FIRST SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE (Hansard, 25 January 1973)

§ Sir M. Galpern
I have to report from the First Scottish Standing Committee that, having called the attention of the Committee to the disorderly conduct of the hon. Members for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) and Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald), and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I have been directed to report those Members to the House.
The Members named in my report were not nominated to serve in our Committee appointed to consider the Local 667 Government (Scotland) Bill but they were present in the body of the Committee room when the Committee first met on Tuesday this week. I called upon them to withdraw but only one complied with my request. When the Committee reassembled this morning the same hon. Members were again present and failed to comply with my renewed request to them to withdraw. In these circumstances the Committee agreed to the motion which I have reported. As the House will know, neither a Standing Committee nor its Chairman has power to discipline Members and it is for the House to decide what action, if any, it wishes to take.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior)
I beg to move the following motion relating to a matter of Privilege, That the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee in respect of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill shall have power to order any Member who is not a member of the Committee to withdraw immediately from the Committee Room; and the Serjeant at Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chairman in pursuance of this order. I very much regret, as I have no doubt do very many hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Oswald), Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) should have thought it right to repeat their demonstration at this morning's meeting of the Standing Committee on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. It is a long-standing tradition of this House that the authority of the Chair is invariably accepted. By refusing to comply with the request of the Chairman of the Standing Committee the hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman concerned have challenged that authority. Whatever their views about the size and composition of the Standing Committee—and I recognise that they hold their views strongly—it is quite wrong that they should express those views in such a way. By doing so they have taken action which impinges upon one of the most 668 fundamental privileges of this House—the position of the Chair. It is quite wrong to suggest that no other method of making their complaint was available to the hon. Members.
Subject to your views, Mr. Speaker, the size of the Committee and the question of Liberal Party representation are not matters for discussion today. This has been referred to on a number of occasions on the Floor of the House. It cannot be said that there was no opportunity for discussing this matter in an appropriate way. The question of the selection of Members to serve on the Standing Committee is also not a matter for discussion today. It is a matter entrusted to the Committee of Selection. It is not in any way a matter for the Government or for me. That is not, however, the issue now facing us.
The House now has to decide whether it can accept that hon. Members who have been unable to secure what they want through the proper procedures should then be permitted to attempt to secure what they want by refusing to obey the requests of the Chair. If such a precedent were accepted and such demonstrations were repeated, the standing and authority of this House and the orderly conduct of our debates would be seriously threatened.
In my view there is only one decision that the House can take. The Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill must be empowered to require hon. Members who are not members of that Committee not to sit as members of it. I think the House will agree that it is important that this issue should have been settled when the Standing Committee comes to meet again next week. I submit, therefore, that the House should proceed to consider this motion straight away.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, I wonder whether he would help the House. Is he suggesting that the House of Commons should be asked to make a privilege law simply by passing this motion? If so, perhaps he would give us the precedents for Parliament taking that decisison. Alternatively, is he asking that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges to see whether it should be a matter of privilege, in which case it would be for Mr. Speaker to rule 669 whether it should be given priority? Could he also tell us what are the precedents for the rather unusual procedure he is asking the House to adopt?

§ Mr. Prior
I think these are matters for you, Mr. Speaker. From my point of view there are no proper precedents for the action that has been taken. What I am saying to the House and am about to come on to now is that I have not had a chance to put this on the Order Paper, which would have been a reasonable thing to do and would have given hon. Members time to consider it in advance.

§ Mr. Prior
Not until I have gone a little further.
It was naturally my hope that the demonstration would not be repealed this morning. In view of the urgency and the nature of the issue, however, I think it would be right to consider it straight away.

§ Mr. Thorpe
It simply will not do for the Leader of the House to rise at the Dispatch Box and ask the House to agree to a motion and, when asked where are the precedents and what does he mean by it, say "That is a matter for Mr. Speaker to explain." Mr. Speaker is not there to explain what the Leader of the House means. The House is entitled to ask the Leader of the House what he means and where the precedents are for this action. Will he please tell the House?

