what it is he wants me to answer?

Mr. Mendelson

Yes, Sir Robert. In a sentence, following custom and practice, as often happens in Standing Committees upstairs as well as in Committee of the whole House, I am asking, through you, the intentions of the Government, which is the time honoured phrase that is used on such occasions.

The Chairman

That was the sentence I wanted. I cannot do that. It is not my job and not my business to do that. May I have the next point of order?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). The criticism which the hon. Gentleman made of the point which I raised has some substance. If I have done an injustice to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I apologise. However, at col. 305 he said that if we could have the debate which we had earlier—or yesterday—that might assist on later progress of the Bill. Whether that was a pious hope or a possible bait I am not sure. Anyway, we do not seem to be making progress.

In ruling on a point put to you, Sir Robert, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), you said that you did not think it lay within your power to say that there had been enough points of order for you to ask the Committee to carry on with its business

I should like to put on record the fact that every Speaker whom I have known since I have been a Member of the House of Commons. and probably every Chairman of Ways and Means, has on a number of occasions in each Parliament at certain times said, "I am not prepared to accept any further points of order" and has then gone on with the business.

I know that all these matters have to be played by ear, according to the conditions prevailing at the time. I hope that no one under-estimates the enormous burdens which you, Sir Robert, have to bear throughout this night. All of us admire enormously the good humour with which you have borne those burdens.

It might be worthwhile recollecting how it came about that we ever had the Closure procedure and why it became necessary. I think it was in the debate on the South Africa Bill in 1899, or about that time, that the Irish Members indulged in a procedure which was, first, to move the Adjournment of the House and to have a Division on that, and then to come back and debate the proposition that the House should adjourn and should report Progress. That went on for about 36 hours.

Mr. English

It was in 1881.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I always stand to be corrected on dates.

The principle I want to put is that when this sort of thing is taking place, the House of Commons sometimes has to take certain steps which result in some restriction of the rights of hon. Members. It seems to me that we are getting into serious danger tonight of so over-using the procedure of points of order that if this continues it may become necessary for us to start to impose some restriction on points of order. [Interruption.] I personally would deplore such a need arising because I regard a point of order as a very considerable right for back benchers or for right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. It would be a tragedy if, by over-using points of order, it became necessary in any way to take from hon. Members some of the rights they have hitherto enjoyed and which have seldom been abused.

Mr. Russell Kerr

The Government are cheats.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I gather that the hon. Member thinks this is a cheap observation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheat', not 'cheap'."] It is important that all of us should always be very jealous of the rights of hon. Members and that we should not so abuse procedure that it becomes necessary to limit the rights of hon. Members simply because abuses have occurred.

I would only suggest to you, Sir Robert, that there are many precedents for a limit to be put by the Chair on points of order when they are repetitive and contribute nothing new. I ask you to bear those precedents in mind.

The Chairman

I know what the hon. Member means, but this is a different situation. We have no Question before the Committee. It is a question of whether or not we should proceed. If we are debating an Amendment, the Chair has a right to say that enough is enough, but at this stage I do not have the right to help the hon. Member, I am afraid.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, East)

I have listened for almost five and a half hours with the greatest and closest attention to continuous points of order, and not least to the Rulings you gave, Sir Robert, following some of those points of order. It seems to me that many were of considerable substance. The lack of documents—the Treaty of Union with Scotland, and others—seemed to me to be of the greatest relevance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), almost at the beginning, raised the question of whether you would accept a Motion to report Progress from this side if the Minister were not willing to move it. Your Ruling then and on several other occasions when my hon. Friend raised it was that you were not able to accept such a Motion because it was still quite early, as it was at that time, and there would be—I paraphrase your words, but you said something about such a likelihood—many long nights to come. One can accept that Ruling with respect in normal circumstances, if we were discussing Amendments, but it seemed to me that my hon. Friend was making a plea on that occasion on the ground that an adjournment of the Committee was required to enable hon. Members interested in these matters to acquaint themselves with the Amendments which have appeared as additions to those we had expected to discuss.

An adjournment would also have enabled my right hon. and hon. Friends to examine the position on the Treaty of Union and to inquire into the possibility of obtaining the documents which have been translated into English. The only factor to be considered before you gave your Ruling was the earliness of the hour. Will you, Sir Robert, accept from an hon. Member on the Opposition side of the Committee a Motion to report Progress, bearing in mind that almost four hours have gone by since you last ruled?

The Chairman

I still feel that I cannot accept a Motion to report Progress unless it is moved by those who are in charge of the Bill.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Stainton

For my humble elucidation, Sir Robert, will you please say by what criteria you admitted the final comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) as a point of order, or a series of points of order?

The Chairman

The criterion is simple. It is that the hon. Gentleman sought on a point of order to ask whether I would accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. He chose to elaborate his request a little more than was absolutely necessary for reasons best known to him, but I will not pull him up about that now.

Mr. Pavitt

When your predecessor was in the Chair, Sir Robert, I raised two points of order, the first briefly and the second at greater length. Your predecessor gave advice on the second point of order but, as frequently happens, when two questions are put, the second was answered and the first one, I am sure inadvertently, was forgotten. May I therefore put my first point to you again?

My understanding has always been that when one speaks in Committee to an Amendment one's vote must follow one's voice. If an hon. Member seeks to move an Amendment in Committee but fails to do so, is that an indication of voice which the vote should follow, or, if the Amendment is not in order, although the hon. Member sought to move it, does that mean that his voice has not been given to the Amendment and that he is not forced to vote for it?

The Chairman

As far as I have the trend of what the hon. Gentleman has said—he will forgive me if I am not quite right about it, because something else was running through my mind at the time—I think he has correctly stated the position.

Mr. English

On a point of order. You will recollect, Sir Robert, that one of the themes in this series of points of order has been the question of documents. I will not rehearse the point I put to you earlier about it but you might wish to know what has happened since. There is a procedure. You yourself said, correctly as I understand it, that you had no power to direct Ministers to lay documents before the House of Commons. But it is the case that the House has the power.

At about one o'clock I gave both the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the opportunity to sign what is technically termed an Unopposed Return—for papers, of course. The return was for such decisions of the Council of Ministers as have not hitherto been made available to Members. "Unopposed" in that context means unopposed by the Crown. The signature of any one Minister—including that of the Leader of the House, who gave us the assurance that we would have all these documents—to that piece of paper would have ended that series of points of order instantly because on the Order Paper for tomorrow there would have been a Motion for an unopposed return, which would have been carried out.

The Ministers who were offered that opportunity did not sign and it should be made clear that we on this side of the Committee are seriously wondering why Ministers wish to keep secret documents which they are asking Parliament to incorporate into the law of the land.

The Chairman

None of that is a point of order, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in what he wanted to do. There is nothing I can do about it.

Mr. O'Malley

May I raise a number of points of order, Sir Robert? First, I apologise for returning to the subject I raised earlier and I will do so only briefly. I am under the impression that my submission about the relevance of proceedings of the Protection of Birds Act, 1954 (Amendment) Act, 1964, still remains unanswered.

Secondly, I submit that when you are considering the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who has now left us, you should consider that it comes ill from hon. Members on the Government side to put that kind of proposition to you. They did not put it when the then Opposition ratted on the Labour Government on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.

My third point—and I feel absolutely confident that you will feel able to comment on the proposition I am putting—is that some time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) attempted to move a Motion that the Chairman should leave the Chair. You ruled that you could not then accept such a Motion. Since then, I have taken the advice of the learned Clerk, for which I am grateful.

I gather that your Ruling, Sir Robert, is based and has to be based on Standing Order No. 28, subsection (1), which states: If Mr. Speaker, or the chairman, shall be of opinion that a dilatory motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or"— this is the relevant passage— he may decline to propose the question thereupon to the House or the committee. That was what you did, Sir Robert; you declined to propose the Question.

Subsection (2) of the Standing Order states: For the purposes of this order the ex pression 'dilatory motion' shall include a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress or do leave the chair. May I, therefore, ask you two questions on this point, Sir Robert? First, on what grounds did you decide that the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale was an abuse of the rules of the House? It seems, at least to this side of the Committee, that my hon. Friend moved that Motion in perfectly reasonable terms and was attempting, for the second time tonight, to get the Committee out of the enormous difficulty in which it found itself.

Mr. Heffer

What about the damned Bill? That is an abuse.

Mr. O'Malley

Second, on the question of Standing Order No. 28, Sir Robert, if it were the case that an hon. Member were now to move for the Chairman to leave the Chair, on the ground that the Chairman, perhaps, in the view of an hon. Member, was unreasonably or as a matter of wrong judgment refusing to accept a Motion to report Progress, after the proceedings have been continuing, after the 10 p.m. vote, since 10.26 p.m., would you advise me whether you would regard that as an abuse of the rules of the House, if that were so, and if a Motion were moved on those grounds—that is, that your judgment, Sir Robert, was at fault in refusing to accept a Motion to report Progress during the night, since we have now reached nearly 4 a.m.?

My third point of order, briefly, is this. About half an hour ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), who has considerable experience in these matters, suggested that as we were in such difficulties the Leader of the House should be present. The Leader of the House has hidden himself away and is presumably skulking in his room. He has not been here for the last five hours. We would like to know where he is.

You said, Sir Robert, that this was not a matter for you. However, may I suggest that as the servant of the Committee what could be a matter for you is that a message could go from the Chair—this is the only way I know of contacting the Leader of the House—through the Whip, which I suppose means the Treasury Bench at all times, that the Committee requires the presence of the Leader of the House immediately to attempt to ascertain what he feels about the present situation and how we are to get out of it?

On the question of the attendance of the Leader of the House—this is directly a question for you, Sir Robert—we are now faced with two further problems as a result of the enormous tangle in which the Government find themselves with their programme. Committees are sitting this day, not only at 10.30 a.m. but also this afternoon for open-ended sittings. In view of this outrageous situation, and as this is the second night running that the ladies in the Tea Room have been kept up until 5 a.m., are we not entitled to ask that a Motion to report Progress be accepted and that the Leader of the House should come to the Committee?

The Chairman

The last points that the hon. Gentleman raises are not matters for me. They are for the Government, to do what they think right. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, about the Motion that the Chairman should leave the Chair, I would consider such a Motion an abuse of the rules of the House in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the reason being that we could have made, had it been the wish of the Committee, a great deal more progress on the Bill than we have done.

4.0 a.m.

The Committee in its wisdom has sought to obstruct that progress and, therefore. I consider it would be an abuse of the rules of the House for me to leave the Chair in that situation. It would mean that the Bill would be dropped from the Order Paper. It is not something I can do.

