§ Mr. SpeakerI have received numerous inquiries about the future of the War Crimes Bill and it might be helpful if I reminded the House of the provisions of the Parliament Acts.
The rejection of the War Crimes Bill for a second time by another place brings into play the provisions of the Act. The House of Lords will be asked to return the Bill to this House where it will be prepared for Royal Assent. No further proceedings are required in this House.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor)Further to your statement, Mr. Speaker, the whole House will be grateful to you for clarifying the position under the Parliament Acts. In particular, your statement has made it clear that the procedures now being followed come into play automatically following the defeat of the Bill last night in another place.
The Parliament Act 1911 makes it clear that only if the House were to direct to the contrary would the Bill not be submitted for Royal Assent. It will be for the convenience of the House if I make clear now on behalf of the Government that we see no need for time to be made available for the House to consider this matter yet again. The House has repeatedly made clear its support for the War Crimes Bill, on free votes, and by very large majorities. The most recent occasion was on the Second Reading of the Bill this Session on Monday 18 March. There is, therefore, no case for putting the matter to the House again.
§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)When we debated the possibilities of following this procedure in the Chamber a few weeks ago I made it clear, on behalf of the Opposition, that we thought that the most important principle at stake was the supremacy of the elected Chamber of the House of Commons. My party has consistently supported that principle since the Parliament Acts were introduced and we have no hesitation in saying today—I do so on behalf of the shadow Cabinet and my hon. Friends—that we think it is proper now for that procedure to be followed without further delay.
Although I personally did not support the War Crimes Bill, the reality is that this House, by substantial majorities on two occasions, passed it. It cannot be acceptable for a non-elected, unrepresentative Upper House to frustrate the will of the elected House of Commons. That would be totally unacceptable to us. I make that absolutely clear in supporting the decision that you, Mr. Speaker, have taken. You have the support, as does the view expressed by the Leader of the House, of Her Majesty's Opposition.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I take it that hon. Members wish to raise different matters. The War Crimes Bill is not a matter for me.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, it may be worth drawing the attention of the House, before Mr. Speaker signs the certificate which would be the next stage in this procedure, to the fact that 80 years ago, in the preamble to the 316 Parliament Bill as it then was, it was said that it would be expedient to do this because it was intended to switch the basis of the House of Lords from a hereditary to a popular basis. As it has taken 80 years to do that, would it not be sensible to have not quite so long a delay before a certificate is used—for the first time in 50 years—and what would be lost by allowing the House a second opportunity to decide whether or not that certificate should be used?
§ Mr. SpeakerThese are matters for the Government. They have made their position quite clear in what the Leader of the House has said.
§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not in fact a matter for the Government; it is a matter for you. Therefore, in the interests of the whole House, an opportunity ought to be given to this House to pause and consider whether we really want to implement this legislation and the mechanism which has been installed, which was intended for issues of great constitutional importance—not for the narrow and rather unworthy purpose of facilitating the prosecution of a few old men—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That may be, but the position is quite clear. I am bound by the Act. I have no discretion in this matter, unless the House directs otherwise.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was there not a 12-month interval between the times that we debated this Bill? Is it not a fact that on those two occasions and before—on the principle of the Bill—there were substantial majorities in favour of proceeding? What would be the purpose if the views of the elected Chamber did not prevail and if the views of the unelected Chamber did prevail on this point? It is not just the merits of the case—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Matters of this nature are relevant to a debate. They are not relevant to points of order. I cannot answer that question.
§ Mr. Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am certainly not a lawyer and I know very little about the law. However, I pay great attention when lawyers of great distinction in the other place—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman may well take account of that, but it is not a matter for me on a point of order. The Government have made their position clear.
§ Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your statement reasserts the supremacy of this place over a wholly unelected Chamber. Can there be any delay in the necessary documentation coming from another place to this House?
§ Mr. SpeakerMy understanding is that we send a message to the other House asking for the Bill to come back.
§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago you said that you were powerless to act—I think that I quote you accurately—"unless the House directs otherwise." Would you please advise us as to what procedures are open to us to enable the House to act otherwise? May I, through you, remind 317 my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that many of us on these Benches are thoroughly ashamed that a Conservative Government are doing what they are doing.
§ Mr. SpeakerI can give the hon. Gentleman the answer to his question. Yes; certainly if the Government were to table a motion and to find time for it, that would be an opportunity for the House to give its decision. If the hon. Gentleman were to table a motion and the Government were to find time for it, that would also be an opportunity for the House to decide.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have made a statement about what the House could do in the circumstances that prevail today. As we all know, there is a possibility that the House of Lords will reject what you have said and that it will take further action. I think that it is high time that the House and you, Mr. Speaker, considered that the next step should be to abolish the House of Lords. There is a general election in the offing. What is the point of having a general election for 650 Members of Parliament if the people down the road, 1,100 of them who are there for life, with not one elected by anybody outside the place, can tell the elected House of Commons what to do? Let us get rid of them.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a point of view.
§ Mr. MacGregorYou have made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that the procedures under the Parliament Acts are automatic. The Government, both through myself and the Home Secretary, made it clear in the procedure debate and on the Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill in March of this year that, if a dispute remained between the two Houses, we would expect, as the Parliament Acts do, to ensure that the views of the elected Chamber ultimately prevailed over those of the other House.
The position is straightforward. That is the stage that we have reached under the Parliament Acts and you, Mr. Speaker, have made clear the action that you must take. As for the Government, it is clear that the House expressed its view on a number of occasions by very large majorities, on a free vote. It would be wrong for the Government to intervene now to frustrate the wishes of this House.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not think that we can pursue the matter any further.