ADJOURNMENT OF PARLIAMENT (Hansard, 23 April 1975)

§ Mr. David Steel
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Deputy Chairman
With it we shall also discuss new Clause 3, "Adjournment of Parliament".

§ Mr. Steel
The clause was tabled some time ago, and the last sentence of it deals with party political broadcasts. My proposal on this point has been met by the agreement between the parties that there should not be such broadcasts during the referendum campaign, and, therefore, I do not need to refer further to that point.
The clause was tabled before we knew the date proposed by the Leader of the House for the referendum. Whether we press the clause or not will depend on what the right hon. Gentleman says about his plans for the Whitsun Recess. We are conducting the referendum as much as possible like a General Election. We would never dream of running a General Election campaign and sittings of the House simultaneously. If we are to have a referendum we had better do the thing properly, with campaigns on both sides of the argument, holding meetings and trying to interest people in the subject. It is impossible for hon. Members to do that and attend to their business in the House at the same time. For that reason I propose that the House should stand adjourned for three weeks before the referendum date.
If we are to stick to 5th June this would in the normal course of events fall during the Whitsun Recess and, therefore, I do not press my argument too strongly. But the Leader of the House should tell us his plans if the polling date is to be 1666 5th June. When will the House rise? If we know that, we shall know the sort of campaigning period we shall have and whether it will interfere with the business of the House.

§ Mr. Edward Short
Assuming that polling day is 5th June, new Clause 3 would wish Parliament to rise on 21st May and to reassemble the day after the result of the referendum is announced. New Clause 6 would have Parliament rising on 15th May. I have already told the House that if polling day is 5th June —and provided that we can get the Bill through the House this week it will be 5th June—I shall propose that the House goes into the Whitsun Recess on 23rd May and reassembles on 9th June. That is very nearly as long as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) proposes in his new clause.
I appreciate that the Liberal clause is designed to allow the same campaigning period as is allowed for General Elections, but the case is not the same. Campaigning for an election does not properly begin until Dissolution, but campaigning for the referendum is already in full swing. I know that many hon. Members wish to play a full part in the referendum campaign, and especially in its closing stages. I think that my proposal will allow them to do so. In normal circumstances we would not have had two weeks at Whitsuntide, but we shall have two weeks with the referendum on 5th June. We have a very full parliamentary programme in front of us and none of us wishes to rise too late for the Summer Recess.
I think that my proposal draws the right balance. It would in any case be wrong to provide for the length of recesses in legislation. Hon Members will appreciate the reasons for that. That is something which the House should always decide in the usual way nearer the time, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. It would be open to hon. Members to propose different arrangements nearer the time if we proceeded in the normal way. They would be able to do so by means of the Adjournment debate if they so wished.
The new clauses would deprive back benchers of a valued debate. The proposal of the hon. Member for Eastbourne 1667 would have the further disadvantage of preventing the recall of Parliament in an emergency. We would be stuck with it whatever happened and we would not be able to recall the House.
I do not think that I need say anything about broadcasting. That has now been agreed to the satisfaction, I think, of the two campaigning organisations. I understand that the arrangements for the broadcasts will be announced in the near future. Once again, I do not think it would be right to put those arrangements into legislation. Our normal arrangements for settling such matters as party political broadcasting have provided a fair balance between the parties over many years. I do not think it would be in the interests of any party, least of all the smaller parties, to set a precedent for Government legislation on party political broadcasting.
In view of the very narrow gap that divides us on this issue I hope that the two hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their clauses.

§ Mr. Gow
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of what he has said I do not propose to press my clause. However, I take this opportunity to ask him a question. Under his proposed timetable the House would resume after the recess on Monday 9th June. The Lord President was not in the Chamber earlier when some of my hon. Friends were asking the Minister of State whether the Prime Minister would come to the House on 9th June to announce the result of the referendum to the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman please comment on the questions which were put to his hon. Friend the Minister of State?