The work with which I was expressly charged by the House when it elected me to this position is to hold the scales of justice in the same way as Mr. Speaker and to facilitate the business of the House so that it may come to a decision. That is exactly what I have been trying to do and that is my basic reason for not accepting the hon. Gentleman's Motion.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelly)

I rise for the first time to a point of order and I shall be brief. You have ruled, Sir Robert, that those Amendments which are out of order cannot be discussed or referred to now on points of order. We accept that Ruling, although we disagree with the view that the Amendments are out of order. I understand that about five or six Amendments were not rules out of order but in your discretion, I believe, you decided not to select them.

Can you clarify the position, Sir Robert? Why were those Amendments in order, as you imply and suggest in your letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing)? Was it because they did not subject to parliamentary approval the provisions of the treaties already accepted? In this case can you assist us with later Amendments and tell the Committee when these treaties were accepted?

The Chairman

I am glad to say my reply on this is not a difficult one. I am expressly instructed by the Standing Orders to give no reasons for the selection or non-selection of Amendments. It is the accustomed practice of the House and all Standing Committees that the Chairman does not say why he does not select Amendments. He may give reasons why he deems Amendments not to be in order, which I have already done.

Mr. Davies

Can I then phrase my question differently? Can you tell the Committee, Sir Robert, why those Amendments were in order? Is it that they do not subject to parliamentary approval the provisions of the treaties, as already accepted, as you say in your letter?

The Chairman

I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. I cannot discuss those Amendments in any way.

Mr. Kinnock

I wish to raise an important point of order, Mr. Mallalieu, which concerns the sentences which were read to us by the Chairman at an earlier stage in the proceedings from page 506 of "Erskine May". Having been extremely concerned over the possibility of hon. Members moving Amendments tabled not by them but by other hon. Members, and having been referred to page 506 of "Erskine May", I went to the source of that Ruling, which was given in July, 1911, when the then Mr. Speaker said: Nothing will prevent an hon. Member's name and notice appearing in the blue papers in the ordinary way the day after he has handed his notice in. For the convenience of Members who have to handle all this paper, I think if six names appear that ought to be sufficient bearing in mind that in Committee, if none of those six hon. Members are present, it is open to any hon. Member to get up without notice and move the Amendment on the paper".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1911; Vol. XXVII, c. 1148.] In view of the novel situation that is about to arise because of the nature of the Bill, it is time to reassess the value of that Ruling, because there is a danger that to expedite, for superficial reasons, the business of the Committee hon. Members may take advantage of the absence of other hon. Members and get Amendments dealt with without sufficient discussion.

The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), whose reputation as a democrat is equal to that of any hon. Member, earlier sought to move an Amendment to which his name did not appear, without success only because he was speaking to a point of order. Will you look into this matter, Mr. Mallalieu?

Mr. Jay

On a point of order. May I address you, Mr. Mallalieu, on three topics? First, am I right in thinking that it is out of order—that it has always been outwith the rules of the House of Commons—to closure points of order?

Second, your predecessor in the Chair had occasion to remark some time ago that some hon. Members were in danger of abusing the procedures of the Committee in these proceedings. I say "proceedings" because I cannot call this a debate. Did that remark apply equally to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, since we have had a large number of points of order raised from both sides? If it applied to only one side, may we be told which?

Third, it will be within the recollection of the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has in the last few hours made constructive suggestions on two occasions designed to bring order and reason into our deliberations, but on neither occasion has there been a response from the Government. A remarkable feature of these proceedings, during which the Solicitor-General has been speechless, has been—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman nearing his point of order?

Mr. Jay

I have reached it. Would it be possible for you to indicate to the Solicitor-General that a response from the Government is opportune, in view of the constructive suggestions that have come from this side of the Committee?

The Second Deputy Chairman

That is not a point of order for me. It is not for me to persuade hon. Members to speak, although it sometimes falls to the Chair to try to dissuade them from speaking. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the Closure being put while points of order are being taken is that the Closure can be put only on a Question, and there is no Question before the Committee.

Mr. Ross

On a point of order. Attempts have been made to discover the Government's intentions in this matter, Mr. Mallalieu, and this can be done only on the basis of a Motion to report Progress. We had what I can only describe as a strange Ruling about this, or perhaps I should say anticipating this, from the Chairman of Ways and Means, and it seems obvious that the initiative in this context will not come from the Government.

There is, however, another way out, and it lies in your hands, Mr. Mallalieu. The Leader of the House of Commons is responsible to hon. Members as well as to the Government. In view of the continued and lengthy absence of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask you to suspend the sitting for half an hour while a messenger is sent to fetch him?

The Second Deputy Chairman

It is certainly not out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to ask me such a question, but I am afraid that I could not accede to it.

Mr. John Silkin

On a point of order. The guardian of our proper conduct and the guardian of our arrangements is the Leader of the House, but for the last six hours he has not been present. If you are unable or unwilling to suspend the sitting, Mr. Mallalieu, could not a message be sent to the right hon. Gentleman?

There is a simple process that we might follow. The Solicitor-General does not know anything about parliamentary procedure—there is no reason why he should—any more than does the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Secretary of State for Wales knows something about the Conservative Party but not much about parliamentary procedure.

The one man who can bring the Leader of the House to us is the Whip. By your Chair, Mr. Mallalieu, there is a little bell. If the Whip presses it another Whip comes in from outside, and the Whip who has pressed the bell can tell the other Whip that the Leader of the House is required. I am sure that the Leader of the House would have come if somebody had told him that we have been asking for him for six hours.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. John Mendelson

The point I wish to raise is designed to see whether it would not be possible, through you, Mr. Mallalieu, and with your help—as is not infrequently done in Committee upstairs—to find some way of seeing whether it is not reasonable for us to get a consensus between the Executive, the Government and the rest of the Committee, perhaps through the person of the Leader of the House.

There are wild rumours circulating in the Lobby that the Leader of the House has resigned his position. I do not know whether there is any truth in them. But we have with us a member of the Government. People have been saying that the Leader of the House's absence for the last six hours is wholly unprecedented and cannot be explained reasonably, unless a member of the Treasury Bench can offer an explanation. It is not necessarily reasonable to insist that the right hon. Gentleman be fetched into the House—although that would be much the best thing—but we should at least call upon a member of the Government to give an explanation.

My point is that whether it be done through the person of the Leader of the House or through the person of the Solicitor-General, referring back to the statement made by the Chairman of Ways and Means at the beginning of these discussions the day before yesterday, when my hon. Friend began his first submission the Chairman of Ways and Means said: In a word, the Bill provides the legal nuts and bolts which are necessary if the United Kingdom is to be a member of the Communities. It is not a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession or any of the other treaties which are basic to the Communities. If it were such a Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] If hon. Members would be so kind as to wait for a moment. If it were such a Bill, then, of course, every article of those treaties would be open to discussion and the majority of Amendments to Clause 1 would be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 269.] It is not unprecedented that difficulties of this kind should arise in Committee. Many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee who have been Members of the House for a number of years will know that difficulties of one kind or another in a Standing Committee or a Committee of the whole House are not unprecedented.

Difficulties are sometimes overcome in the House or its Committees by a deliberate search for a consensus. The word "obstructing" has been used with reference to the debate, and some hon. Members have legitimately asked whether there could not be a ruling from the Chairman. The rights of the House have to be defended by hon. Members and not just the Chair. Anyone who knows a little of the history of this House knows that Mr. Charles Bradlaugh was not always at one with the Chair in defending the rights of the Members of the House. It cannot always be left to the Chair. Could you help in this situation, Mr. Mallalieu? You cannot compel the Government but you could, on the basis of the quotation I have read, help us to move towards a situation whereby the Government produce a Bill upon which there could be a consensus. I ask you to help us.

Mr. Molloy

On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. There have been occasions when this House or the House in Committee has been faced with an impasse. Not long ago there was a demonstration outside the House when a grave situation arose, and, thanks to a magnificent contribution by the Leader of the House, the situation was resolved. The right hon. Gentleman's behaviour was exemplary. We have a difficult situation now, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has attempted to resolve it. There never has been an issue as grave as this before us. Many of us believe that the Bill is almost illegal in the way it is drafted. [Interruption.] I will wait until the Patronage Secretary has finished talking to the Chair. I will begin again. I was saying that the Leader of the House was magnificent when there was a difficult situation outside the House. He made a remarkable contribution. We should consider the generous proposition of my hon. Friend. Since the Patronage Secretary is distracting your attention again, Mr. Mallalieu, I shall start again—

The Second Deputy Chairman

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat himself. I understand his point: it has been made many times before, and has been dealt with.

Mr. Molloy

It would be rude of me to break off in the middle of a speech to chat to one of my hon. Friends; you would call me to order, Mr. Mallalieu. So I hope that you will endeavour to keep the Patronage Secretary in order.

I am opposed to everything in the Bill, and other hon. Members who might be sympathetic are gravely apprehensive about certain aspects of it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said, the Leader of the House is the Leader of the whole House. Instead of whispering rudely while I am talking, perhaps the Patronage Secretary would consider the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and to ask the Ministers concerned to show some respect for the House and for the people who sent us here, who are also gravely concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "Point of order."] I am not a point of order, you nit.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Member must not call the Chair a nit.

Mr. Molloy

The Secretary of State for Employment once accused us of nitpicking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear!"] I am pleased to see that the Leader of the House is back. I hope he will convince the Ministers that my hon. Friend's proposal is pertinent. The Government should agree to report Progress so that the usual channels can get together and we can make a fresh start on one of the greatest issues that the country has ever faced.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Michael Foot

Now that the Leader of the House is present, I wonder if it would be helpful to the Committee of he made a statement as to how he thinks proceedings might continue. I hope that the suggestion I am making on a point of order might be welcome to him and that he will make a statement.

Hon. Members

Move your Amendment.

Mr. Pavitt

I apologise to you, Mr. Mallalieu, and to the Committee for the fact that on a previous point of order I inadvertently referred to Article 58 and not to Article 57 of the Treaty of Rome. That was because I did not then have my copy of the treaty in my hand.

I wish to put a further point of order. I am referring to the question raised previously about documents being before the Committee. I seek your Ruling on a different proposition. I refer to the discrepancy between the two copies of the treaty which are affected by Clause 1 and the Amendments we shall discuss when we start the Committee stage. Because I was very much involved in this matter in 1961, I retained my 1961 copy of the treaty. To refresh my memory, I have now obtained from the Library the 1967 copy. If hon. Members avail themselves of that they will see the affect of the Amendments we shall be discussing when the Chair calls them.