§ Mr. Prior
What I am asking Mr. Speaker to rule on is whether he accepts this as a matter of privilege. I am also at that time asking the House, if Mr. Speaker should accept that, to come to a decision straight away. I am giving my reasons why I think that the House should come to a decision straight away.

§ Mr. Kaufman
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has pointed out that the motion is not on the Order Paper. Would it not be more satisfactory, in the interests of business today and of the House itself, for the motion to be taken on Monday, which would give the Leader of the House time to get what he 670 wants without disrupting the business of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to finish, and then I will give my ruling.

§ Mr. Prior
I nevertheless recognise that, although the immediate issue may be a relatively simple one, it raises more general questions.

§ Mr. Edward Short
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that notice of the motion should have been given? The Leader of the House prefaced his remarks by saying that this is a matter of privilege, but he is not referring it to the Committee of Privileges. Under Erskine May surely we should have notice of the motion?

§ Mr. Speaker
I must make it clear that with regard to matters of privilege it is for me to rule. I can rule that the matter can be debated at once or I could suggest that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. It is a ruling for me.

§ Mr. Prior
It might be thought that this incident points to the need to confer greater powers upon Chairmen of Standing and also of Select Committees rather than that the whole House should have to interrupt important business to consider what action to take in circumstances such as these. I should not like to express a view upon that without further consideration, but I believe that it would be for the assistance of the House if the Committee on Procedure were to consider this wider aspect at its leisure. It is with great regret that I move the motion.

§ Mr. Thorpe
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, Sir, if you would indicate at this stage whether the simple matter on which you are going to rule is whether there is an issue of privilege involved which in your view either should have precedence over the other business of the House for the purposes of debate or should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

§ Mr. Speaker
If I am allowed to make my Ruling, I shall make it.
I have considered this matter. There was one occasion about 46 years ago when a Speaker drawn from the ranks 671 of the Liberal Party submitted his views to the House of Commons on this matter. He pointed out that this place will not work unless the authority of the Chair is respected. That is a matter on which I must stand absolutely firm. This is a matter of privilege, and I so rule. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the motion which the right hon. Gentleman is submitting.

§ Mr. Edward Short
The Leader of the House has asserted that it is a matter of privilege and you, Mr. Speaker, have said that it is a matter of privilege. Therefore, we must regard it as a matter of privilege.
I agree at once that the authority of the Chair must always be upheld. There is only one rule about Chairmen—one backs them or one sacks them but one does not mess them about.
Having said that, I think I must express my view that we are making very heavy weather of this. There may be something wrong with the way in which the Committee of Selection operates. In particular, there may be something wrong—I am not saying that there is—with the arithmetical formula by which the relative party strengths on our Committees are decided. There may be something wrong with the mechanism by which the Committee of Selection receives its names. Surely these are matters to be dealt with through the usual channels by intelligent, civilised discussion and not by a sit-in.
The Leader of the House has moved his motion, as he is obliged to. He has no option about it. If he presses it, I shall support him; but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press it. The right hon. Gentleman has moved the motion, and that is all he is obliged to do, for three reasons. First, there are still some doubts on the privilege point in our minds. Secondly, this is a very small matter; it is a storm in a teacup. Thirdly, and more substantially, if we debate this—and it is debatable—it would eat into an extremely important debate. It would be outrageous if we debated this footling matter when we have before us a debate on an issue where thousands of our fellow men through the country are to be declared redundant. It would be monstrous if we took time out of that debate to debate this motion.
672 I therefore appeal to the Leader of the House, now that he has moved the motion, to seek the leave of the House to withdraw it and let us see through the usual channels whether we cannot find a solution. I have not been involved in any discussions on this matter. I do not know whether there is a solution possible, but there may be one through the usual channels. Let us have a go and see whether we can find a solution to it and not debate the matter today.

§ Mr. Speaker
May I seek to help the House? If the House were to debate the matter today it would be an extremely narrow debate. The question is simply whether a Chairman who has been defied should have power to deal with the matter. The rights and wrongs of what caused the controversy are not debatable today. It is a very simple issue.