§ Mr. Short
This rather ties up with the method of counting and announcing the vote. I said earlier that the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) would leave the Government free to count votes by counties or centrally. Certainly the Government are now obliged to announce the result by counties. We will still be free to count nationally, and I pointed out that we had got to the stage in our plans when the balance of administrative advantage was certainly in favour of the central count.
1668 I will represent to the Prime Minister what the hon. Member has said. If the result of the vote is known to 500 to 600 counters at seven o'clock on Sunday evening it will be known to everyone in the country very quickly. It could not, with the best will in the world, be kept secret until 3.30 p.m. the next day. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will wish to make a statement on the referendum result but the result would be known before then. I will consider this with the Prime Minister and let the House know the result.

§ Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel)
As one of the sponsors of new Clause 3 I am satisfied, in general, that the Lord President has in some sense met our intentions. It is only fair to say that to some extent the dates have conveniently fallen in such a way that various viewpoints are being met. The Government are asking hon. Members to go out and campaign in something that many of us feel is largely for the Government's convenience. It is reasonable, therefore, to ask that we should not go through the whole of the Whitsun Recess without a holiday of some sort. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider my suggestion that the House should return on about 11th June.

§ Mr. Emery
May I ask the Lord President for an assurance that he will do what he can, through the usual channels, to ensure that the business for the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday preceding the Whitsun Recess is as non-controversial as possible? This will enable those hon. Members who have a strong desire to campaign in their constituencies to do so without missing important business here. This is particularly important for those Members who have large county areas to cover rather than city constituencies, where one or two meetings might suffice.

§ Mr. Edward Short
Friday's business will certainly be highly non-controversial. I cannot give an undertaking about the Wednesday and Thursday but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says and see what can be done.

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
I am anxious that we should make the best of this bad job. I have a constituency covering 300 square miles and containing 30 to 34 villages. I feel that nine days 1669 will not be sufficient for the kind of campaigning I want to do. We pro-Marketeers feel strongly that the main enemy is apathy rather than the anti-Marketeers. The anti-Marketeers may well feel that they are not putting their case across well enough. Either way, a determined effort has to be made to persuade people. I am worried that many people will still not know the facts after nine days of campaigning.
There is an added feature. It is becoming clear that there is some movement in the country—all hon. Members have received some document from some group —to encourage people to abstain. The stronger that movement grows, the more important it is for us to get round to the villages and other parts of the larger constituencies and explain not only the merits or demerits of the Common Market issues but how vital it is for people not to find spurious excuses for abstaining.
That will make campaigning more onerous. I appreciate what the Lord President said about legislation not being the best way to achieve that, and I would be happy if he gave an undertaking that the date could be shifted so that we rise two days earlier. I appreciate that valuable days will be lost for Adjournment debates, but there is no subject more important to the British nation which any hon. Member could raise than the future of the country in or out of the Common Market.
I feel that the argument in the House is not nearly so strong as the all-important matter of taking the argument to the people of the country. I urge the Lord President to consider the feelings of hon. Members on both sides with large constituencies, and to make an offer to extend the time by a day or two more than the nine days, even if we do not take any time off over Whitsun.

§ Mr. David Steel
I do not wish to prolong the proceedings at this late hour. I admire the capacity of the Lord President for sounding generous while giving nothing away. All he has announced is the date of the Whitsun Recess. Most of us had pencilled in our diaries the recess which we would normally have had after having only one week at Easter. Nothing has been given away. It is unfortunate that we shall not have for the referendum 1670 campaign the amount of time normal for a General Election campaign.
It is already the case that meetings on both sides are under way, but as we get closer to the date of the referendum those meetings will become more regular, so I emphasise that, while I shall seek to withdraw my new clause, the Lord President should take seriously that in the week before the recess there will be a responsibility to make sure as far as possible, through the usual channels, that the business will be such as to allow hon. Members in all parties to get out and speak all over the country. He has given an assurance to do his best to see that that is done, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

The Deputy Chairman
The next debate will be on new Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 21.

§ Mr. Emery
On a point of order, Sir Myer. There is new Clause 9, Minimum requirements for turnout and size of majority 'If, following the counting of the votes, it appears to the Secretary of State that

(a) less than half of those legally qualified to vote have actually done so, or

(b) in the event of a majority of persons voting "No" but the number making up that majority being less than two-thirds of those actually voting, and registering a valid vote,

the Secretary of State shall declare that the referendum is null and void'. This has been selected—and new Clause 15 is to be discussed with it—but has not been called.

The Deputy Chairman
It was intimated that those new clauses would not be moved.