At the beginning of the copy which is available to hon. Members we read: N.B. This revised translation has been prepared by the Foreign Office for the convenience of Parliament and the public. It must not be treated as an official or authentic text. The problem which the Committee is facing is that the Chair will give deep consideration to debates on this subject and to the Amendments. If hon. Members have different copies of the treaty, the problem will be to know exactly to what they are referring. There is great discrepancy in regard to Article 48, about which hon. Members on this side of the Committee are profoundly concerned because it deals with the movement of workers and has an effect on the trade union movement. The two texts give different interpretations of what could happen if the Bill eventually passes and if Amendments are or are not accepted. The relationship of the Government with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. would be affected.

Although we cannot ask for the documents to be laid because of the Chairman's Ruling, will the Chair rule as to which text should be considered under Clause 1 and the Amendments relating to that Clause? Then hon. Members would know on precisely which text arguments can be adduced. I have the 1967 text and also what I suppose is the 1960 text. Could we have either a Ruling from the Chair or an indication from the Government as to what exactly Clause 1 is seeking to give accession to, so that we shall know that we are discussing the same documents and shall not be in a state of confusion.

I notice that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to match the colour of his tie, is carrying a blue edition of the treaty, whereas the virginal purity on this side of the House leads us to have a white version of the treaty. Therefore, since there appear to be differences, will the Chair give a definite ruling on which text we should use? Alternatively, I can ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) to give us a translation of the text which he has, which I understand is an authentic text, not in English, but in French, German, Italian and Dutch. Those are the official texts. I hope we shall receive some assistance on this matter.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I am anxious to help hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) in particular. However, it is not for the Chair to rule on the nature of the text or to say which text is the one to use.

Mr. Mellish

May I now make reference again to the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that we should hear the Government's view as to how we should end this impasse.

Mr. Rost

Move the Amendment.

Mr. Mellish

May I be allowed to put my point to the Leader of the House, who I am sure wishes to be helpful? My hon. Friend asked the Government to move that we should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. This would mean that we would move the first Amendment fairly quickly. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to disagree in regard to the formalities of moving the Amendment. However, I am sure that whoever on the Opposition side moved the Amendment would not do so at great length and that that hon. Member, if he had the opportunity to do so, could be called again.

I am as anxious as is the Leader of the House about the conduct of the House and about the way in which we get out of the difficulties in which we sometimes find ourselves. I regard this as one of the most contentious Bills during my 25 years' experience in this honourable House. Could I have an assurance from the Leader of the House that after the Amendment is moved and outlined, the right hon. Gentleman would move that we report progress and ask leave to sit again. I think that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have also made this suggestion which I am putting to the Leader of the House.

So I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the Government see the position, not only now but in the immediate hours ahead? The right hon. Gentleman may take it from me, as one who has had experience of the ability of my hon. Friends in matters of this kind, that he would be well advised not to go on but, instead, to help the Committee now.

Mr. Whitelaw

Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu, I have listened carefully to what has been said in these last few minutes. I did not respond earlier because I wished to hear a little more. I realise the difficulty in which the Committee is placed, but I find it hard to understand why it is not possible, on the basis of what the Opposition Chief Whip has said, for the Amendment to be moved and for the Committee to make progress. It is impossible to report Progress until some progress has been made.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Amendment should be moved. Very well. Let it be moved. Let the debate start. Let us make some progress. Then certainly I shall be prepared to consider the position. I think that that is a reasonable proposition.

I am not in the Chair, and I do not know whether the Chair would accept a Motion to report Progress. But surely the sensible course is for the Amendment to be moved. What is the purpose of going on as the Committee is at present? It makes no sense. Why not move the Amendment, start the debate in an orderly and proper way, let us make some progress, and see how we get on?

Mr. Mellish

The Chairman of Ways and Means indicated that he would be prepared to consider such a Motion in certain circumstances. There is no doubt about the attitude of the Chair. This debate has been going on since 10.30—

Mr. Rost

It has not started.

Mr. Mellish

The discussion has been going on since 10.30—

Mr. Rost

The Opposition's filibuster has been going on.

Mr. Mellish

I could answer the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), but I shall treat his remark with the contempt that it deserves.

The Leader of the House says that he wants some progress. I do not know whether he takes the view that progress will have been made only after four or five speeches on the Amendment. I suggested that the Amendment should be moved. In that way, the Committee stage would have been launched. We should have started, and I understand that that was the desire of many hon. Members. I think it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman were to say that once the Committee stage had been launched and the appropriate Amendment had been moved he would consider moving a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Whitelaw

Let us move the Amendment and see how we get on. I think that that is a sensible proposition. If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Amendment be moved, I cannot see why we should not move it and see how we get on. That is the normal procedure, and I cannot see why it cannot be followed in this case.

Mr. Michael Foot

The Leader of the House says that this is the normal way, but he is not quite correct. The normal way for these matters to be dealt with is for a Motion to be moved to report progress and then, on the basis of that Motion, for the Committee to discuss how it proposes to proceed.

What is more, there is no rule of this House which says that if a Committee has not made progress such a Motion is not possible. There have been many occasions when no progress has been made on a Bill in the sense that we have not proceeded with the Amendments and when such a Motion moved by a Minister has been accepted by the Chair. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman is not correct when he says that he does not know whether the Chair would accept such a Motion. He is well aware that, in the circumstances and after these discussions, of course the Chair would accept such a Motion.

All that the right hon. Gentleman has to agree to is that we move the Amendment formally, which is what I proposed about two hours ago. If he says that he will not agree to that, but that he requires us to move the first group of Amendments and to embark on the discussion and he will then choose when to move the Motion, that is not satisfactory.

4.45 a.m.

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why it is not satisfactory from our point of view. It is for the reason which I gave earlier. I apologise to those hon. Members who were present before, because I must repeat it. The reason, which is perfectly serious, is concerned with the affairs of the House, and particularly the Committee stage of the Bill. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), who was to move this group of Amendments, had now to rise and embark upon a general discussion of the whole range of those Amendments he would have to do that without having had the opportunity to consider—

Mr. John E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)

The hon. and learned Gentleman has had plenty of time to think about them.

Mr. Foot

—the new Amendment which the Chairman of Ways and Means announced at the beginning of our proceedings he was proposing to accept.

We believe that we have the right, particularly when the whole controversy has been how these Amendments are selected and what is the relationship between them, to consider how this affects the general Amendments to the Bill. That is one reason why we do not wish to proceed to a general discussion. We want an opportunity to examine the effect of the Ruling, which was given only at the beginning of this proceeding, because it is a complicated matter.

I will guarantee that very few hon. Members know what is contained in Amendment No. 49 and how it affects the Bill. If the Leader of the House will get up and tell me exactly what Amendment No. 49 does and what its effect will be, I should be grateful. I should be glad of the enlightenment. I would readily give way if he were willing to do that, but I do not think that he will wish to do so.

There is also the question, raised some hours ago now from the other side of the Committee, not the Opposition, about the relationship of some of the other Amendments to the way we would be discussing them. These are reasons why we would not wish to proceed with the general discussion of the Committee stage of the Bill.

The offer which the Leader of the House has made does not meet the situation. We have made an offer which would deal with the situation and would not inflict any great injury upon the Government. They would not have to go away as if they had suffered a great defeat. It would not mean anything like that. We have made an offer which we hope will get the Government, ourselves, and the Committee out of this difficulty. As I said before—I do not think that the Leader of the House was present—there would be neither victors nor vanquished. It would mean that when we proceed next week, maybe, to the Committee stage of the Bill, we would start with a clean slate, having had the opportunity to look at all these Amendments and consider the relationship between the Amendments which were on the Notice Paper before and those which have now suddenly been accepted by the Chair.

I should have thought that the Committee would consider this quite a serious point. Having debated the question of the rejection of Amendments by the Chair for so long, when we came to the proceedings at 10 o'clock—I do not know whether the Leader of the House was here then—we were suddenly faced with a new situation because the Chairman of Ways and Means—I am not blaming him—had accepted a new group of Amendments. That group of Amendments was not grouped in the way they had been put down. It was very complicated.

Many other points of order have been raised and when Sir Robert was in the Chair he said that almost all the points he had heard were serious points of order. As the Leader of the House has not heard what happended over the past three or four hours, I might ask him to consider whether, if he had heard, he would have been in a more willing mood to hear representations made to him. So I plead with him to accept the perfectly reasonable proposal we have made to deal with the situation.

We are not prepared to accept the arrangement that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should embark on the whole discussion in general without any guarantee as to when the Motion is to be moved.

Mr. Whitelaw

I will, of course, respond to the hon. Member. I think I have made a perfectly reasonable proposal. He thinks he has made a perfectly reasonable proposal. I am perfectly prepared to discuss this with him, or through the usual channels. It is a sensible way of doing it. I feel my proposal is reasonable, and it is clear that my hon. Friends do. He thinks his is reasonable. Let us discuss them.

Mr. Emery

A number of hon. Members who have been here during the whole debate and since some time before 10 a.m. are wishing to make progress. Before any discussion takes place through the usual channels, some of them feel that reasonable progress should be made before we adjourn.

It is important that that view should be expressed to the Leader of the House, and not only the views of hon. Members opposite, who for six and a half hours have been raising points of order many times over and over again in a way to do nothing but delay the starting of this Bill. That needs to be said so that people outside the House should realise it.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher

I rise to a point of order. I want to make it clear to the House that what has been happening during the past 12 hours of simulated trench warfare is what happened when every country now in the European Economic Community adopted the Bills which carried them into the Community.

We are compelled by technical difficulties to conduct this type of debate in a form of points of order. It is not our fault, but lies in the nature of the Bill which has been presented to us.

I submit to you, Mr. Mallalieu, a proposition that an illegitimate Bill must be resisted by such methods as are available for those who want to resist it. I want to ask for certain guidance: whether the accumulated experience of the Community itself may from time flow in into our discussions, and inform them. As I hinted earlier, on a representation made on a different point of order, when the German Federal Republic decided to join the E.E.C., it did so by an instrument which was subject to amendment and was amended profoundly and in such a way that by a peculiar paradox the East German State—the German Democratic Republic—became, in effect, an associate member of the European Economic Community. That is clearly stated in an annex to the Treaty of Rome. When we are discussing that treaty—and we are compelled to do so in the form of points of order because of the way in which the Bill has been presented—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Member has not yet revealed to me his point of order.

Mr. Fletcher

I will now reveal it. The word "unprecedented" has been used more than 35 times in the last 12 hours, but since what we are doing and the Bill we are discussing are both unprecedented, I suggest that a large part of "Erskine May" is almost as relevant as the Second Book of Deuteronomy. Therefore, since we must look for precedents in presenting our arguments, is it in order to cite precedents from the accumulated experience of the Six countries which are already members of the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom?

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Member must not expect me to give a blanket ruling on whether certain things will be in order. It all depends upon whether what is said by hon. Members is relevant, and that I can only tell when it has been said.