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
Surely the House will use common sense. It need not he a prolonged debate. The case is clearly made. The request has come from the Chairman of the Standing Committee to give him some power to allow him to conduct his Committee work properly. That is clear in the report given by the Chairman of the Committee.
I should have thought that the strength of the House is that it can use common sense and make quick decisions, which are clearly in the interests of our procedures. This incident, however lightly it was taken, is clearly a case of disorderly conduct by certain Members, disorderly conduct which they have repeated. I should have thought that the House could without any more delay agree to what has been asked for by the Leader of the House so as to settle this one question. Wider matters that flow from that as regards the powers that Committee Chairmen should have can be discussed on another occasion.

§ Mr. David Steel
I greatly hope that the Leader of the House will heed the commonsense words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and agree, on my giving certain undertakings on behalf of my Liberal colleagues who are involved in this, that there is no need to pursue the motion.
Referring to something you have said, Mr. Speaker, and to the opening words 673 of the Leader of the House, I should like to pay a tribute to the Chairman of the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that we shall get through this difficult and important, but not necessarily complicated, matter more quickly if hon. Members will listen in silence to what is being said.

§ Mr. Steel
Those of us who disrupted the Committee's proceedings recognise that it placed a special strain on the Chairman's authority, and we would not wish to do that in any way.
Secondly, in considering whether or not to pursue the motion the House is entitled to an explanation of what occurred and why it occurred.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That I will not allow.

§ Mr. Steel
In that case I can say only that we must proceed with the debate today, because the situation is that last night the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and I saw the Leader of the House and asked him to refer the whole matter to the Committee on Procedure for an inquiry and that we would let the Committee proceed this morning with its work, in which case there would have been no difficulty this morning. It is because of the right hon. Gentleman's obstinacy that this morning's events took place. Moreover, I must point out that during the Second Reading of the Bill——

§ Mr. Jennings
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to tell the House that he and his colleagues will allow a Committee to proceed? Surely he has no power to say "We will allow".

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Speaker
That point of order reinforces my view that this is a very simple matter.

§ Mr. Steel
Before the Second Reading debate on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill the matter of the selection of the Committee was raised on the Floor of the House——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The question of the Selection Committee and its conduct is governed by a separate motion on the Order Paper. That is completely irrelevant. The only point at issue today is what is to happen if a Chairman is defied and what powers he should be given.

§ Mr. Richard
As a Welshman sitting for a London seat, I have no interest in the proceedings of the Scottish Committee. But as one who sat through many hours under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) on the Sound Broadcasting Bill it seems to me, after examining Erskine May, that there may be doubt about whether the Leader of the House is entitled at this stage to move the motion he has. May I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to page 607——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must interrupt the hon. and learned Member because I have ruled that the Leader of the House is so entitled.

§ Mr. Richard
I am not questioning your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am merely pointing out the effect of it. [Interruption.] On page 607 of Erskine May there is a very specific statement on disorder in Standing Committees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston will know. It is a paragraph of Erskine May that those of us who were on the Committee examining the Sound Broadcasting Bill had occasion to consider a number of times. It says: A standing committee has no power to punish one of its members, or any other person, for disorderly words, contemptuous conduct, or any other offence committed against it, but can only report the offence to the House. It goes on to say: The provisions of S.O.s Nos. 23 and 24 have not been extended to standing committees. The provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 23 and 24 which are set out in the appendix to Erskine May at page 1024, says: Mr Speaker or the chairman shall order any Member or Members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of that day's sitting. As I understand it the Leader of the House is asking us by his motion to amend and extend the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 23 and 24 in respect of the proceedings of this one particular Committee. Would it not be 675 much more sensible and in accordance with the general view of the House that if the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are to be amended in this way it should be done after mature consideration by the House and not on a motion of which we have not had notice, which is not on the Order Paper, and which is moved at this hour, holding up a most important debate?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It was because of the behaviour to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred that this limited and restricted motion was put forward. The general consideration is for the Committee on Procedure.