§ Mr. Emery
I am sorry, Sir Myer, but that was incorrect.

The Deputy Chairman
The non. Member's name is not down on new Clause 9.

§ Mr. Emery
An hon. Member's name does not have to appear.

The Deputy Chairman
We were definitely informed that new Clause 9 would not be moved.

§ Mr. Emery
Further to the point of order, Sir Myer. I am sorry. I seldom 1671 want to question the rulings of the Chair, but no hon. Member can know what messages may be given to the Chair and it is in order for any Member to move a new Clause whether his or her name is on the clause or not. As this intimation was not given to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) is not present to move the clause, I wish to do so. I see that the selection list indicates that new Clause 9 is selected if it is desired to move it, and I would ask you to reconsider your ruling because it would accord with normal practice.

The Deputy Chairman
It is not a question of whether any hon. Member can move a new clause. I think it is grossly unfair that any hon. Member should take advantage of the fact when I give the assurance solemnly from the Chair that we were advised that this new clause would not be moved. However, if the hon. Member wishes to move it, he is entitled to do so.

§ Mr. Emery
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I should like immediately to apologise, because no discourtesy to the Chair is meant. I had no knowledge that it had been indicated that new Clause 9 and new Clause 15, "Validity of the total vote", would not be moved. I consider them to be of very considerable importance. They go to the whole sense of the referendum. The Committee may recall that on two occasions I have suggested that the Government will be in considerable difficulty if there is a turnout at the level—[Interruption.]

The Temporary Chairman
Order. While the hon. Member is on his feet, I hope the Committee will be kind enough to give attention to his speech.

§ Mr. Emery
There will be considerable difficulty if the turnout is at the level of many county council elections—about 48 per cent. It is my judgment that those who are against our participation in Europe are likely to poll nearly all their strength. Therefore, a situation could well arise in which with 48 per cent. voting, 24½ per cent.—less than a quarter of the electorate—voted for coming out of the Common Market, 23½ per cent.
1672 voted for staying in, but 52 per cent. of the electorate had not spoken. Perhaps, indeed, the latter category had considered that the judgment of the House of Commons, when 226 Members voted in support of the Government's White Paper which recommended staying in, was enough, and that Parliament having spoken, that was all that really mattered in our democracy.
I am particularly concerned about the position as announced by the Prime Minister. As I understand it, the Prime Minister made it clear that as long as there is one vote in favour of coming out, and however small the turnout, that is the way his Government will interpret the referendum. It would be absolute nonsense if a very large number of hon. Members, particularly Labour Members —it would not apply in relation to Conservative Members but would for about 150 Socialists—were urged to vote against their wishes and the way that they have previously voted in Parliament, on such a remarkably small majority of votes or on such a remarkably small turnout.
In my judgment that is not democracy. It is the people saying "We are fed up to the teeth with this issue. It has been going on for too long. Parliament has made the decision. We believe that Parliament ought to decide and ought not to be coming back with a referendum".
A low turnout will be a condemnation of the referendum more than anything else, and the process of the referendum, and will not necessarily be indicative of the wishes of the population.
The two new clauses go some way towards getting the Government out of their difficulty. I believe that new Clause 15 contains the greater degree of sense. I am sorry that that was not selected for a Division. 1.15 a.m.
New Clause 15 says: The vote on the referendum shall be declared null and void—

(1) if there is an overall vote of less than 60 per cent. of those eligible to vote, and

(2) if there is not a two-thirds overall majority voting one way or the other"

If the Government find themselves in the unfortunate position which I have suggested, new Clause 15 will enable them to get out of that difficulty.
1673 I cannot believe that even the most ardent anti-Common Marketeer would find it satisfactory if the Government introduced legislation to bring the United Kingdom out of the Common Market on the verdict of 26 per cent. of the electorate if under 50 per cent. of the electorate voted. That is not democracy, which the Government claim that the referendum is all about. That does not reflect the voice of the British people.
Both new clauses are worthy of consideration. They should be seriously taken on board by the Government. I urge the Minister to think about them.
Perhaps the anti-Common Marketeers will be happy at a result which is not representative of the whole nation. However, I do not believe that the Government would be happy with that situation. If so, why will they not accept either new Clause 9 or new Clause 15?

