| Previous Section | Home Page |
Sir Peter Emery : I partly follow what my hon. Friend has said : that is another line of approach, and not one
Column 283
taken by the Procedure Committee. As I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, I will not go down that particular valley at the moment.I would, however, ask my right hon. Friend to give us an absolute assurance that, at the end of the summer, when we have seen some of the work of these Committees, he will look at them again, because when we compare two Committees of 13 members each, making 26 in all, with three Committees of 10 members each, making only 30 members in all, the membership argument seems to be slightly weak--although I accept that there may be some problems with the division of members of the Committees as regards the different parties in the House. We need the absolute assurance that, if this experiment appears not to be working as well as it might, the whole concept will not be rejected, because we have moved so far from what was originally recommended by the Procedure Committee.
11.32 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Both the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) put a very difficult question tonight concerning the quality and quantity of consultations which had taken place within the parties about the membership of these committees. It may be the case that the only party which has had such a series of discussions is the Liberal party--and, characteristically, its Members are absent from this debate. I have not been involved in any such consultations, and that is a problem common to both major parties in the House, whatever may have happened in some smaller parties.
Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : In reply to the hon. Member's query, I can say that there has been full consultation with all the minority parties, including the SLD.
Dr. Godman : I am pleased to hear that. I look forward to regular attendance by these hon. Members at the Committee meetings. That will be the proof of the pudding when it comes to their interest. Initially, I sympathised with the idea of five. Committees, but I just cannot believe that we could find in this place the hon. Members with the qualifications outlined by an earlier speaker. In my seven and a half years in the House, I have always noted the sparse attendance at these debates.
While I have some sympathy for the proposal by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that we devote a day each week to European Community matters, I still do not believe that there would be a large attendance unless we were dealing with controversial issues. There is still massive indifference here to the European Community, despite the fact that we now have in Brussels, among other things, a supreme court where the English and Scottish legal systems are covered, and that this House, along with the other 11 national legislatures in the EC, cannot impose upon the decision-makers in Brussels the necessary democratic checks and restraints.
All hon. Members, whether pro-integration or anti-integration, should be demanding checks and balances to be instituted formally in this House and in the other 11 legislatures. Failure to do that will accelerate the continuing diminution of power. We should be doing something about that. I am not speaking as someone who detests the European Community. In my part of Scotland,
Column 284
we have benefited considerably from some Brussels decisions, but it is essential for us to acquire the power to which I have referred. The proposal for five Committees is a fine ideal but utterly unattainable, given the massive indifference to which I have referred. We should be talking of three Committees. Again, that might be a difficult objective to achieve.Earlier, I asked the Leader of the House about the fair division of labour between the two Committees. Considering the spread of responsibilities, I have difficulty in accepting the provisions on the qualifications of members. I suspect that members will be chosen on an ad hoc basis and that there will not be tough selection criteria for membership.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked the Leader of the House about the precedence to be given to hon. Members in the questioning of Ministers. That privilege should be given to the members of the Committee. If it is not, come a controversial subject and the appearance of a Minister to be cross-examined, hon. Members who are assiduous attenders of sessions may be pushed to one side by a gang of hon. Members who are anxious to be picked up by the television cameras.
Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham) : Privy Councillors.
Dr. Godman : My hon. Friend suggests Privy Councillors. Priority must be given to members of the Committee.
For the reasons already outlined, I sincerely hope that the two Committees are a success in the very important work which they have to carry out on behalf not only of the House and its largely indifferent Members but of the people whom we represent in our constituencies.
11.38 pm
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : I strongly support the Leader of the House in his motion tonight, because I want to see the House scrutinise European legislation far more effectively than it has tried to do in the past. I make common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on that point. How many times have I sat in this Chamber when we have had the late night debate about which he has complained and said that the whole process was a farce?
