EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE) (Hansard, 24 January 1978)

§ Mr. Tebbit
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter concerning the consideration by the House of European Economic Community documents. The Scrutiny Committee on European legislation recommended some time ago that the House should discuss, amongst other documents, Document R/2461/75—a report on an action programme for the aeronautical sector. On the Order Paper last night there was an order which enabled a discussion to take place.
However, the document concerned is entitled "A Commission Report to the Council on an Action Programme for the European Aeronautical Sector", whereas, according to the Order Paper, we were to discuss developments in the EEC civil aircraft sector on a motion in the name of the Prime Minister: That this House takes note of developments in the EEC Civil Aircraft sector as outlined in the Government's memorandum of 17th January 1978". You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, the difference between the two matters. The document from the Community was on the whole of the aeronautical sector. The discussion last night on the Government's motion was on the civil sector. Hence, the Chair ruled that it was out of order to discuss any matters concerning military aviation. If one looks at the document from the Community one finds that pages 7 and 8 in particular and pages 6 and 7 of Annex 1 deal specifically with the military sector. In particular, there is a proposal to set up a European common procurement agency for military aircraft. [Interruption.] If the Liberals could go back to Blackpool for their discussion, I should be most grateful.
My point is that this sets a precedent by which the Government decide which parts of a European document should be discussed when the Scrutiny Committee has recommended that the whole of a document should be discussed. I should therefore be grateful for your advice, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you might ask the Scrutiny Committee to reconsider how we should proceed and whether it would be proper to have a further discussion on this document so that we might cover 1179 those matters which were ruled out of order last night.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although the Chair has absolutely no control over what motion the Government choose to table, I suggest that the Chair might consider using its power not to put the Question at the conclusion of the debate, on the ground that the matter has been inadequately discussed, as a means of showing its disapproval of the Government endeavouring to restrict discussion on a document which a Committee of the House has suggested should be discussed in toto.

§ Mr. Skinner
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it would be as well if you ensured that others looked at the whole area of documents from the Common Market. Not only did we have this unsatisfactory state of affairs last night, but last week the Minister came to the Dispatch Box armed with certain documents. He did not know whether they came from the Commission or the Council. A debate took place for about one hour until approximately midnight, until my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who watches these matters closely—and even he missed the mistake until the debate had continued for an hour—found that the documents were false. Some of us, not including the two hon. Members who have just spoken, predicted that this situation might arise when Britain voted to go into the Common Market.
This whole matter should be examined to ensure that our affairs are conducted in a more satisfactory manner. But this can never be cleared up entirely until we get out of the Common Market.

§ Mr. Amery
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) argued that the documents in question covered both civil and military aviation. From my own experience at the old Ministry of Aviation I can assure him that it is impossible to separate the two aspects of aviation. For example, the engine that powers Concorde today was originally designed for the TSR2. This situation occurs in one project after another. One cannot separate one from the other. It is 1180 illogical to try to limit a debate to one or other of the two aspects.

§ Mr. Pattie
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I took part in the debate last night and it would be wrong for the House to get the impression that these documents were fully considered. The Chair had no alternative but to rule out of order debate on at least half of the documents.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) for his courtesy in giving me notice that he wished to raise this point of order. If I had been in the Deputy Speaker's shoes last night I should have ruled exactly as he did. He was entirely right in his ruling. He was bound by the title of the motion which was before the House.
I have listened with great care to points of order from both sides of the House. I understand the feelings of hon. Members on the whole question of these documents. Naturally I shall give consideration to what has been said, but I give no undertaking to make a statement.
The matter raised by the hon. Member for Chingford is not a matter for me. It is one for the Government, who will no doubt take into consideration what he and other hon. Members have said when bringing forward any further motions of this sort for discussion.

§ Mr. Jay
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the fault last night lay not with the Chair but with the Government's motion. Surely that raises the point that if the Government are to be at liberty to exclude by their motion certain substantial issues contained in a document which the Scrutiny Committee has brought before the House, they would be breaching their basic undertaking not to allow matters to be decided in the EEC until this House has debated them. Therefore, should we not have an assurance from the Government that this device will not be used again?

§ Mr. Hooley
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I recall the motion correctly, it referred explicity to the documents which the House was seeking to discuss, including the documents to which the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has referred. Does your ruling imply that if, in tabling a motion, 1181 the Government refer quite correctly to the documents but do not spell out the precise titles of every one, the motion in some way becomes faulty?

§ Mr. Tebbit
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept that the Chair was correct in its ruling last night and was bound entirely by what was on the Order Paper. On the other hand, there are two long-standing traditions in this House. One is that the Leader of the House affords some protection to Back Benchers—and that is a tradition that we can now forget entirely. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows that is true and he said so last week—

§ Mr. Heffer
My criticism was wider than criticism of the Leader of the House. It was a different situation.

§ Mr. Tebbit
I shall not speculate on the possibility of a non-aggression pact with the hon. Gentleman.
The other long-standing tradition is that you, Mr. Speaker, protect the House against the monarchy, the collective monarchy, the Executive, or anyone else who tries to usurp our power or throttle discussion, even by the use of the Order Paper in the manner adopted last night. It was clear that a Select Committee of this House recommended that the document should be discussed. Equally clearly, that has not been done. I suggest that there is a role here for the Chair in ensuring that what the Select Committee says should be done is in fact done.

§ Mr. David Walder
As one who spoke last night in the debate and, I hope, kept within the rules of order as stated by the Chair, I feel that the basic problem is that for the full title of certain documents, especially those emanating from the EEC, to be set out might lead to a sentence of intolerable length. The problem for the Back Bencher is, I suggest, something on which you might exercise your mind, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps make a statement and give guidance at a later date. The problem concerns the extent to which the Chair can look at the content of the document and then allow the debate to continue relevant to that content.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)
Further to that point of 1182 order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your ruling, the Government will look at the matter and see whether we should make a statement to the House on how best we should proceed. Hon. Members who have attended our numerous debates about how we seek to carry out the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee will confirm I am sure, that we have sought to do so. The Committee itself has confirmed that on a number of occasions. In many respects we are seeking to deal with new matters and new difficulties often arise. But I will look into the matter in view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, to see whether we can assist the House further in that.

§ Mr. Speaker
If I may be permitted to pass comment, may I say that that will please the House?