Mr. O'Malley

The points of order which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in the last half-hour have revealed significant and deep differences of opinion as to how the remaining hours of this morning should be spent.

In an attempt to reach agreement, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has put two propositions, both of which have been turned down. The Leader of the House made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that, because of those differences of opinion, his proposition, vague as it was, and the proposition of my hon. Friend could best be discussed through the usual channels. If that discussion is to take place, what is to be the conduct of the Committee during those private discussions? I hope that those discussions can take place immediately, although the Leader of the House, whom we are glad to see, is still with us.

Several ways are open to us. Many hon. Members have points of order which they can raise while the private discussions are going on, but the Chair has hinted several times that it does not find this situation entirely satisfactory. As we have been raising points of order since twenty-six minutes past ten, the time is long overdue for a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I do not know for how much longer the Chair can resist such a Motion. That would be one way for the Committee to discuss the differences which exist, since it cannot properly be done on points of order.

5.0 a.m.

If you would not accept such a Motion, Mr. Mallalieu, I refer to the second proposition put by my hon. Friend when he asked the Chairman of Ways and Means whether he would accept a Motion that he should leave the Chair. Quite properly within the rules of order, if his interpretation is correct, the Chairman decided that under Standing Order No. 28 he could not and would not accept that Motion either. We are now in a different situation.

It is unreasonable to sit from twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock until five in the morning without the Committee having an opportunity to discuss the general situation under the heading of a Motion to report Progress, and, in a sense of dissatisfaction with the Chair for refusing to accept a Motion to report Progress in these circumstances, it seems reasonable to ask you whether you would now accept a Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair. The situation is intolerable, and in the circumstances I submit that the Chair must accept one of the two options open to it—either a Motion to report Progress or a Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair on the ground that the judgment of the Chair in refusing a Motion to report Progress is entirely unreasonable in the circumstances.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman has expressed the view that it is unreasonable that the Committee should spend so much time as it has. That may or may not be so. It is hardly for me, so new to the position, to express a judgment to the Committee on that matter. But there are other ways to alter the situation than the Motions to which he has referred. He could discuss the Amendments, for instance.

Mr. Loughlin

On a point of order, Sir Robert. Can we find out why the heating has been turned off in the building? Apart from hon. Members, a number of staff are still on the premises. I think it is within the power of the Chair to make an investigation. The conditions for the staff, quite apart from hon. Members, are becoming less than they could demand in offices and shops as far as heating is concerned. Could you look into the matter with a view to looking after, if not hon. Members, then the officers and staff who have to put up with these conditions?

The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

I will make inquiries. I would be glad if the Serjeant at Arms would make inquiries into whether the heating has been turned off and, if so, why.

Mr. W. T. Williams (Warrington)

On a point of order. As you may know, Sir Robert, I have sat through the whole of the debate. I hoped to be called but was not called. I have sat through the whole of the discussion relating to points of order since 10.30 p.m. I have had an increasing sense of alarm about the way in which the whole of the discussion has gone, and that has cumulated in the speech made by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), who, in his point of order, seemed to epitomise the gulf that has grown between both sides of the House. In the interjections that have been made from time to time, either in formal speeches such as his or, indeed, in shouts from the yah-hoo brigade that surrounds him, it appears that the Government Benches have reached the point at which, whatever the merits of the case may be, they are concerned only to ensure that the prestige of the Government is maintained by an insistence that the debate shall be begun on the matters affecting the Committee irrespective of the quality of that debate.

I should like to raise three matters, Sir Robert, in the points of order upon which I have risen after remaining silent for so long. The first arises in this way. You will recall, Sir Robert, that when you were earlier making your Ruling regarding matters that had been discussed in yesterday's debate, you refused at any time to consider any of the matters that arose, as you put it, from a decision that you had taken, a decision that you say in your Ruling—I am not criticising your Ruling—had been supported by the vote of the House, and that therefore, your judgment having been vindicated, these matters were no longer matters that were open to further debate.

I have no intention of going behind that curtain that has been drawn by your Ruling and your view of what it was that the vote at 10 p.m. provided. May I, however, say this, referring only to that Ruling in the light of its effect upon the future conduct of the debates in Committee on this very important constitutional Bill? By the view that you, Sir Robert, have taken of the vote taken at 10 o'clock, it appears, at least to me, that there is a possibility that any Ruling made in the future regarding Amendments that are put down by hon. Members will have in context the fact that the decision that you arrived at in relation to these Amendments that you have now declared to be out of order will be the context within which—at least so I fear, and possibly my hon. Friends share that fear—you will consider all future Amendments relating to the Bill.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not be too apprehensive about all this. I assure him and the Committee that as these Amendments come in I shall look at them quite objectively and not in relation to what I have done necessarily as part of a general policy. I shall look at each Amendment and see whether it is in order, and rule accordingly. So far, I have not considered Amendments to Clause 2. There is no point in my doing so. It will be a long time before we reach the Clause.

There may be more Amendments to Clause 1 before we are finished with it which may be in order, for all I know. I ask the hon. and learned Member not to try to prejudge the issue or to put me in the position where I must disallow Amendments in the future based on what I have done in the past. That would be wrong. We shall have to see how we go.

Mr. Williams

I am grateful for that advice, Sir Robert. But in putting down Amendments whether to Clause 1, if that is still possible, or to other Clauses, the House has already received a formal statement, an expression of reasons and principles by which you have declared yourself guided in deciding that certain Amendments could or could not be in or out of order. The position, therefore, in considering whether a particular Amendment would be in order or not is that those who contemplate putting down new Amendments will have to bear in mind the formal declaration of the grounds upon which earlier Amendments have been declared to be outwith the principles of the Bill as already expressed by the Chair.

Not only has a threat of circumscription been laid on Amendments that may possibly be put down. It is also bound to have a considerable effect upon the extent to which hon. Members on this side would be able to make a serious contribution on Amendments which have been admitted or even reconstructed into new groups, in- cluding two new Amendments, of the quality demanded by the importance and significance of the Bill.

I hope hon. Members on the Government side will acquit us of wishing to do no more than keep the House going over a long period in order to prevent the Government conducting its business. I would much rather be in bed than lend myself to that kind of charade. Hon. Members on both sides should acquit each other of being capable of behaving totally irresponsibly in their sense of duty as Members of Parliament. We do not want to continue the debate in these circumstances because we believe that it is below the level of the events we are shaping. Do hon. Members on the Government side believe that justifies them in saying, irrespective of the quality of the debate, irrespective of the exercise of thought that has gone into the Amendments and the need to give Amendments the content and quality that the Bill deserves, that it is of such little consequence that it does not matter whether people can gather their thoughts and make a serious contribution. Do they regard that as of no consequence?

5.15 a.m.

The Chairman

I have the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, and I am much obliged to him for helping me. But the whole Committee knows exactly why we have not made progress. It is because one part of the Committee does not want US to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let us be under no illusions. That is the reason, and, therefore, it would be wrong of me to accept a Motion that would have the effect of terminating business, because we could have made quite a lot of progress had the Committee wished. Therefore, I should not be acting strictly in accord with my position as an impartial Chairman if I accepted such a closure at this stage, having regard to the way in which our proceedings have gone. So now I call Mr. Clinton Davis.

Mr. Clinton Davis

I have two new points of order—

The Chairman

May I say first that I have received a note from the Serjeant at Arms saying: Please inform the Chair that the control room informs me that the temperature in the Chamber is 68°F and that the heating is functioning normally throughout the building.

Mr. Loughlin

I do not know who is is responsible for that report. I shall be quite willing to place myself at the disposal of the Serjeant at Arms—

The Chairman

That is a matter that need not be brought to my attention. The hon. Gentleman may do exactly as he chooses in that way. Mr. Clinton Davis —

Mr. Loughlin

rose—

The Chairman

Order. I will not hear any more on that matter.

Mr. Loughlin

rose—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows well enough that is not properly a point of order. As far as I am concerned, the matter has been disposed of, and I have called Mr. Clinton Davis.

Mr. Loughlin

Well, name me then if you feel like that. You accepted the responsibility—

The Chairman

Order—

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

May I make an observation—

The Chairman

Order. We have been extremely good-tempered throughout the evening. I should hate anything to happen that might disturb that peaceful tranquillity. I do not wish to be overbearing with the hon. Gentleman, but a report has been brought to me by the responsible Officer of the House, which I am bound to accept as conclusive. I am not prepared to accept a divergent discussion. We are very busy with important points of order and trying to hurry along so that we can get to discussion of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to check what has been said by the Serjeant at Arms, I should be glad if he would make his own arrangements and let me call Mr. Clinton Davis, which I have done.

Mr. Loughlin

With the greatest respect, Sir Robert, it has always been the responsibility of the Chair not necessarily simply to accept but to investigate further, and I challenge the report that has been submitted to you.

The Chairman

In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take the neces- sary steps to implement his challenge. Mr. Clinton Davis—

Dame Irene Ward

Sir Robert, may I ask you—

The Chairman

If the hon. Lady wishes to raise a point of order, I will call her next as soon as I have heard Mr. Clinton Davis.

Dame Irene Ward

This is not a point of order. I do not see why—

The Chairman

The hon. Lady is out of order. We are on points of order. I have already called Mr. Clinton Davis, and I will call the hon. Lady immediately I have finished hearing Mr. Davis.

Mr. Clinton Davis

I have two points of order that have not been touched on. First, I seek your guidance, Sir Robert, as to the order of debate when the debate is reached. "Erskine May" says at page 507: For the sake of convenience, and with the consent of the committee, the chairman frequently permits debate to range over several amendments which raise different aspects of the proposal in the actual amendment under consideration. This latitude in debate is usually allowed on the understanding that, if the later amendments are called, they may be divided on if desired, but not discussed. The Amendments you have selected may be closely related. It may be necessary in debating the first group of Amendments—96 and those to be taken with it—to touch upon Amendments 97, 3, 29, 31, 23 and 40. It is clear that they touch upon each other in many material respects.

The Chairman

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think he is trying to get me to do something I cannot do. I cannot discuss the selection of Amendments for the future. I shall, of course, be very pleased to discuss those with the hon. Gentleman at the appropriate time.

Mr. Davies

With respect, Sir Robert, that is not the point at all. You have given a provisional selection of Amendments, and it is these to which I am referring. If, for example, in the debate on the first group one touches upon the other Amendments, will that in any way inhibit debate upon those matters if they are subsequently raised as substantive Amendments? This is a difficult matter. These are very closely related, yet it would be profoundly unsatisfactory if I, for example, sought to raise some of these subsequent provisionally selected Amendments while debating Amendment No. 96 and then it were held by the Chair later that some other hon. Members were in any way to be inhibited from debating these matters and voting upon them subsequently.

