European Commission (Appointments) (Hansard, 25 July 1988)

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the appointments by Her Majesty's Government to the Commission of the European Economic Community. The matter is specific, as these appointments are the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown and specified under a treaty to which both Government and Parliament are currently subject. They therefore arise not from prerogative powers, but from obligations specifically entered into by the House by Act of Parliament.
The appointments are of great public importance as the holders of those offices are thought to have significant powers and influence over the nature and range of legislation that can be applied indirectly to both people and Government of the United Kingdom—even, on occasion, against their express desires. It thus follows that the procedures relating to such appointments, the role of the Commissioners, the proven record of public service and the qualities of the person so nominated, transcend the normal practices relating to domestic appointments. Until recently, that principle appears to have been recognised by successive Governments, but it is now in doubt.
In addition, in respect of one of the nominees, there have been press and other reports relating to the fourth report of the Defence Select Committee, House of Commons paper for the 1985–86 Session, which in paragraph 177 referred to conduct which was "especially reprehensible", and in paragraph 179 to an outrageous way in which to treat a Law Officer of the Crown". The matter is urgent because, while no formal decision on the Adjournment of the House had yet been made, the time available for debate on the matter is likely to be limited to two or three days, within which both the probability and form of debate by other means are not assured when weighed against the importance of the topic.
As the guardian of the role of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, you are thus instructed to be mindful of the responsibilities of Members to debate matters of urgent public importance, especially those which both assert and put into practice the accountability of Ministers of the Crown, and thus their accountability to those who sent us here.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the appointments by Her Majesty's Government to the Commission of the European Economic Community. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have to decide, when making my judgment on these matters, whether an application meets the criteria laid down under Standing Order No. 20.
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not wish to dispute your view that the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised merits taking precedence over other business, but have you had any representations from the Prime Minister about a desire, or even a lack of a desire, on her part to make a statement about the rather remarkable circumstances in which a right hon. and learned Member of the House, who resigned in disgrace from the Cabinet, is now being put forward as one of this country's nominees to serve on the European Commission? As you know from events earlier today, Mr. Speaker, there are deep and bitter feelings about the whole question of the Westland scandal and the role of Ministers in it—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have to say to the shadow Leader of the House that the application to which I have just listened was not concerned with that matter. It was concerned with the appointments—both appointments—to the European Commission.

§ Mr. Dobson
I was going to go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is most legitimate concern in this House about what happened over the Westland affair and whether significant people involved in that affair are, in effect, getting pay-offs for keeping quiet about those events. My right hon. and hon. Friends are especially concerned about the difference between the treatment of the person whom it is proposed should replace Lord Cockfield and that of Stanley Clinton Davis, a former Member of the House, a man of the highest integrity who served this country well in his post as a commissioner, and who appears to have been dispensed with entirely on the basis of personal spite on the part of the Prime Minister. In those circumstances, it is only right and proper that she who makes the appointments should come to this House to explain what she is up to—

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If hon. Members look at the Order Paper, they will see that we have a very heavy day and perhaps even a heavy night ahead of us—[Interruption.] Allow me to answer this question. I can deal only with matters which are my responsibility. I have not received any notification from the Prime Minister that she wishes to make any statement. [Interruption.] Order. However, the House knows that she will be present here tomorrow and the House knows equally that there are other opportunities this week when this matter could be raised if hon. Members think that it is important.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say briefly how totally devastated and baffled we are on this side of the House that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) should wish to continue the reign of Lord Cockfield in Brussels? Having said that, Mr. Speaker, may I also say how baffled we are that we have just received a lecture on parliamentary morality from the Shadow Leader of the House some 10 or 15 minutes after a vote in this House to sustain your authority for which the hon. Gentleman was not present? That must be almost without precedent. The hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), is here and he can tell us 33 whether it is without precedent. It is my belief that usually when there is a vote in this House to sustain your authority, not only the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip, but the Shadow Leader of the House, also comes to your support. We on this side feel that this is totally reprehensible and quite disgraceful.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that the whole House will always support the Chair in these difficult matters. [Interruption.] Order. I cannot see any profit in dealing further with this matter because they are not questions that I can answer—

