European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Hansard, 2 December 1992)

§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)
On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You have been exceptionally helpful in trying to enable us to conduct this debate in a reasonable and sensible fashion. Can you help in any way to overcome a problem which may become serious for all of us? As I understand it, you are quite circumscribed in the degree to which you can regulate the length of hon. Members' speeches. I understand that you can stop them for speaking away from the point—for example, talking about the north pole when they are supposed to be talking about Strasbourg. You can check hon. Members for being tedious and repetitious. However, for anybody who knows anything about the European Community, it is perfectly possible to speak about the European Community for days without being repetitious—absolutely for days without being repetitious. The only limitation is the state of the larynx and whether there is some water available.
On the actual management of the debate, I compliment you, Mr. Morris, on dividing it into subjects so that we can have a rational discussion, or a succession of rational debates. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will not object if I relate that, as we came into the House by accident—pas hasard, if I may use that expression—together this morning, he remarked that, if one was called upon to speak about industrial, consumer, commercial, agricultural, and market issues, one could go on for a very long time and that, if one was not able to do that, one would be quite a duffer. We have a real problem. What do we do?
There are three ways of dealing with the problem. First, Mr. Morris, you could have a timetable motion. You might say that that has nothing directly to do with you and that it is a matter for the Government at some stage to decide—they may at some stage so decide, although we have a problem with majorities. There are Members of Parliament such as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who would consider such a motion out of order, that it would not be appropriate because we are dealing with a constitutional issue and would raise that matter with you. That is a problem.
The second way of dealing with the problem is for a closure motion to be moved by the Government or by hon. Members. There is talk that there might be a closure motion some time this evening—talk in the couloir. Let us suppose that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) continues remorselessly, ineluctably, unrepetitiously—

§ Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)
And boringly.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
"Boringly" is a word I did not use. Conservative Members might use it. 290 The proposal is brought to you, Mr. Morris, because you decide whether closures are appropriate. That would be very difficult for you, because only four hon. Members would have spoken, and no Labour Back-Bench Member would have spoken. That would be exceedingly difficult for you, despite the length of time for which the hon. Member for Stafford had spoken unrepetitiously, as I have said. That is a difficult matter.
Thirdly, you could have a time limitation by agreement, Mr. Morris. That is done, as we all know, by the 10-minute limit on speeches, but it has not, as far as I know, ever been used in Committee. It might even be precluded in Committee; I do not know about that. It might be considered for a Committee; I do not know about that. For example, hon. Members say, "Yesterday, I spoke, according to the record"—

§ The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. The hon. Gentleman brings 28 years' experience to the House. Hon. Members, not least those who have had fewer than 10 years in the House, will have listened to the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that tedious repetition is out of order, as indeed is irrelevance. Water is not supplied to keep hon. Members going, and I am afraid that there is no 10-minute limit.
However, we are making progress. Almost every hon. Member who has tabled an amendment in the first group has spoken. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has covered all his matters. I imagine that he will just about be winding up and that we can make progress and look forward to contributions from Back-Bench Members.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I have raised, as far as I can remember, only three points of order in all my time in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] It is all very well hon. Members saying, "Hopefully." It is perfectly proper for you to hope that the hon. Member for Stafford will resume his seat in a short time. Unfortunately, it is true that, whatever his unique qualities, the hon. Gentleman is not the only hon. Member with loquacity, and others could imitate his capacity for speaking for two hours.
Therefore, will you speak to the Procedure Committee to see whether there is any way in which one could deal with that? You can check hon. Members for repetition. There is a stage at which one could speak at length without repetition, but one would be going beyond a cogent argument. Perhaps you might look into that.
Another point that you might consider, Mr. Morris, is whether you could talk to the parties or to the groups about a rational approach. Last night, I had a nightmare—

§ The Chairman
Order. I thought that, with the House rising at 10.30 pm, the hon. Gentleman would have had an early night. Sadly, there is no Procedure Committee at the moment, so I cannot report anything to it. The hon. Member for Stafford tabled no fewer than six amendments. He took rather longer than normal, but he has obviously now covered them. I travel in hope—one has to travel in hope in this job.

§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)
rose—

§ The Chairman
Is it a totally new point of order?

§ Mr. Budgen
It is a new point of order, Mr. Morris.

§ The Chairman
It had better be a new point of order.

§ Mr. Budgen
I wonder whether you could give the Government an early opportunity to make a statement on the decision of the Bundestag, which, if I may say so, is of great importance—

§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament long enough to know that I have absolutely no power to encourage the Government to make a statement about anything. Twice yesterday the hon. Gentleman raised bogus points of order. This is now the third bogus one. I am here to serve the House, but I want genuine points of order.

§ Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)
On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is my understanding, and perhaps it is yours also, that the treaty has to be ratified by all countries according to their constitutions. Does that mean according to the constitutions pertaining at the day that the agreement was reached, or does it take into account the various amendments and variations now affecting certain other constitutions, which are beginning to look suspiciously like opt-outs? I wonder—

§ The Chairman
Order. That has nothing to do with me.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You are, of course, a servant of the House, as we all are, and not of the Government. I was a member of the Procedure Committee. Will you confirm that there is no question of a time limit being fixed by the Chair? Is it not usual, certainly in respect of controversial matters and not only in the House of Commons but in Committee—and nothing could possibly be more controversial than the Bill—that hon. Members debate and explore the Bill?
It is foolish and wrong to say that that is filibustering. No doubt you will confirm that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was never out of order yesterday. He was exploring the details in the amendments. He was explaining his objections and putting forward proposals. He was very much in line with the amendments.
Would it not be wrong if the feeling grew that, because the Government wish the Bill to progress as quickly as possible, hon. Members should be under any pressure whatsoever to say that we will not consider the detail of a Bill which we believe to be of the utmost constitutional significance?

§ The Chairman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there are more than 650 Members of Parliament. I am not sure whether I could call every hon. Member on each amendment.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As it is freely admitted that the Government have presented to us a Bill on which we find difficulty in dealing with matters relative to the ratification of the treaty, surely, in your defence of every hon. Member as Chairman, you should permit hon. Members who are within order to speak, especially as the Government have tried to curtail the debate as best they can by the way in which they have drafted the Bill.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see how we progress. For the moment, we will start again on amendment No. 93.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

§ The Chairman
Is it a new point of order?

§ Mr. Marlow
It is a new point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful to you, as usual. You have just said that it would be impossible for every one of 650 Members to participate in every debate on every issue. That is obviously so. But you realise, Mr. Morris, as do other hon. Members, that this legislation may change fundamentally and put at risk the very powers of the House. Many hon. Members feel deeply about it.
Obviously not every hon. Member will want to speak on every issue or every amendment, but you will be aware of the depth of feeling among hon. Members. You will also be aware that there is no desperate, tearing hurry to get the Bill on the statute book. Not even the Government want it until May 1994.

§ The Chairman
I think that the hon. Gentleman made that speech yesterday. I agree that it is a different day, but perhaps in future the hon. Gentleman could make different speeches on different days.

§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

§ The Chairman
Is it a new one?

§ Mr. Benn
It is about the way in which a referendum might get on to the agenda.

§ The Chairman
We had points of order about a referendum yesterday.

§ Mr. Benn
It is a serious point. I spent most of the night considering how this might be done. One way in which it could be done would be to have a preamble to the Bill, declaratory in character, which said that, in view of the importance of the Bill, everybody should have an opportunity to express an opinion.
There is no preamble to the Bill. Preambles are in order. The preamble which I have in mind would not affect the weight of the Bill but would simply declare that it was a matter on which the public would have a right to express an opinion. I wondered, Mr. Morris, whether you would be ready to consider amendments to the preamble so that the issue of public consent may somehow be introduced into our debates. That is the point that I wanted to make.

§ The Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot read his mind. I should be grateful if he would put the amendment in writing. If something is in writing, I can consider it.

§ Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)
On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

§ The Chairman
I hope it is a new one.

§ Mr. Taylor
It is, Mr. Morris. Clearly it would be impossible for you to read anyone's mind, including that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), on the point of a referendum. The decision must be for you when he presents the amendment in writing.
Would you note that there have been many rulings in the House that a referendum attached to a Bill such as this would not be part of the legislative proceedings, and, indeed, could cause constitutional problems? The purpose of the House is to go through a Bill such as this in 293 Committee. That is why we are a parliamentary democracy. Many of us feel that a referendum is not appropriate in those circumstances.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman made that point yesterday. There is little point in hon. Members making the same points of order, day in, day out.

§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You kindly said yesterday, on a very important point, that it would be possible at any time for the Government to move a money resolution. As this is relevant to possible amendments and would help the Committee, can you say whether that would be in the nature of an amendment, or can you tell us how a money resolution would be placed in the Bill?

§ The Chairman
It would be for the Government to decide the right way to do it. There are various methods which they could use. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks to the Minister if he wishes to progress that. It is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay)
On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Can you give me guidance on whether there can be included in this section of the debate, since the Bundestag requires a two thirds majority—

§ The Chairman
Order. That is hypothetical. I have not called the hon. Lady yet. I call Mr. Cash on amendment No. 93, to which he has already spoken.