The Chairman

I have the hon. Gentleman's point quite clearly. Passing references to Amendments which are not out of order will not be ruled out of order by the Chair, but it would be wrong to develop arguments, for example, on Amendment No. 97 when we were discussing the group of Amendments preceding it or any of the other Amendments. I think that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Davis

Not wholly, Sir Robert, because it could well be more than a passing reference. For example, taking Amendment No. 96—

The Chairman

In that case the more logical course might be to group the Amendments even more closely than I have. If it were the wish of the Committee to take Amendment No. 97 with the other group and no hon. Member objected, I should have no objection, but I do not know whether a debate on that would be particularly relevant.

Mr. Davis

Some hon. Members may make more than a passing reference, and that would not be acceptable to the Committee. Yet, inevitably, there would be a connection between Amendments. If we look closely at the Amendments we see that there is a distinct possibility that some hon. Members will wish to make more than a passing reference to them. If they were to do that, would they be ruled out of order and thereby prejudice the right of other hon. Members? These are matters upon which the Committee requires your guidance, Sir Robert, at this stage, and I hope that you will indicate your view on that point when I have dealt with my second point.

There is in the Chamber one member of the Government Front Bench who is a Privy Councillor, and he has sworn an oath included in which are the following words: You will to your uttermost bear Faith and allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States or Potentates. It may be that you would direct any Privy Councillors here as to how that oath impinges on the matters within the subject matter of the Bill. It would seem that they are directly related to the subject matter of the Bill.

The third point is that when we have been asking for Progress to be reported the Leader of the House, when he has been present—albeit fleetingly; I know not whether he has gone off to resign pursuant to the rumour—but I see that he is back. He indicated that he was content to abide by certain normal practices in dealing with the situation. But this is not a normal situation; it is an abnormal situation. The Bill is an abnormal Bill, and the position in which the Committee has been placed tonight is extraordinary, because debate has been stifled by the very nature of the Bill.

In those circumstances is it not the bounden duty of the Leader of the House to regard this situation as being quite abnormal and to adopt abnormal procedures to resolve the impasse?

The Chairman

None of those points is for me. I cannot pre-judge what course the debate will take in the future. I see no reason to suppose that when it takes place it will be different from the normal.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

On a point of order, Sir Robert. The hon. Member who has just spoken has purported to read out, and thus to put upon the record of the House, part of the Privy Councillor's oath, which I understand is a secret oath, which it is improper to divulge or publish. I therefore ask whether it is not part of your duty, Sir Robert, to direct that the words purporting to be quoted shall not be included in the official record.

Mr. English

There are many publications in which various versions of the Privy Council oath are printed. We can start in 1255 with the first recorded version, and mediaeval ones will be found in "Baldwin's Privy Council", with subsequent oaths in various textbooks on constitutional law and history. I am aware that there is this myth among Privy Councillors that their oath is secret but since the oath has been there for such a long time and various copies have been provided I feel that its secrecy has been honoured more in the breach than the observance for many centuries.

5.30 a.m.

The Chairman

That is not a matter for me but is something which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) should bring before Mr. Speaker at the appropriate time.

Mr. Heffer

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. If this is so surely the Committee ought to be suspended to allow Mr. Speaker to come to the House and be questioned on this valid point. It is obvious to any intelligent person—[Laughter]—yes, to any intelligent person—that this Committee is in a real impasse because of the deep feelings held on both sides over the nature of this Bill. Surely the intelligent thing to do is to suspend the business so that the usual channels can discuss matters.

If not, the other course is for the House to summon a Select Committee to go into the whole question of the type of legislation required to satisfy not only hon. Members but the general public, who will understand this morning that there is considerable feeling in Committee. This feeling reflects the views of the public who are not prepared to allow this type of legislation to go through. We are being denied the right to discuss important changes in the law. If anyone says we are not in an impasse, why have we been here for the last six hours discussing points of order? If that is not an impasse I do not know what is.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the situation is quite clear. What impasse there is is due to those who wish to disobey the order to the Committee, which is to get on with the Committee stage. That is how the impasse arises. Hon. Members must use their judgment as to whether they think they are right. I have told them for my part that I am bound to give them the advice—because it is the sort of advice the House demands I must give—that they are wrong. They are doing it, and there it is. I see no reason why I should regard the situation as an impasse. It might be that upon the first Amendment I would be asked to accept the Closure. We should do the job we were given to do. We would make ourselves look a lot better in the eyes of the world.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

During the course of the evening, Sir Robert, there have been many compliments paid to you for the good nature you have shown in dealing with this matter but, candidly, you have reached a totally different level of chairmanship in seeking throughout, particularly in your last remarks, to interpret the motives of hon. Members in seeking to raise their points of order.

You have been the only Member tonight—for you are a Member of the House—who has been entirely free from the rules of order in his comments on the motives of other hon. Members—a thing which would not be accepted from any other hon. Member had he used such language in raising a point of order with you. To say that we have been disobeying the orders of the House, that we have been engaged in a mockery, is, if I may use your own language, itself a dereliction of the rôle of the Chair in those circumstances.

The Chairman

Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot say that. He has not actually been here for most of the time—

Mr. Benn

I have.

The Chairman

There have been several occasions during the course of the evening's proceedings when I have said precisely the identical words—

Mr. Benn

I have heard you.

The Chairman

—and no one has taken any exception to them. It is part of my duty to say these things. [Interruption.] There is no need to get worked up about this at all. I am not attributing any nasty motives to anyone. Everybody is free to raise whatever points of order he sees fit, but I am bound to give some guidance to the Committee about what I think that it should do. That is all I seek to do. Otherwise, I might have to refuse to take any more points of order at all and precipitate a dreadful situation in the House. I am not doing that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not impute to me any motives which I do not have. I always endeavour to exercise the utmost impartiality, and as long as the House is good enough to have me in this position, I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Benn

Further to that point of order. I have heard you make these remarks during the course of the evening, Sir Robert. It was the strength and vigour of your language on the last occasion which brought me to my feet for the first time on a point of order. I must ask you to allow me to put this point to you.

During the course of this debate, you have been interpreting for the world at large what has been going on tonight. You have said many times that the reason why we have made no progress is that a section of the Committee does not wish to make progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I will come to the substantive point. You have said that some hon. Members have been disobeying the orders or rules of the House—abusing them, making a mockery of them.

Earlier today, Sir Robert, a Motion on your conduct was debated by the House and rejected. You have therefore spoken in the course of this night's proceedings with the authority that comes from a Motion on your conduct having been rejected by the House at this sitting. Therefore, the outside world, considering the proceedings throughout the night, will naturally tend to be guided by your interpretation of events—

Dame Irene Ward

Quite right.

Mr. John E. B. Hill

So they should.

Mr. Benn

But it is not the function of the Chair to interpret debates. The function of the Chair is to preserve order, to listen to points of order and to preserve general discipline in the debate. I fear that in your amusing comments on questions put to you you have been giving a running commentary upon the substance of what has happened during the night which runs counter to the intention of hon. Members in the debate.

I come to the substance as to whether what has happened tonight has been, as you have suggested, an abuse of Parliament or, as I believe, a defence of our parliamentary system. I say this because, although hon. Members may have found what happened in the last few hours offensive, the truth is that if this Bill became law we could debate night after night with no legal prospect of making real the conclusions that we had reached. This is what the whole thing is about. If this Bill goes through, I am very much alarmed that your interpretation will give the public who will read and take note of your words a wholly false impression that we are motivated by a desire to bring Parliament into disrepute. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] Not at all. If we were to accept the position the Government have put us in, we would find that because of your selection the whole of page 1 of the Bill would go through. The first Amendment selected refers to page 2. If we accepted that the Government have the right to treat us in this way, the whole of page 1 would go straight on to the Statute Book.

The Chairman

On a question of fact, the right hon. Member is wrong. There is an Amendment to page 1.

Mr. Benn

It is a paving Amendment, or one which bears on a subsequent Amendment. This is a point of substance. So far as my hon. Friends, by a variety of points of order, have sought to draw the attention of the Chair, of the Chancellor of the Duchy and other hon. Members, including the Leader of the House, to what is happening, they have done so not to bring the House into disrepute but to preserve as long as we can the rights of Parliament to determine its own affairs.

I wish to put another point to you. I understand that if this Bill goes through the European Court will be able to adjudicate on matters of law that bear upon the question of whether we have properly acceded to the Community. Were some citizen to go to the Court and say that we had not acceded properly, your Rulings tonight would be taken into evidence by the European Court in determining whether Britain had legally acceded to the treaties. It is therefore of considerable importance that in the conduct of proceedings during this very difficult night you should not give vent to expressions of view about events that go so far as interpreting motives of hon. Members.

For these reasons I ask you once again to accept the Motion that you should leave the Chair and allow these proceedings to go into abeyance until the Government are in a position to make a further statement to the House and the House can take on board the magnitude of this Bill.

The Chairman

If I were to accept that Motion in the terms in which it has been put forward, the House of Commons would be made a laughing stock in the country. I certainly would not accept a Motion like that under any consideration. Another thing I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I am expressly charged by the House of Commons to assist it to get through the business before it. That is my work. I have to do that with strict impartiality so that both sides of the question are heard. The Queen's Government and the Queen's business must be carried forward in the long run. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have to do my best. Those who are in the Chair have to see that the business is forwarded, if they can. [An HON. MEMBER: "Disgraceful."] I would ask hon. Members to remain calm and try to see the situation through my eyes.

5.45 a.m.

I have asked hon. Gentlemen several times during the night to drop what they are now doing and get on to the first terms of the Bill. I have not imputed any ghastly motives to them in not doing it. I have merely said that I thought it was the right and proper thing to do. But they must be the judges of that. Over and again I have used those very words, that they must be the judges of whether what they are doing is in the best interests of all our desires. Therefore, I must leave it to them. It is wrong to suggest that I am trying to bring undue or unfair pressures to bear upon them. If I conveyed that in what I said on the last occasion, then I did not mean to go beyond what I have been saying throughout these proceedings, and this has not raised any difficulty before. I ask the Committee to accept that.

Mr. Buchan

Disgraceful.

Mr. O'Malley

Send for the Speaker.

Dame Irene Ward

On a point of order. You have been asked, Sir Robert, to take some action about the temperature—not the temperature outside or among hon. Members opposite, but the temperature in this Chamber. I must say that at five o'clock in the morning I do not feel a temperature of 68 degrees is suitable. That is all I wanted to say. But now that I am on my feet I should like to express the opinion to you, Sir Robert, that when Europe looks at this debate it will think the Opposition have gone mad, and I believe they have.

Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd)

On a point of order, Sir Robert. In giving your last Ruling you said that your intention at the end of the day is to see that the Government's business and the Queen's business go through. Do I understand you to take it as part of your function to act as agent of Government in assisting them to get through this Committee stage legislation which is highly contentious and on which many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen feel very passionately indeed? Is that how we are to interpret your Ruling. If we are not to interpret it in that way, how are we to interpret that phrase?

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman should interpret that Ruling on the lines that it is the duty of the Chair to the best of his ability to further the business of the House. That is how hon. Gentlemen should see it, and that is what I intended to say.

Mr. Ross

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I take very strong exception to the last Ruling, and particularly to certain words you used—whether or not you intended to use them. You said that we—and presumably you were referring to the Opposition side of the House alone—had disobeyed the orders of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "'Abused' was the word".] I wrote the words down. I want to know what orders we have disobeyed. You later said that you had given us advice and that we had ignored it. I agree, but I question your right to say that we have disobeyed orders.

The Chairman

It is clear that what I mean is that when the House goes into Committee the House charges the Committee to get on with its job and not to pursue dilatory tactics indefinitely. I believe that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) would be the first to agree that dilatory tactics have been engaged in for some considerable time. I repeat what I said before. It must be for right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition benches to judge whether that is right. All that I can do is point out these matters and leave it to right hon. and hon. Members to decide what they should do.

Mr. Ross

Can you tell me, Sir Robert, what orders we have disobeyed? We have exercised our rights. In this position, we should be very poor Members of Parliament if we did not.

The Chairman

As I see it, when the House orders a Committee of the House to proceed with its work it means the Committee to get on with its job. In fact, the Committee has not got on with the job. It has decided to do otherwise. That is what I mean by "an order". I do not mean that it is an express, mandatory order in so many words—"thou shalt". But when the House goes into Committee, the House naturally expects the Committee to proceed with its work. In that sense, it is an order.

Mr. Crouch

It is not strange that, after many hours discussing points of order, tempers should be running a little short. You, Sir Robert, are perhaps the lone example of the man who has "kept his cool". We all appreciate it, and I think that that appreciation is echoed by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. It is only in the last few minutes that avuncular views have been expressed by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), which smacked somewhat of pomposity and even of hypocrisy.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has sought on a number of occasions to suggest that you should accept a Motion to report Progress. He has done so because he feels that the Committee is in a state of unrest. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has considered that and replied that he feels that the Committee wants to make progress. I cannot see that it can be said now that the Opposition have not had a very fair run for their money.

I do not argue that the majority of the points of order that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have raised have not been made with some skill so as not to try your patience too much. But the time has come when the proposition of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the counter-proposition of my right hon. Friend should be considered seriously. I come down strongly in favour of my right hon. Friend's suggestion, because surely it is the object of both sides of the Committee to make some progress now. The only way that we can make progress is for the Amendment to be moved.

Mr. Spearing

On a point of order, Sir Robert. Earlier this evening my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) referred to some correspondence which we have had in the past. I would not refer to that. I thank you for your graciousness in replying to my request that, as Chairman, you exercised your discretion in some of the Rulings which you have made.

In the exchanges which you had with my hon. Friend I seem to recall that you stated, quite correctly, that the matter on which we voted at 10 o'clock last night disposed of that matter because of the Ruling which you then made. However, I understand that the matter which we discussed last night concerned Rulings given by you, Sir Robert, regarding the selection of Amendments on the Notice Paper for what was Tuesday.

If I am right, there were at least two Amendments, which you mentioned in your correspondence with me—namely, Amendments Nos. 43 and 60—which do not fall within the purview of the Ruling which you gave on Tuesday and, by that token, do not fall within the vote which we had last night. Therefore, they remain outstanding as regards the matter of that correspondence.

Amendment No. 43 is in page 2, line 23, at end add: (5) This Act shall not apply to Wales or Scotland. Amendment No. 60 is in page 2, line 23, at end add: (5) Title V of Part Four of the Treaty of Accession shall not be included as part of such Treaty without an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. I understand that the reason given for the ruling out of order of a number of Amendments—this was mentioned earlier in these discussions—was that they subject to parliamentary approval provisions of the treaties already accepted.

I cannot follow—perhaps you may be able to help me, Sir Robert—why this House cannot say that Title V of Part Four of the Treaty of Accession—I believe that it has something to do with capital movements—shall not be included as part of such treaty without an affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament.

The Chairman

Order. I am sorry, but I cannot help the hon. Gentleman, because those two Amendments are out of order and they have been disposed of.

Mr. Heffer

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert.

Mr. Spearing

Further to that point of order.

Mr. Heffer

My hon. Friend wants to finish his point of order.

Mr. Spearing

Do I take it, Sir Robert, that you have not accepted my submission that Amendments Nos. 43 and 60 were not part of the Ruling which you gave on Tuesday? I understand that those Amendments did not appear on the list of selected Amendments which was published on Tuesday. Will you please confirm that?

The Chairman

No, they did not appear, because they were not in order.

Mr. Heffer

It grieves me to raise this point of order, Sir Robert, but it has to be done.

Earlier you gave a rather contradictory reply to something which you had said previously. There is no doubt that throughout the points of order tonight you have tended to appear as if you were being partisan. I understand the difficulties which face a chairman. I have been a chairman of just as difficult a body as this, perhaps more difficult—the Liverpool Trades Council Labour Party. I was the only chairman who ever got through an entire year without being moved out of the chair. I understood that a chairman had never to be partial and had to fall over backwards to be impartial towards his friends. I am afraid that has not happened tonight and that you did not sufficiently answer the point made by my hon. Friend as to what rules of order of this House have been disobeyed.

6.0 a.m.

I would draw the attention of the House to a previous Bill which went through Second Reading and was finally withdrawn. I refer to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. There was an agreement between the two Front Benches and, I think, the Leader of the Liberal Party but not the majority of his Members. But there was an objection to that Bill on both sides of the House, strong objection, and, although it was my Government which were trying to put it through, those of us who objected to it used every parliamentary ploy we legally could to oppose it. I never once remember the Chair at that time attacking any Member of any side of the House for using legitimate parliamentary tactics. To many on this side, and to some on that, this Bill is just as offensive—

Hon. Members

More.

Mr. Heffer

—all right—just as offensive, and as my hon. Friends have said, more offensive because of the greater damage it does. At least, if that Bill had gone through, another Parliament could have got rid of it, but it will not be so easy with this Bill because we could be tied for a long time to something without knowing how to get out of the situation.

I come back to the point that the Chairman must always be totally impartial. That means he must not be the Government's agent, nor even appear to be an agent of the Government of the day to get their legislation through.

That did not happen on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. The Chair was scrupulously fair from beginning to end, and in the end the Government saw the writing on the wall. They came to understand the strength of feeling on both sides, although there was a majority for Second Reading. This Government will have to learn the same lesson on this Bill, and they might as well do it now before many hours are wasted going throughout the coming year on this legislation.

My point of order is that I hope you will give us a firm assurance that from now on there will be total impartiality.

Hon. Members

Shame.

The Chairman

I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that the House knows me well enough to know that I am not worried about my impartiality, which is 100 per cent. secure.

Hon. Members

We are.

The Chairman

Perhaps hon. Members will not feel like that all the time. Hon. Members may feel like it now, but the esteem in which they hold me will return to them. They know me well enough to know that my first love is the House of Commons and that I want to see this place function properly as a Parliament.

As long as I am in the Chair I will exercise my impartiality. It simply means that I deem it my job at times to point out certain things. I have said over and over again that it is up to hon. Members whether they heed what I say, or whether they go along the way they have chosen, which they are entitled to do. Let there be no mistake about that. I am entitled to point out from the position which I hold the dangers of hon. Members doing so. I feel confident that when the present turmoil is over hon. Members will have no fears about my impartiality, and I assure them that they need have no fears.

Mr. Cormack

I am sure that my hon. Friends on this side of the House will dissent totally from what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said. We believe that you have been placed in an extremely difficult and almost intolerable position, Sir Robert. When the public read what has gone on they will form their own conclusions. It is absolutely legitimate for hon. Members to fight a Bill Clause by Clause and line by line. If a Bill is offensive to hon. Members they should fight the Bill, and we should, therefore, be debating the Amendments here and now.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher

May I, on a point of order, express my profound sympathy with you, Sir Robert? It is intolerable to be caught between an irresistible force and an irremovable object.

I make to you in a slightly different way the point which I made to your predecessor in the Chair. We feel that the Bill is an illegitimate means of achieving what many hon. Members regard as a desirable end and it must be resisted by rather unorthodox methods. What we are trying to do is what European Parliaments did when they joined together to form the Community of Six. We are precluded from taking the same course as each of those national Parliaments because we have not the powers of amendment that they had. When the Federal Republic of Germany joined the Coal and Steel Community, it took 10 months to get the Bill through the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, and similar happenings occurred in other Parliaments as various States acceded to the treaties. Since we are denied the benefit of those European procedures, we must adapt our own procedures to achieve the same ends.

The debate has produced considerable clarification. It is a real debate, despite its having been conducted in the form of a series of points of order. It will be recognised as a real debate when the public outside get to hear of it, and it is the public outside who will have the final word on whether or not we go into the Community.

The Chairman

I do not think there is anything I can add. I have made so many similar answers that I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by repeating them.

Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney)

I have not so far intervened to put a point of order to you, Sir Robert. I have listened to the discussion, and I marvel at my self-restraint at having kept out of the debate until now. Perhaps I may be allowed a few measured reflections which may be of assistance to the House.

In the last eight hours the profound unwisdom of the decision taken by the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Duchy to persist in the Bill at 10 o'clock last night has been demonstrated. This was, clearly, a grave error, and reflections will be cast upon the House of Commons as a result of the past eight hours. If you, Sir, have found yourself in unusual difficulties, there is no doubt that the stubbornness, intransigence and insensitivity of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House are the real cause.

The Government do not seem to have realised that these long hours have revealed a very large gulf in the thinking of both sides. They apparently think that because a Ruling has wiped out 50 or more major Amendments there can be no further protest from this side. The Chair apparently takes the view that we should simply accept this and carry on with the business. We take the view that we have a duty to resist. We have a considerable responsibility not only to the people who sent us here but to the nation as a whole.

We therefore do not feel that we can just settle down to discuss these Amendments which have been selected for us. We are obviously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, in an impasse. The Government would be wrong to imagine that we are going to break out of it—it is not going to happen. As they have not come to a recognition of the facts, the only possible thing to do is to report Progress and adjourn the Committee stage until next Tuesday at a reasonable hour.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

I had better call Mr. Orme to get the quotation straight.

