Results 21–40 of 1666 for speaker:Sir John Foster

Schedule 1: Counties and Metropolitan Districts in England (23 Oct 1972)

Sir John Foster: if to that is added the fact that Wilmslow is separated from the conurbation by a small but appreciable green belt we can see that the Government's original mistake was that, as the Cheshire County Council suggested, someone flew over it in a helicopter and saw the green areas which they thought belonged to Alderley Edge.

Schedule 1: Counties and Metropolitan Districts in England (23 Oct 1972)

Sir John Foster: My experience of the law courts is that the fellow who lives in a place is very often wrong. This cannot be helped, because his view is subjective. The last census showed that the percentages of 42 per cent. and 28 per cent.—or perhaps it was 41 per cent. and 28 per cent.—were correct. From calling witnesses in the courts, people who lived in a place, I have noted how they are entirely...

Schedule 1: Counties and Metropolitan Districts in England (23 Oct 1972)

Sir John Foster: No. I am saying that where the arguments are fairly finely balanced, where the whole population want to stay in Cheshire they should be allowed to do so. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe said that I did not represent Wilmslow and I should let those speak who did. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies) represents Wilmslow and he is not able to answer these matters...

New Clause 11: Declaration of the Ultimate Sovereignty of Parliament ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: The new Clause merely says, does it not, that the right of the United Kingdom through Parliament to breach its treaty obligations is hereby confirmed?

New Clause 11: Declaration of the Ultimate Sovereignty of Parliament ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) has cut across the arguments on both sides of the Committee that Parliament has sovereignty. The argument from the Opposition benches is that the Clause would merely bring into the Bill a pledge already given by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We ought to look at what the Clause really says. One may take a legalistic view about the word...

New Clause 11: Declaration of the Ultimate Sovereignty of Parliament ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: I said that Parliament had supported the principle of entry. It is for internal political reasons that the strugle to get the Bill through has resulted in majorities not reflecting the principle supported by a large majority. The Clause is intended to serve notice on our partners in the European Community and to other opponents in this country that we reserve the right to break our treaty...

New Clause 11: Declaration of the Ultimate Sovereignty of Parliament ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: The word given by the Executive and supported by Parliament duly elected. I do not shrink from that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) destroyed the argument for the new Clause. He kept on talking about the will of the people being the expression of sovereignty, yet he supports a provision which refers to the sovereignty of Parliament.

New Clause 11: Declaration of the Ultimate Sovereignty of Parliament ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: It is legally true that Parliament has the right to break its word, but it is the last thing it should do. If a civilised country has entered into a treaty it should not break it although it has the legal right to do so. Therefore, the whole struggle of opponents of entry is to prevent the United Kingdom entering the Common Market in the first place. My right hon. Friend the Member for...

New Clause 11: Declaration of the Ultimate Sovereignty of Parliament ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: That is what my right hon. Friend was talking about but he avoided saying it all the way through.

New Clause 11: Declaration of the Ultimate Sovereignty of Parliament ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: I maintain that the record will show that my right hon. Friend did not say that the will of the people would be manifest through a General Election. He spoke of the will of the people acting on both parties or all parties and of that will coming through. That seemed to negate the whole point of the Clause, which refers to the purely legalistic view that Parliament can, if it so decides,...

New Clause 11: Declaration of the Ultimate Sovereignty of Parliament ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: I can see that argument but it does not affect the Clause. I disagree with that argument because at the General Election it was indicated that the Conservative Party would press on with the policy of the previous Government in joining the European Community.

New Clause 11: Declaration of the Ultimate Sovereignty of Parliament ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: Yes, negotiate, and after negotiation one agrees. Obviously there is no point in simply negotiating. Having negotiated and rightly gone into Europe because there was sufficient support, one cannot under the British constitution keep going back for referenda and General Elections. The Executive has been elected through Parliament to enter into the treaties.

New Clause 11: Declaration of the Ultimate Sovereignty of Parliament ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: I do not agree. I interpret the words as entitling my right hon. Friend after he had negotiated to accede to the treaty. The whole of the General Election was founded on the principle by both parties that we should go into the Common Market. It was not envisaged that the Labour Party would turn itself round and say "We do not agree with these terms." That would negate the whole idea of the...

New Clause: Selection of Delegates to the European Assembly and Members of Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: The question is: should the Clause be accepted? The method which should be adopted to select Members is not directly in point. I was interested, however, in what the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said. I shall try to persuade hon. Members that this form of Clause is not the right way to deal with a problem which cuts across parties. The request in the Clause—...

New Clause: Selection of Delegates to the European Assembly and Members of Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: All I am saying is that it should be done by agreement between the usual channels and then subject to debate in the House. Otherwise, the majority could oppress the minority and it would therefore be for the protection of the Labour Party that the Clause should not be passed. I am assuming that the only wish is that what is being sought should be done in the best way. If it is wished to put...

New Clause: Selection of Delegates to the European Assembly and Members of Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: I understood the hon. Gentleman to be against pairing for the people who have these jobs to do. How-ever, if I am wrong in my understanding, so much the better. Here again, one has to be careful about this and have a lot of conventions between the two sides. All of us as parliamentarians—I say this subject to the stricture of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R....

New Clause: Selection of Delegates to the European Assembly and Members of Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: The matter would then be put before a purely parliamentary Committee to sift it through. Again, one would have to go by agreement between the parties. Undoubtedly, it would be difficult, but, in my submission, it is no way of doing it to say that it must be subject to the approval of Parliament. The crunch will come at the stage of agreement in the Committee. The matter will then be debated...

New Clause: Selection of Delegates to the European Assembly and Members of Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee ( 5 Jul 1972)

Sir John Foster: What will happen if a large number of members of one party feel that they should be in Brussels and the others do not? How would the voting be arranged?

European Communities Bill (14 Jun 1972)

Sir John Foster: I find some philosophical difficulty in my hon. and learned Friend's argument. It is rather like the Greek fallacy which says The proposition on the other side of this piece of paper is untrue and which says on the reverse side The proposition on the other side of this piece of paper is true". The subsection says that the English courts shall decide in accordance with the principle laid down...


<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>

Create an alert

Advanced search

Find this exact word or phrase

You can also do this from the main search box by putting exact words in quotes: like "cycling" or "hutton report"

By default, we show words related to your search term, like “cycle” and “cycles” in a search for cycling. Putting the word in quotes, like "cycling", will stop this.

Excluding these words

You can also do this from the main search box by putting a minus sign before words you don’t want: like hunting -fox

We also support a bunch of boolean search modifiers, like AND and NEAR, for precise searching.

Date range

to

You can give a start date, an end date, or both to restrict results to a particular date range. A missing end date implies the current date, and a missing start date implies the oldest date we have in the system. Dates can be entered in any format you wish, e.g. 3rd March 2007 or 17/10/1989

Person

Enter a name here to restrict results to contributions only by that person.

Section

Restrict results to a particular parliament or assembly that we cover (e.g. the Scottish Parliament), or a particular type of data within an institution, such as Commons Written Answers.

Column

If you know the actual Hansard column number of the information you are interested in (perhaps you’re looking up a paper reference), you can restrict results to that; you can also use column:123 in the main search box.