§ Mr. MolloyOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A situation has arisen in our discussions in Committee on the European Communities Bill which is causing grave concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was referred to briefly by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).
It is now patently obviously that the Government are determined not to accept any amendment of the Bill. It is recognised that the Bill constitutes one of the most important Measures ever to be presented to a British Parliament, and it is hardly conceivable that we can accept that in every word and detail it is absolutely word perfect and cannot be subject to amendment.
Will you be good enough to consider, Mr. Speaker, perhaps during the recess so that we can be guided on our return, whether this behaviour on the part of the Government should be examined? When the matter was raised earlier this afternoon the Leader of the House said that it was for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but this issue is related not specifically to that Minister but rather to the Leader of the House.
I refer to Erskine May, page 84, paragraph 3, which states:
By the insertion of the term 'proceedings' in the Bill of Rights, Parliament gave statutory authority to what was implied in previous declarations of the privilege of freedom of speech by the Commons, e.g., in the Protestation of 1621, where it is claimed:'that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses every member of the House of Parliament hath and of right ought to have freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason and bring to conclusion the same…".In view of that statutory declaration by Erskine May that we should have the right to "treat" and "reason", we should surely have those same rights on the European Communities Bill, particularly 1655 as the guillotine procedure has already curtailed our discussion. This has meant that Amendments have had to be moved formally and the movers have been denied the opportunity to convince the Committee of the desirability of making the Amendments. This, in my view, also demonstrates the wrongful doing of the Government in preventing there being a Report stage. I feel that it was wrong of the Leader of the House to try to pass this on to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is his reponsibility. I hope that he will give it further thought. I beg you, Mr. Speaker, when we return after the recess, to be good enough to opine on what I have said.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have allowed the hon. Member to make his point of order. I am not certain that it was a point of order. Nevertheless, I will consider the matter. I think I am bound by Standing Order No. 50. but I will consider the matter.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise that I have not been able to give you notice. Yesterday in Committee, when I raised a certain matter, it was suggested I should raise it in the House. I thought there might have been a statement from the Leader of the House which would have helped. You may not be aware that connected with the European Communities Bill are some 2,500 rules, regulations and directives which—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I have familiarised myself with the matter which the hon. Member is seeking to raise. He would have been perfectly in order in raising it at another time, but he is not entitled to raise it now as a point of order. He could have questioned the Leader of the House about it or raised it in some other way. It is certainly not a matter of order for me.