Mr. Orme

I want to refer back to your departing blast when you left the Chair earlier, Sir Robert. I raised in a serious way then the view that I did not believe you were going out of your way to be partial but I felt that by the nature of events and by some of the strictures you made on the Opposition there was a danger of your being sucked into the politics of the Bill—not because you yourself were expressing any political views or were letting them be known or were trying to be partial to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) raised the matter again when you gave, as it were, a second blast more recently. Many of us sat under your Chairmanship during the passage of the Industrial Relations Act and have nothing but praise for the way you conducted those proceedings. There was no trouble with the Chair at all, despite the extreme trouble with the Government, when a parallel situation arose because the Government imposed a time table which excluded discussion of many Clauses in the Bill.

This Bill will have a difficult passage, but we want to see that the Chair is fully protected. You said, Sir Robert, that it was the duty of the Chair to see that the Queen's business was pressed forward. If you take that attitude, then if the Committee or the House during the passage of the Bill decides that part of the Queen's business is to be rejected by the House, that puts you in a difficult position.

6.15 a.m.

My hon. Friends have strong feelings, but tempers have been kept reasonable throughout the night. There is bound to be some give and take on both sides in this situation. But there has been no unpleasantness. My hon. Friends do not want any unpleasantness with the Chair. I say that in the most conciliatory tone. But it is something which should be considered.

My second point is the question of the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. During the period of the Labour Government, on numerous occasions on major Bills the Opposition exercised that right. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends leading the Opposition tonight have tried to seek that right. I never knew a time when we went for eight hours with such a Motion not being accepted by the Chair. [Interruption.] I remind the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) that the Leader of the House last night moved that exact Motion without having discussed the Bill and it was accepted by the Chair. This is an important point.

We do not know what the views of the House are, Sir Robert, but you have a duty to test the feeling of the House by accepting the Motion. When the Opposition are pressing it, Sir Robert, you ought to show your impartiality by accepting such a Motion. It has to be accepted at some time. We have now been discussing points of order—

An Hon. Member

Bogus points.

Mr. Orme

Not bogus points of order—because the Chair at no time has said that they are bogus, so we are not having that said.

Mr. John Mendelson

The Bill is illegitimate.

Mr. Orme

Whilst naturally, Sir Robert, you have wanted to proceed, no point of order has been ruled out as bogus; nor has any hon. Member been instructed by you to resume his seat because his point of order was bogus. Therefore, that remark was untrue.

I return to the central and very important point. I have been unable to look up the precedents, but I doubt whether in the history of Parliament we have ever gone for seven and a half hours with such a Motion, which the Opposition want to move, not being accepted. Therefore, Sir Robert, may I ask when you will be prepared to accept such a Motion from my hon. Friends? The Committee is entitled to know that. Many of my hon. Friends wish to continue with genuine points of order. Certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) is trying to catch your eye, Sir Robert.

The Chairman

I cannot give an assurance as to exactly when or whether I should accept such a Motion We shall have to see how things go. I do not feel I can accept such a Motion unless it is moved by those in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Molloy

In giving Rulings you have mentioned from time to time, Sir Robert, the dignity, status and authority of the House. Many of us believe that if we allow the Bill to go through without debating Amendments which we have put down all that you have warned about might happen. We believe we are defending the status of the House and of the British people. You talk glibly about us being here for eight hours, but some of us, believing the status, dignity and authority of Parliament to be in jeopardy, would not mind staying here for 80 days. We are not prepared to surrender to the threats from the Government or from you, Sir Robert. That is how strongly we feel about it. If you or hon. Members on the Government side feel that this is extravagant language, then I challenge you and hon. Members opposite to leave the decision with the final arbiters—not me, not you, not Mr. Speaker but the British people.

This is a grave constitutional issue for which there has been no precedent. Precedent can have been your only guide in some of the things you have said. In these circumstances I would have thought that the maximum amount of latitude should have been given to enable any aspect of the Bill to be thoroughly de- bated, as we were promised by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench. This is an extraordinarily important issue. There has never really been anything quite like it before.

Hon. Members on this side and some hon. Members on the Government side were shocked when we discovered that certain Amendments were not going to be called. This did not honour the pledge we were given that full opportunity would be given to discuss every aspect of this great issue. Some of us feel that that pledge has been dishonoured. Many of us feel, Sir Robert, that if you had any bias tonight it should have been towards those who have been cheated. I believe the House has, generally, been on reasonably good behaviour. The only time when it seemed that the good behaviour might be impaired was when we heard some of the quite uncalled-for, biased remarks from the Chair.

This is a massive and unprecedented issue and there is very strong feeling about it. You should allow a Motion to be put whereby Progress could be reported so that the important points that have been raised tonight can be sensibly discussed through the usual channels.

The Chairman

I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. McNamara

Had we been sitting under the normal suspension Motion that is moved at 10 p.m., it would have been possible for the Committee to test the feeling of hon. Members at this time to see whether we should continue to sit.

I regret that the Chairman has now left because he said earlier that the Queen's Government must be carried forward. I regarded it as a slip of the tongue in that he meant that the business of the House of Commons must be carried forward. It is the duty of the Government to get their business. It is the duty of the Opposition to examine, discuss and, if necessary, oppose. Half our problem is the way the Government have been trying to get their business, forcing the Opposition to take unprecedented action.

Although the Chairman pointed out that there were other things the Opposition could do, he did not point out what the Government could do, such as review their proposed legislation on this subject, introduce a guillotine or allow the Patronage Secretary to move the Closure.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

The hon. Member has been speaking for some time but is no nearer his point of order.

Mr. McNamara

I am asking why the Chair, having suggested a course of action which the Opposition might follow, has not suggested a course of action to the Government, such as scrapping the Bill, introducing their own Amendments, moving the Closure and so on.

The Second Deputy Chairman

That is still not a point of order for the Chair.

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Kinnock

On a point of order. I was, I think, the first, perhaps by accident, to take up with the Chairman, who I regret is not present, his use of the word "mockery" and similar colourful language. We have insisted that it is not in our interest to hinder parliamentary procedure but that we have been forced into this position by the shortcomings of the undertakings given by the Government about how discussion of the Bill will take place.

The Chairman spoke of the risk of Parliament becoming the laughing stock of the British people. He obviously did not intend to be partisan and he said he understood our plight. But highly coloured phrases like "conscience searching", "mockery" and "laughing stock" do not help matters. Had the Chairman been in the Chair I would have asked him to define what he meant and I would have reminded him that the rôle of Parliament is being lessened by the type of legislation that the Government are introducing.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman considerable latitude because I have been anxious to hear his point of order. He is rehashing a number of disputes that have occurred during the night but he is not raising a point of order for me to answer.

Mr. Buchan

Having been a Member of the House of Commons for about eight years, I cannot recall worse Rulings—Rulings given in more partial language and containing more imputations—being given by any Speaker or Chairman than we have had from the Chairman of Ways and Means tonight; and I say that as one who has never before quarrelled with the Chair. This is a point of order.

The Second Deputy Chairman

If the hon. Member wishes to criticise the Chair, he knows his remedy. It has been carefully explained to him and to all other hon. Members during the last 24 hours. The hon. Member should not go on attacking the Chair in this manner.

Mr. Buchan

It seems that people may be attacked by the Chair but they are not supposed to attack back in this form; there is another form. I shall come to that.

The background to what has happened arises, first, from the nature of the Bill. We do not know to what extent it was drafted in order to make it difficult to table Amendments or make it easy to rule them out of order. Secondly, the nature of the Bill is such as to interfere directly with the powers, freedoms and liberties of the House. The third factor arises from the Rulings about certain Amendments.

The situation facing us is that the will of the majority of the people is being thwarted by the techniques of legislation and the technicalities of the Chairman's Rulings. We have spoken a lot about the freedoms, rights and privileges of Members of Parliament, but they are as nothing compared with the importance of the freedoms of the people. The moment that the House cannot, through its rules of order, allow the expression of the needs and wills of the people, we are in danger. We have been in danger for the last 24 hours because of the nature of the Bill, the Rulings from the Chair and the behaviour of the Chairman.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Member, as far as my observation goes, always tries to help the Chair. I should be grateful if he would help me now. He has been talking about the will of the people, but the importance of that matter is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Buchan

I understand. The precise point of order that I am raising is how to resolve a situation in which, because of the Rulings that have been given, the House and its needs have been put out of tune with the needs and the demands of the people. We have therefore to consider what it is open to us, within the rules of order, to achieve.

Other Rulings have been given which raise equally important points of order. The question was asked earlier: when did we accept the Treaty of Accession? We received no answer from the Chair and we received no answer from the Government, but the Chairman has already decided that the country has accepted the Accession Treaty. That point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). This is a serious matter, which merits the Motion that we have been pressing for the last hour, that we—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Member insists that he is discussing an important point of order. It may be important, but is it a point of order? Will he help me by showing me in what way it is a point of order?

Mr. Buchan

Indeed this is a point of order. The point of order is, to what extent is the Chairman or Mr. Speaker allowed to define for us the nature of our treaties, to make an expression of the law? This is what has happened. It has been done not so much by the Government Front Bench but by the Chair. If this is not a point of order, God knows what is. So many issues have come up that we need time to sort out the mess into which the stupidity and ineptitude of the Government have put us. We must ask the Leader of the House to find a means of ending this sitting so that a week or so can supervene and something can be saved from the wreck which the Government, along with the Chairman, have brought about.

I end by asking for guidance. Clearly I have sharply censured the Chairman; clearly a great number of my hon. Friends agree with what I have said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It may be that the correct form is to table a Motion of censure, but perhaps there is some other form. Would you guide us, Mr. Mallalieu, as to how we can give immediate expression to the feelings we have about the Rulings and comments we have received?

The Second Deputy Chairman

I have explained during the course of the night that if the Chairman is to be criticised it must be done by substantive Motion. There is no remedy in Committee other than that.

Mr. O'Malley

Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has just been given advice by you. You have suggested that the only remedy open to those of us who are or may be dissatisfied with the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means during the proceedings last night and this morning is to table a Motion of censure. I submit that the position is not so simple.

Half an hour before the Chairman left the Chair on the last occasion, he said that he genuinely tried to be impartial. I think he did try. I do not think he was successful. Therefore we are entitled to question whether that kind of situation can occur again. It is not something which can be dealt with by a censure Motion. We are in a difficult situation and while the major responsibility rests with the Government who have tricked and are tricking the Committee over the nature of the Bill, a number of hon. Members on this side have expressed doubts, important reservations and criticisms of the Chair. How can we carry on with any confidence as a result?

I must ask you to give us the only way we can see open to us and that is to allow us to move that the Chairman be removed from the Chair. That is the only way we can deal with the problem of confidence. A censure Motion in the future does not meet this problem and if we cannot meet it by moving the Motion I have suggested, will you tell us how we can deal with this matter?

6.45 a.m.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Again and again, even in the few minutes that I have been in the Chair recently, I have said that the only remedy open to hon. Members who feel that the Chair is in some way remiss is to put down a substantive Motion. But it cannot be done on a point of order.