There will, of course, be problems with the new Standing Committees. I should like to go further than the proposals we have tonight. I have always thought that these Committees should have their own Chairmen rather than these being drawn from the Chairman's Panel. That would give them greater coherence and enable them to have a much bigger public impact, just as Select Committees are having a bigger public impact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was crude enough, perhaps, to say that some people would be press-ganged to serve on these Committees. I have certainly made it known to certain people that I should be very happy to serve, and I think that others would do the same. But there would be a problem here. You would quickly rule me out of order if I referred to last night's debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is a problem about manning the Committees of the House which has perhaps been ignored up to now. Without going into details, perhaps some hon. Members were rather surprised to find
Column 285
themselves being nominated for a particular Select Committee, possibly in contravention of Standing Order 104. I will not weary the House or labour the point, but there is a problem.I therefore think that the proposal before the House tonight that we should have two Standing Committees, although I would like to see three, is a realistic one.
Mr. Dykes : Does my hon. Friend think it is a good idea that members of the EC Scrutiny Committee should not be members of these two Standing Committees, even if they choose from time to time to attend them?
Mr. Harris : I am quite happy with the present proposal to exclude them, because they are not being debarred from giving these new Standing Committees the benefit of their considerable experience. I envisage a situation in which, for example, the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, given his intense interest in these issues, will come along to one of the Standing Committees and make known his views and the views of his Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is absolutely right : we have not got a perfect situation by reducing the number of Standing Committees to two, but it is a darn sight better that what we have had up to now, and I think that the House, at the end of this debate, should give the authority for the establishment of those two Committees and let them make a good job, in spite of all the difficulties, of the very important task in front of them. 11.43 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) : I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take careful note of what is being said in the debate, because he is acute enough to realise that there is a degree of questioning right across the House about whether we are anywhere near getting our procedures right for scrutiny in all its aspects.
I want this proposal to go forward tonight. It is more modest than I would have liked and I think that, if it is to work, and if we are to have confidence in the improvement of scrutiny, a great deal of good will is required on all sides. Good will is needed on the part of hon. Members, to attend if they are appointed to these Committees and if scrutiny is to be effective. Good will is also needed on the part of members of the Scrutiny Committee itself to ensure that we are operating in the right spirit in the recommendations that we make as to where debates should take place.
It requires good will from the Government to recognise unease in the House. Major issues may arise from documents that merit debate on the Floor of the House. Were the Government to take a restrictive view of the number of documents that could be considered on the Floor of the House following a recommendation by the Select Committee, it would create some dismay among hon. Members. We must try to achieve the right balance. I hope that the Government will be prepared to experiment and quickly reconsider the proposal if it does not appear to be working out.
The debate has been enlarged from the modest proposal that is before us. The proposal is worth supporting if it is seen as only a start. It is at least an improvement and I am glad to speak in support of the hon. Member for Newham,
Column 286
South (Mr. Spearing) who is my Chairman in the Select Committee on European Legislation. It should be better to have a Committee that has continuity than one that is appointed ad hoc to consider particular documents, and it will have the added benefit of being able to question a Minister about a document. The mechanism to improve scrutiny is available. Much will depend on the good will of hon. Members who are appointed to do the job properly and in the right spirit.There has been a credibility gap floating like a bubble over the debate on whether hon. Members will be prepared to do their duty in carrying out scrutiny on behalf of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and his 149 friends, if he is to be believed, must be a stock that can be drawn on. Is there, by contrast, some doubt among hon. Members that the reality of attendance at debates in the Chamber and in Committee is not always what it should be? There is no point in deluding ourselves. As one or two of my hon. Friends have pointed out, much as we complain about the system, we have not always distinguished ourselves in operating the systems that are available to us.
Some adverse comment has been made about tonight's attendance, but it would do credit to some debates held earlier in the day. It has been a thoughtful debate, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take it in the right spirit and will be prepared to see it as a further chapter, and not the last word, in the way in which the House deals with scrutiny.
11.46 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) : I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). To some extent, that indicates the natural wish of hon. Members of the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which he is a member--its Chairman, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), like the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), has contributed to the debate--that this experiment should be successful. That is important, and not for the ironic result of trying to apply strict and more profound scrutiny to EC legislation than to domestic legislation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden implied, it is somewhat suprising and ironic to reflect that, on major financial legislation, the House can vote billions of pounds of new Government expenditure and Supply with only a few hon. Members paying the slightest attention, while a Commission proposal costing a couple of million ecu produces an over- excited reaction from more hon. Members, as if yet another act of rape is taking place by European Community institutions of the hapless British body politic. We must keep that in perspective.