The Temporary Chairman
I am in some difficulty about this because of the ruling of my predecessor. However, I have taken the opportunity of reading "Erskine May". The hon. Member is wholly out of order. The ruling contained in "Erskine May" at page 525 is: A Member is not permitted to move a clause of which another Member has given notice. The hon. Member is wholly out of order. I should be grateful if he would assist the Committee by drawing his remarks to a close.

§ Mr. Emery
I thank you, Mr. Williams, for that ruling. However, may I ask you to speak to the Speaker's Panel, since this situation occurred earlier when the ex-Under-Secretary of State for Scotland moved an amendment which did not bear his name. The last ruling allowed him to move the amendment.
In view of the fact that many people support the views expressed in these clauses, will the Minister reply to my question? The country should have a reply on this matter.

§ Mr. Gerry Fowler
rose—

The Temporary Chairman
Order. As the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) was out of order, the Minister would be out of order in attempting to reply to the debate.

§ Mr. Emery
On a point of order, Mr. Williams. I might be able to claim that this is an entirely new precedent. I do not wish to go into the argument, because we might be involved in a slightly legal battle. But, as I have drawn my remarks to a close and as the previous occupant of the Chair allowed me to move the new clause—whether he ought or ought not to have done so is academic—the new clause has now been moved. Therefore, surely it is before the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman
To err is human, but "Erskine May" is divine.

§ Mr. Emery
I hope not.

The Temporary Chairman
The established rule is that—

§ Mr. Emery
May I know the reference?

The Temporary Chairman
I hope that we shall not have a long argument about it. The ruling is set out at page 525, the first paragraph. I find it a little embarrassing, since the ruling was not given by me and I do not want to query another Chairman of the Committee, but the position is quite clear. Indeed, it is mandatory. I will read it again: A Member is not permitted to move a clause of which another Member has given notice. The position is that another Member—the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham)—had given notice on this point. The hon. Member for Honiton quickly moved in and there was insufficient notice for this to have been taken notice of. The hon. Gentleman, under that misapprehension, was allowed to talk perhaps too long. I hope that he will now have regard to the respect which has been shown to him and not talk very much longer.

§ Mr. Emery
May I ask one question about your ruling, Mr. Williams? I thank you for the reference, which I have looked at quickly. Does not this refer to new clauses on Report, whereas we are in Committee? That refers to Report stage of a Bill in the Commons, but we are in Committee. It seemed to me that that was following on. I am asking for information. I am not trying to say that what I am suggesting is absolute.

§ Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)
Perhaps the Minister of State will give his reply while this point is being looked up.

The Temporary Chairman
The hon. Gentleman gives me a baptism of fire. The only other relevant ruling in "Erskine May" which quickly, with the help of the Clerk, I have been able to discover is on page 517. The principle appears to be the same. The procedure is set out in the second paragraph. The provision there is, The Member in whose name it stands is called upon to speak. By analogy one would think that applied.

§ Mr. Emery
Does not the sentence read, The Member in whose name it stands, on being called by the chairman, 'brings up' the clause"? I merely suggest that the position here is not quite the same as in the situation on page 525 where it specifically says that it is the Member whose name appears on the clause.
I immediately bow to your ruling, Mr. Williams, but I wonder whether you would be good enough to look into the matter, because I am sure that as we have now run into difficulties the Chair would want to ensure that this matter was able to be discussed on Report, when I shall ensure that my name is added to the clause and is not withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman
That is something to which the Committee will look forward with great pleasure.
I have given my ruling, and if the first ruling that I have given proves to be wrong, not even that will be a precedent. I have given my ruling, and I think that we should get on. The matter will be looked at and some comment will be made by someone better qualified than myself.

§ Mr. Michael Marshall
On a point of order, Mr. Williams. I have been here for a long time and I was particularly anxious to speak on this clause. If, after further study, you find that your ruling is not as firm as it might be, would it be possible to provide time to take this matter up again tomorrow before we take the Report stage?

The Temporary Chairman
I hope that we are not going to spend a lot of 1676 time on this. The matter can be argued on Report and it will be looked at. It is not for me to determine what will be decided and debated on Report, but these comments will be taken note of and the matter dealt with.