§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a short business statement.
The business already announced for tomorrow will now be preceded by a debate on early-day motion 1782.
[That this House regrets that the Chairman of Ways and Means, having selected Amendment 27 to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which has support from honourable Members on both sides of the House, having called a Right honourable Member to speak on that amendment, and having allowed a debate upon it to take place, should then have decided, contrary to normal practice, not w permit a division to take place upon that amendment, thus denying the House an opportunity to reach a decision on an issue relating to the applicability of the Protocol on Social Policy contained in the Maastricht Treaty, a protocol which Her Majesty's Government held to be so important that it sought and obtained a special opt-out from it for the United Kingdom; and, in the light of these considerations, and the long term significance of this ruling for parliamentary debates on all future legislation, calls upon the Chairman of Ways and Means to re-consider his ruling forthwith, and to permit the Committee to reach a decision on that amendment.]
§ Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South)I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Are there any major implications for the timing of the rest of tomorrow's debates? More important, can he confirm my understanding that, although hon. Members in all parts of the House, and in particular my hon. Friends on the Front Bench who deal with foreign affairs, will continue to argue for the House to have an opportunity on Report to decide on amendment No. 27, even if the motion for debate tomorrow were passed, no vote in Committee on that amendment would procedurally now be possible?
§ Mr. NewtonThe answer to the latter point raised by the right hon. Lady is that the point in the Bill at which amendment No. 27 would have been voted on, had it been chosen in that way, occurred at about 10 o'clock last night and has now passed.
The answer to the first part of the question about the implications for the timing of further proceedings is that that is in the hands of the Committee because it will be determined by the amount of time that hon. Members wish to take in debating the early-day motion to which I referred.
§ Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)Is my right hon. Friend aware that I suspect that many hon. Members deeply regret that some right hon. and hon. Members decided to table the motion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and is it not an extremely dangerous precedent if the rulings of the Chair in deciding what amendments shall be selected or what votes shall be taken are to be determined by a majority vote in the House?
Does that not also have serious implications, as we shall have to return to the matter on Report, if the motion is approved? That would put the Chair in an impossible position. Either it will have acceded to pressure coming from those tabling the motion or find that the Chair, and Madam Speaker, could face a similar motion. Is it not 184 highly unfair to the Chairman of Ways and Means, whom many of us feel has been placed in an almost impossible position when he has been carrying out his duties with great good humour and tolerance?
§ Madam SpeakerBefore I call the Leader of the House to reply to that question, I ask hon. Members not to anticipate tomorrow's debate. This is a very narrow statement indeed and questions should be confined to its content. Let us not anticipate what will take place tomorrow.
§ Mr. NewtonMadam Speaker, obviously I am grateful for that guidance, but I think it was clear from the reaction of the House that my right hon. Friend's regret will be widely shared. I express the hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish tomorrow to reaffirm something which I believe to be very important for the whole of our proceedings and for all groups in the House—support for the authority of the Chair.
§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)Does the Leader of the House accept that the motion is a de facto motion of no confidence in the Chair, and, as such, is a gratuitous move? Since it has been tabled in the names of right hon. and hon. Members who are predominantly members of the official Opposition, why is the time for the debate not being taken out of time set aside today for the official Opposition?
§ Mr. NewtonI note the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. It was felt right, as we considered these matters, to provide an opportunity for reflection and for the motion to appear on the Order Paper, and then for it to be debated if it was maintained. That is the position that we have adopted. I think that was right. I am grateful for the implicit support that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) expressed for the position that I put a moment ago.
§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale)In view of the fact that the indications from the Opposition Front Bench are that they will not support the motion, will the Leader of the House make renewed efforts to get those who have tabled the motion to withdraw it? Does he agree that the House usually does itself considerable damage when it seeks not to trust and support the Speaker and those who have the extremely difficult task of selecting amendments and making other judgments? Does he agree that in such cases we nearly always get into situations which put the House at a huge disadvantage? In this case, is it not particularly inappropriate when we can revert to the matter on Report?
