POLITICAL COMMENTARY •
Hugh Macpherson
Nothing concentrates the constitutional mind at Westminster more effectively than the prospect of a major defeat on the floor of the Commons. That is what the government is facing now and that is why all the brave talk about adequate discussion on the legislation which will take Britain into Europe is being forgotten. That unsentimental duo, Messrs Pym and Whitelaw, are enjoying the squabbling in the Labour party as much as anyone else on their side of the House but they also know that the key figure in the debate of October 28 was that of the rebels on their own side which came to thirty-nine.
There is a crude piece of arithmetic which goes like this: if five Liberals vote regularly with the government this makes the overall majority in the House thirty five, and if nineteen of the Tory rebels remain solid that means the legislation would have to be passed once more with the aid of Labour votes. At this point the arithmetic becomes tricky because there are a few in the Labour ranks who would go all the way and, as near as is possible to estimate at this stage, twenty-two of the thirty-nine Tory anti-marketeers will remain solidly opposed to legislation. If the Conservative whips can break the number of Tory rebels down to less than twenty they seem home and dry; if it is more than twenty then matters pass into the hands of Mr Robert Mellish and his whips.
Two difficulties face the government: they might suffer a defeat at some vital point such as the second reading of the main enabling bill or they might become bogged down in a morass of legislation. Before the realisation that they could not reduce the number of rebels in their own ranks below that of their majority it had been widely believed that there would be three or more Bills. First there would have been a short Bill before the Treaty was initialled in January perhaps paving the way for accession to the European Atomic Energy Community and the Coal and Steel Community. After January it was anticipated that there would be a couple of Bills with one major piece of legislation somewhere in mid-term.
All this was heady stuff, based on the belief that opinion in the country would have been moulded by the PR activities of the European Movement which would make opposition in the House wither. Now that this has fallen flat Mr Heath has no more intention of gaining the full hearted co-operation of the Commons than he has of gaining the full hearted co-operation of the people. The government now have in mind a large Bill, with many of the provisions covered by orders in council, and much of the discussion of the major Bill moved upstairs by judicious application of the Standing Orders.
Taking it step by step this means that with no further reference to the Commons, the Treaty of Rome will be init'alled in January. Then a series of Orders in Council may be laid giving the Minister very wide powers indeed, say, to bring British law into line with the rules of Euratom as detailed in a series of annexes. These instruments cannot be amended but only 'prayed against,' in a forty day period after they are laid, in a debate that starts at ten o'clock at night. Under Standing Orders this debate should stop at eleven thirty p.m. At this point the Speaker has a difficult job because, as Standing Order No. 4 has it, if he decides that "because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion the time for debate has not been adequate he shall interrupt the business and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting other than a Friday."
The advantages of this are obvious since no matter what view Mr Speaker takes of the importance of the legislation he must have some finite idea of the length of time available, which certainly would not be the case if an ordinary Bill were before the House without benefit of a guillotine procedure.
Having tucked away much of the legislation in this way a major Bill can be brought before the House carefully sculptured to make it as difficult as possible for the Tory Rebels to oppose (since some of the more contentious legislation will be in the Orders laid late at night). The critical vote would be the Second Reading of this Bill but this would be infinitely preferable to a running unending battle on the floor of the House.
When it comes to the Committee Stage of the main Bill the Government will
almost certainly invoke Standing Order 40 (3) which is a creation of Mr Richard Crossman during his time as Leader of the House. By this, the person in charge of the Bill — in this case on behalf of the Government — may move that some el the Committee stages may be taker upstairs and some on the Floor of the House. If this move is defeated the whole of Committee stages are taken upstairs. This would suit the Government since the rival Chief Whips, in effect, choose their men for a Committee with a maximal, membership of fifty in proportion to their strength in the House which would probably give the Government a majoritY of four on the Committee.
Mr Speaker is once more faced with a difficult choice. For under Standing Order 40 (2) any member can move that the Bill be brought down to the Floor of the House. But which has precedence? Normal' ly it would be expected that the Speaker would give Government business prefer ence but these are not normal times. Thell: the Speaker must choose the Chairman el the upstairs Committee which again is a more delicate task than usual. It is hard to see any device which the
he opposition could use to bring t,
Committee Stages of the Bill on to We Floor of the House. They cannot usg a, Supply Day, when they choose the subjee` of the debate, to rid themselves of the difficult Standing Order, since these claYa must be used in relation to the Estimated the Government presents each year. 10, the Government is hardly likely to presen' the opposition with time for such a debate even on an exchange basis. What is left re the opposition is a direct vote of censure — which is what they threatened ea Wednesday. The evidence is that the Government 15 prepared to railroad its legislation throug,ilt Parliament in much the same way that I has in the country, and with the salve scant regard for democratic princiPle' Normally Parliament operates on a gentleman's agreement but obviously the question of the Market is one that is beirlg decided strictly on the rules. That is W11.5,1 anyone concerned with the question Wi` have to consider such tedious matters as the Standing Orders of the Commons. d It also means that Mr Speaker Ll°Y.„, could become a celebrated name 1" constitutional history because of t,itl! delicate decisions that he has to take. will require a great deal of courage Whic„ is in the great tradition of the Chair airl,c: he, in effect, is presiding over tr!`" introduction of measures which will eroae the sovereignty of Parliament to a degree far beyond anything in the past. When Mr Speaker Lloyd comes to facied some of these delicate decisions he 011,', well remember that the great Speak created precedents when they felt thd authority of the House was threatene 'e Speaker Brand said in 1881, when 11., applied the Closure on his own responsi bility in the face of Irish Members bent ardl disruption: "The usual rules have Pr°v,,ee powerless to ensure orderly and effect14 debate. . . . The dignity, the credit and ru„, authority of this House are serioualiv threatened, and it is necessary that rile' should be vindicated."
Previous page