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If it is on a different issue, I will try. Mr. Winnick.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, there is concern that power and sovereignty are being taken from this House to the European Commission, and I should have thought that that matter would concern you. As power and sovereignty are being transferred more and more from this House to Brussels, are we not now in the ironic position where the Government's appointments of commissioners are not even being debated in prime parliamentary time?
You said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that this issue could be raised with the Prime Minister tomorrow, but what about the possibility of having a debate and the necessity of being able to put forward points of view? It is not just a question of the very controversial appointment of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan)—that may well be a matter for debate—or of what is, in my view, the justified dismissal of Lord Cockfield, the Euro-fanatic; it is also about the right of this House to be able to debate who should be our commissioners in Brussels.

§ Mr. Speaker
Obviously the hon. Gentleman was not here last Thursday when the Leader of the House announced the business for this week—[Interruption.] Well, it is not for me to give hints to hon. Members, but there is an opportunity on the summer Adjournment motion to debate this very matter.

§ Mr. Alastair Goodlad (Eddisbury)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that any suggestion from Opposition Members that my right hon. and learned Friend is anything other than a man of the highest integrity and ability is not only out of order but untrue?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The whole House will agree that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is a man of the highest integrity and that there has never been any suggestion to the contrary.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You announced that in the business of the House there will be opportunities to raise this issue this week, such as in the Consolidated Fund debate and in the summer Adjournment debate, but I would point out that those opportunities will not provide decisions. Is it not one important aspect of this—I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker—the fact that a decision has been announced by the Prime Minister? We should like to know in what way this House can reverse that decision if it is necessary to do 34 so, bearing in mind that this is the last week before we reassemble on 18 October. Presumably, if this House passed a resolution reversing that decision and appointing other persons, that decision of this House would be superior to the patronage doled out by an ever-grateful Prime Minister to the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).

§ Mr. Speaker
As I understand it, the appointments do not take effect until January and in any case, if the hon. Gentleman really wishes to push this matter, he could make the case that we need not adjourn.

§ Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)
In the 40 years up to 1984, 12 Members of this honourable House were suspended on Mr. Speaker's instructions; in the past five years 14 Members—now 15 Members—have been suspended. I believe that the Select Committee on Procedure is now looking into the discipline of the House. Do you not agree, Mr. Speaker, that we have now come to a stage when, often at the end of a parliamentary Session, because suspension means little, any hon. Member who is suspended today, tomorrow, on Wednesday or on Thursday is not really suspended at all, and the abuses of privileges of this House will go on and on? As we are getting to a stage where every day is more like changing guard at Buckingham Palace, wondering who is going to go next, should not we, as a House, decide that people who wish to exercise their privilege to be suspended, should be so for a Session at least, possibly for a Parliament, since otherwise this House gets into great disrepute?

§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Is it on the same matter?

§ Mr. Aitken
Yes, Mr. Speaker. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), may I appeal to you not to suspend the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), because he has made a most important announcement of a new leadership race in the Opposition—first because of the Leader of the Opposition having been asleep during the endless arguments about the sovereignty of this Parliament and, secondly, because he completely missed his chance in the Westland debate? We must not be allowed to exhume all those issues on the bogus issue that there is something wrong with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).

§ Mr. Speaker
Let me deal with the question that was put to me about discipline in this House. I hope that it was a slip of the tongue for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) to say that it is a "privilege" to be named in this place. It is a serious step. I hope that the whole House will always uphold the authority of the Chair. If that does not happen, anarchy becomes the order of the day, and that is not the way in which we can conduct our affairs.

§ Mr. Dobson
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you confirm that it is not a matter for you as Mr. Speaker if someone lies to this House, but that it is a matter for you if someone else says that they have lied?

§ Mr. Speaker
I confirm to the House that we do not use unparliamentary phrases, words or allegations about each 35 other. The whole House knows the reason why the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was suspended today.