§ Mr. Steel
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask about the narrowness of the debate? In his opening speech the Leader of the House made certain critical remarks about those of us who sat in on the Committee, saying that other opportunities were open to us to make our complaints. If that remark was in order, is it not also in order to say how those other opportunities were denied to us?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. No. Since then I have accepted the motion and shall decide upon the limits of the debate accorded to the motion.

§ Mr. Mackintosh
Would it not help, in view of the time and the business ahead of us, if we had one further fact before the House apropos of the narrow and restricted point we are considering? It is that the Committee was able to begin its proper procedure on the Bill at a late hour this morning when those who wished to draw attention to a particular grievance had done so and had withdrawn. There is, therefore, as far as I am concerned and, I believe, as far as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) is concerned, no desire for the situation to continue. We wished to draw attention to a point to which we felt we had been unable to draw attention, and we have done so, and we now wish to leave the matter as it stands for further consideration at a later stage, provided that the Leader of the House will give us time to do so.

§ Mr. Prior
If the House could have an assurance from all the hon. Members who sat-in on the Committee, I am quite 676 certain that at this stage it would be much more sensible if I withdrew the motion. I would be prepared to do that, and I hope I can receive that assurance.

§ Mr. Harold Wilson
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whatever the merits of the issue, we cannot have bargains across the Floor of the House. We have a report from the Chairman of the Committee which is the subject of a motion by the Leader of the House. I am in favour of withdrawing it not as part of any bargain but in order that the House can have a little more time through the usual channels to discuss the matter on the clear understanding that when there have been further discussions we might clear up some of the background to the problem. It must be on the clear understanding that the Leader of the House must then bring forward a motion, because we cannot treat the Chairman of a Standing Committee in this way and have the matter bargained by oriental-type negotiations across the Floor of the House. I believe that the Leader of the House was responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Central (Mr. Edward Short). Perhaps he would withdraw the motion so that the matter may be further considered, knowing that we must at the end of the day back the Chairman.

§ Mr. Hugh D. Brown
As one of the members of the Committee I believe that it is right that one point of view should be heard. I should not like to compete with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his description about oriental bargaining. This is the wrong place to conduct such bargaining. I wish to make it clear, however, that within my hearing certain hon. Members this morning said as they were withdrawing that they would come back again on Tuesday [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If all the hon. Members involved are now saying that there is no need for a motion to be put, there is no argument and the usual channels can discuss the matter. But, according to my understanding, it is not bargaining to proceed under the threat of being disrupted again in the way that we have already been disrupted at two sittings. The usual channels should, of course, discuss the background. But, provided it is clearly understood from the hon. Members involved that they have 677 now made their point, it would be wise to withdraw the motion.

§ Mr. Grimond
I said nothing about turning up on Tuesday and I have no intention of doing so. I am perfectly prepared to give the undertaking. We wish to get on with the debate on steel. I regret any form of oriental bargaining, but I should also like the Leader of the House to give an undertaking that, as well as agreeing that the usual channels should consider the matter, our substantive points about Select Committees should be considered. These are matters for all hon. Members, and it is a basic point for the Committee on Procedure. I hope that the Leader of the House can therefore say that they will be reconsidered.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have a distressingly long list of speakers for the next debate. If the hon. Members concerned do not intend to repeat what they did, this motion is quite harmless and the House would perhaps do much better to give the Chairman that power.

§ Mr. Prior
These are very difficult matters for the House. We want to try to reach the right decision as quickly as we can. I believe that the right decision is to take the advice you have given us, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Members do not attend on Tuesday or any other subsequent occasion, any motion that we may pass today will have no effect. I would have thought that it would be far better for the House to allow the motion to go through, and then no one will be any worse. That 678 is the quickest way to bring this to a conclusion.

§ Mr. Thorpe
May I put one point through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the House? The argument he has advanced cuts both ways. If the power is not required it seems to be a dangerous one to grant on the nod. The House of Commons has existed without this power being granted to a Chairman. If a case is made out for it, it ought to be a matter for careful consideration. It is not something to be made out without notice after a 20-minute debate.