Mr. Pavitt

On a point of order. A good deal of our problem comes from the way the Bill is drafted, and particularly the Preamble. Would discussion of the first Amendment rule out a Government Amendment, perhaps on Report, to the Preamble which could make a difference to the selection?

Dr. Gilbert

May I draw a clear distinction between the proceedings today and the proceedings on other equally controversial legislation, the Industrial Relations Bill? To be frank, the Opposition were more of a mind on that Bill than we are on this one. We did not go through this sort of performance then, when we could have done, as the Chair has pointed out. The reason that we have declined to allow the Committee to proceed tonight is that this place is run on the basis of a social contract between the majority party and the minority party.

I am trying to be helpful because I have a constructive proposal to make. We all recognise that in the last resort the rule of the majority will prevail and the Government will get their legislation through so long as they can command a majority. We are not blind to these facts. But we say that the Government have broken the social contract which exists between both sides as a method of getting the business through. That is why we have had this series of points of order. I submit that we could make progress with the Bill if the Government were to consider introducing in any way a change in the substance of the Bill by an Amendment to the Long Title, which seems to be one obstacle to our making progress.

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order. I understand, Mr. Mallalieu, that some discussions have taken place. The Leader of the House might wish to make a statement about what he has in mind. We would be interested to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Whitelaw

Further to that point of order. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said, there have been discussions. The proposition which I put to the Committee, which I understand has some measure of agreement, is that as the hon. Member suggested earlier that his Amendment should be moved formally and I said that we could see how we got on, I now make the firm proposition that if that Amendment, which is the first of a group, were moved and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General replied, we would have started on the Committee stage. On that basis, after those two speeches, I would be willing to suggest that we should move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Michael Foot

I should certainly recommend my hon. Friends to accept the general proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman, but in accepting it, and not wishing to qualify acceptance in any way, I should like to underline two or three facts about it which I think the Committee should appreciate.

I understand that the Amendment that would be called must be Amendment No. 49 with its associated Amendments. That Amendment was accepted by the Chair at the beginning of our proceedings at 10 o'clock. It was one of our criticisms during the night that we had not been able to consider the relationship of that Amendment to all the others. From what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I understand that we shall have short statements and then the Motion to report Progress after a statement from either side of the Committee, but when we reassemble we shall have the fullest rights to continue to debate on those Clauses and my hon. Friends will be able to intervene in that debate. That should be fully understood. My hon. Friends who have raised important points of order have not secured in response what they consider to be satisfaction.

What we shall secure if we accept this proposal is that we shall initiate the debate today but will have the fullest possible rights for the continuance of the debate on this Clause and all the other Clauses. On that basis I believe the Committee would be wise to accept the proposal. If we do not accept it, it will possibly mean that we shall come to debate these Amendments at an unspecified time during the latter part of tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. That would not provide the course which so many of us wish to secure—namely, proper time in which to be able to consider the new Amendments and the other Amendments which we have insisted on throughout this debate. I hope my hon. Friends will accept this proposal.

Mr. Whitelaw

I accept that this will mean that the debate will begin and that at the next sitting of the Committee the debate will continue in the normal way. My right hon. and hon. Friends have waited a long time and they have felt that the debate on Amendments in Committee should have begun earlier. I know Opposition Members will appreciate my hon. Friends' feelings. I hope that we shall now be able to proceed.

The Second Deputy Chairman

We come to Amendment No. 49—

Mr. Powell

On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I am sorry to delay the House for 30 seconds, but this is the point at which I must put this matter to the Chair. I wish to ask whether, in dealing with the Bill in Committee, it is intended to take the Schedules as they come after the Clauses to which they refer, or in a group at the end.

The Second Deputy Chairman

There has been no decision as far as I know to disarrange the normal order.

Mr. Powell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Is that question prejudiced by our entering on the Committee stage, or can it be dealt with at a subsequent point and before the conclusion of proceedings on Clause 1?

The Second Deputy Chairman

All I can do is to carry out the selection which has been decided by the Chair.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith)

I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 1, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'the'.

The effect of the Amendment may not by crystal clear at this time of the morning but it is to leave out the words subject to subsection (3) below… I understand it is the will of the Committee to take at the same time Amendment No. 99, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

I should make three preliminary points on these Amendments. The first is that in this portion of the Bill, in Part I, we are facing what clearly are the operative Clauses of the Bill, whatever construction one takes of the nuts and bolts and whether or not one considers that it is a Bill to approve the Treaty of Accession in substance.

We wish in these Amendments to probe to discover whether the Clause 1 is what it purports to be, namely a "Short title and interpretation" Clause, or, something more substantial is concealed under its comparatively innocuous title.

My second point is that the first three Clauses are part of the package with which the Committee has been presented, in circumstances of great difficulty to this side, to the Chair, and possibly to hon. Members on the Government side as well. One of the difficulties about the package is that it appears that we cannot open it. This is a matter of order. I hope that sensible arrangements will be reached about it. But obviously one of my tasks in moving this Amendment is to try to open the package a little so that we may see what it is sought to import and whether there is contraband inside.

Thirdly and finally, it is essential to try to grasp a little of the complexity of meaning with which Clause 1 is drafted. The definition of "the Community Treaties" has perhaps a simplicity which disappears rapidly when one enters the complexities of the Clause. Part of the function of the Amendments is to try to unravel that complexity and reveal its purpose. I am afraid that its purpose appears to be very sinister. However, perhaps I might elaborate on that on a later occasion.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

I respond to the invitation of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) by agreeing with him that at last the Committee has now moved on to the meat and substance of our proceedings.

The Clause with which we are concerned to begin with is that dealing with the Short Title and interpretation. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he wanted to examine the package in some detail, and no doubt we shall have further opportunities to do that. He wondered whether there was any contraband contained in the package. When we examine the package, we shall find that there is nothing to declare—nothing, that is, beyond what the hon. and learned Member's own Government would have felt it necessary to declare had they been making the same journey in similiar circumstances.

Subsection (1) is the Short Title. Subsection (2) contains the definitions there set out, including those contained in the Schedule. For the purpose of the Amendment to remove subsection (3) altogether, the important words in subsection (2) are 'the Treaties' or 'the Community Treaties'". The definition of those words is significant for the Bill and, as the subsection says, for any other Statutes, subject to any contrary meaning appearing.

If one unravels the package a little, "the Treaties" or "the Community Treaties" can be divided between pre-accession treaties—that is to say, those described in Part I of Schedule 1: the seven categories there identified—and the Treaty of Accession, signed on 22nd January, plus the decision of the same date of the Coal and Steel Communities taken under Article 98 of the Treaty of Paris, which has the same effect and is negotiated in the same way as the Treaty of Accession. Those matters are to be taken, looking at page 2, line 5, together with any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom". So is any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, or, finally, any treaty entered into by the United Kingdom as a treaty ancillary to any of the Community Treaties". So that apart from those listed in the Schedule, apart from the Treaty of Accession and the associated decision of the Coal and Steel Community, "Community Treaties" includes these two other categories: namely, those entered into by the Communities under the treaties or by the United Kingdom as a treaty ancillary to any of the Community treaties. Those are the different packages which we have there.

So that the Committee may be in no doubt, probably the most important two items in those packages, apart from those listed in the Schedule, are those treaties entered into by any of the Communities, with or without member States, and those treaties entered into by the United Kingdom ancillary to the Community treaties. Treaties entered into by the Communities, for example, under Articles 113 or 238 of the Treaty of Rome, are those treaties where the Communities would be exercising, within the limits of the treaties, a treaty-making power in relation to the relevant matters—mainly tariff matters—on behalf of all the member States simultaneously.

It was that treaty-making power which could be exercised by the Communities which was acknowledged as long ago as 8th May, 1967, by the then Prime Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, as one of the significant factors of joining the Communities. The then Prime Minister said: Broadly speaking, it would have the effect "— this is accession to the Communities— of vesting in Community institutions our power of concluding treaties on tariffs and commercial policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1089.] So the proposition contained in the first part of that end package beginning at line 5 on page 2 has always been visualised as one of the aspects of joining the Communities.

The other half is any treaty entered into by the United Kingdom as a treaty ancillary to any of the other treaties. That is the package which we can examine further. I do not wish to detain the Committee longer than it would wish. However, I hope that that exposition is reasonably intelligible and lucid at this time of the morning.

The significance of subsection (3), in the context of that package, which Amendment No. 49 would seek to delete, is as follows. The first four lines of subsection (3) are evidental: If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of the Community Treaties as herein defined, the Order shall be conclusive". That is merely machinery not unlike that which we find in other international law provisions whereby, as a matter of evidence, the Order in Council can declare that a treaty is or is not a Community treaty.

The second part of subsection (3) is of more significance. That provides that any treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession on 22nd January, 1972, shall not be regarded as a Community treaty unless it is so specified in such an Order in Council and that it will not be specified in such an Order in Council unless a draft of the Order in Council has been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.

Mr. Stainton

Would that be an affirmative Resolution?

The Solicitor-General

Indeed yes. That is the significance of the Resolution needing to be approved by each House of Parliament.

The second part of subsection (3) is a special provision ensuring that any treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after 22nd January, 1972, ancillary to the Community treaties, shall not be so specified and, therefore, shall not be regarded as a treaty having that effect until it has been the subject of an affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament. There is that express protection built into the Clause in relation to treaties entered into by the United Kingdom ancillary to Community treaties after the date of the signature on 22nd January, 1972.

I wish again to be clear about that. That protection—

Mr. Loughlin

Get on with it.

The Solicitor-General

If the hon. Member will allow me, I am trying to deal with this. The protection exists and I do not wish the House of Commons to say that it has not had this presented to it clearly.

The protection of an affirmative Order in Council applies to post-22nd January, 1972, treaties entered into by the United Kingdom, but for treaties entered into by the Communities without concurrent entry by the United Kingdom affirmative Resolution is not required.

The effect of removing subsection (3) would be to remove the protective provisions arising from the necessity for the Order in Council. I will not go into that because there are significant variations, permutations and combinations of what could be done in relation to Orders in Council which emerge to some extent on the next group where there is a large variation which enables one to unravel the package further.

I hope that hon. Members will forgive me—I dare say they will with enthusiasm—if I confine my unravelling of the package to that modest contribution and regard the Committee stage of the Bill as well and truly launched.

Mr. Rippon

I beg to move. That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. It is a matter of general satisfaction on both sides that we have been able to make some progress, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will find it helpful in making future contributions to have had the initial contributions from both sides on which to base their future speeches.

Mr. Foot

Since this is the Motion I have been asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman to move all night, I receive it with enthusiasm.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.