§ Mr. NewtonI agree with every word that my right hon. Friend has said. I hope that his request—perhaps it could be described as a plea—will be heeded by those who have chosen to table the motion. I add my voice to those seeking further reconsideration even now.
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)I thank the Leader of the House for following the precedents of the House in finding time to debate a motion of this character, last moved, as he will know, by a former Lord Chancellor, Sir Elwyn Jones, during the passage of the European Communities Act 1972, and supported by all Opposition Members.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is a House of Commons matter since the motion tabled by 10 per cent. or more of the total membership of the House 185 touches upon the future proceedings of the House in respect of all legislation and not only the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? Will he give the House an assurance that this will be seen, contrary to practice, not as a party matter but as a House of Commons matter on which every hon. Member must reach his or her own conclusion?
§ Mr. NewtonIt is certainly a House of Commons matter. The reaction of many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House shows that, as it is a House of Commons matter, they wish that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his action.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to debates on earlier occasions, I think that he will find that there is no clear parallel for the motion which he has tabled in the example which he has chosen from 1972, when the motion was presented specifically as an attack on the Government rather than on the Chairman of Ways and Means. There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's motion is intended as an attack on the Chairman of Ways and Means.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)My right hon. Friend will probably tell me that, because of the terms of the motion which has been selected, early-day motion 1792, which I have tabled, will fall because it is on the same subject.
[That this House would wish it to be understood that Tories opposing the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, opposed to the Social Chapter, have wished to vote for the Chapter with socialists approving the Chapter and in support of the Bill and that it should be understood that the upset caused by the declaration by Government that Parliament would be recommended to accept the new clause that would give a clear opportunity to vote for or against the Social Chapter, after approval of the Bill, is because those for and against the Chapter, and those against and for the Bill will be able to vote against each other rather than together; and that it will be understood that this simple way forward should have support from all who desire clarity in politics and separation between people with opposite views.] Will it be possible in the debate to discuss early-day motions 1790 and 1791, which point out that the opponents—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. That question has nothing to do with the Leader of the House. I said earlier that this is a confined statement. It is a supplementary statement. It concerns only the change of business and not early-day motions tabled by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Bottomleyrose—
§ Madam SpeakerIs the hon. Gentleman asking the Leader of the House a question that he can answer and that he has the authority to answer?
§ Mr. BottomleyI am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. In essence, I am asking whether an amendment may be 186 tabled to the motion that has been selected stating that the House expresses confidence in the impartial way in which the Chairman has conducted our proceedings up to now.
§ Mr. NewtonMadam Speaker, you will probably agree that the issue of amendment and selection is certainly one for you.
§ Madam SpeakerLeave it to me.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)My question relates to the implications of the statement for the rest of tomorrow's business. We were expecting a full day's debate on the subject of the referendum and a vote at 10 pm. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that the debate and vote on a vital matter such as the referendum will not be truncated and shunted into the early hours of the morning? However inconvenient it might be for the two Front Bench teams, we must have a legitimate debate and vote on the vital matter of the referendum.
§ Mr. NewtonThe hon. Gentleman must understand that I cannot sensibly add to what I said—I think to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—earlier. Ultimately, it is for the House to determine how long the debate proceeds.
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)Will my right hon. Friend confirm that during tomorrow's debate it will be in order to refer to comments made by the Chairman of Ways and Means on a Scottish television programme at the weekend when he said, in effect, that any amendment tabled that was judged to be a wrecking amendment would not be selected or voted on?
§ Mr. NewtonI did not have the opportunity of seeing the interview to which my hon. Friend has referred, but, subject to your approval, Madam Speaker, it is possible that it will be in order in tomorrow's debate to refer to an interview of that sort.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Is the Leader of the House aware that some of us believe that there should not be any fuss or bother about the fact that some of us think that the Chairman of Ways and Means was the one who set the dangerous precedent, not my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and other hon. Members who signed the motion? The Chairman decided to ignore the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition about a vote on amendment No. 27. In doing so, he made a rod for his own back—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. That does not relate to tomorrow's business.
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, he may well be called in tomorrow's debate.
§ Madam SpeakerI shall now move on.