Members of the Scrutiny Committee agree with the recommendation of the Procedure Committee and are particularly anxious that the new Select Committees succeed. We share the disappointment that has been expressed that it is a watered-down and reduced structure, although we acknowledge that the Leader of the House and his predecessor did their best in trying to get this together.
I was intrigued by the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that members of the two Committees would be selected ad hoc. I surmised that he meant Members in the Tea Room who
Column 287
could not get out of the door before being pounced on and having their name added to the list. I assume that the selections that are made through the usual channels, in sophisticated conversations and consultations, are more scientific and subtle than that. [Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends suggest that that is not the way in which we will work. I am disappointed, because we should have a Parnassian procedure to achieve the right composition of the two Committees.Although he rejected the affectionate overtures of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was wrong to assume that we do not share his objectives. That is where hon. Members from both sides of the House and from different parties come together. It is not true that those who have a slight sceptism at the margins about some elements of our membership of the Community--if I can put the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in that way--are the only people who are enthusiastic about thorough and profound scrutiny.
Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dykes : Not for the moment, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
I know that my hon. Friend wants to have thorough scrutiny because he wants to improve the Community's legislation and make us a stronger and more integrated member of it. Thorough scrutiny is a common objective of all Members of Parliament.
In a way, we are burdened with the original, somewhat artificial, constitutional political objective. Scrutiny was introduced for different reasons from ours. We are now lumbered--if that is the right word to use-- with a procedure which is on some occasions too profound for the material under consideration, if that is not too much of an irony.
Mr. Ron Brown : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dykes : May I continue for a moment?
Precisely because of the original objective, we must make the Committees work. Therefore, it is essential that members of the Committees--and those who are not members, when they choose to attend--do not attend only for the ministerial interrogation and then disappear. I hope that a good number of people will attend, especially if the Committees are televised and broadcast, which would be a good thing.
If members disappear for the rest of the sittings of the Committees, the Committees will be like Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, which hon. Members attend to do their correspondence and leave as soon as possible. There is sometimes a game to see how short the Committee can be. Everyone then agrees that the Statutory Instrument has been considered. If that happens, the Committees will be run down and will not have the significance that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his colleagues wished when they drew up the procedures.
At least the suggestions of the Committee on the European Standing Committees were taken up by the official channels in the office of the Leader of the House more quickly than other suggestions made by the Procedure Committee over the years. That is a good sign, but it is an uneasy mixture. It is as uneasy as the mess with the
Column 288
telephones. We are still waiting for the office of the Leader of the House to respond on that matter. I do not want him and his colleagues to rush excessively, but we have been discussing it for five years. It is a recklessly short period, but people are gradually coming to the conclusion that if possible--the engineers tell us that it can be achieved and they do not rush to conclusions either--we should have dedicated lines so that we can interrogate officials in the Commission and elsewhere, both British and foreign--although, of course, it is more difficult and dangerous when one is talking to foreigners--about aspects of proposed and putative Community legislation. That would also be good for the members of the Committees.11.52 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : I preface my remarks by saying that I am one of the people who abhor the concept of the European Community loading our already over-burdened legislative programme with many more regulations, which, if the Community has its way, will set in concrete almost every aspect of our national and private lives. I am torn between examining this stuff in detail in several Committees, or doing as the French do--nodding it through and then operating it to suit ourselves--or as the Italians do--nod it through and then ignore it. But we always like to do things properly in this country, so we must examine this stuff and in some respects modify it. I entirely support my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in his desire that it be properly scrutinised. I am worried by the idea that we should staff the Committees with experts. It was suggested that the reason why we could not have as many Committees as originally planned is that we cannot find enough experts. Heaven forbid that we should have these regulations, which are bureaucratic nightmares, scrutinised by teams of experts. Surely the whole concept of this place is that it should be a jury of everyman, putting a common-sense view of what the legislature would thrust on us.
Dr. Godman : I must have explained myself in an obscure way. I am cynical enough to believe that we would never find enough volunteers for three Committees, let alone five.
Mrs. Gorman : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am one of a number of people present to whom the idea of serving on the Committees has never been mentioned. It may well be that I am known for my temperamental dislike of Committees, which take up a great deal of our time when we might be more usefully occupied, but I support the idea that there should be an opportunity for those of us with particular concerns to go and discuss them at some length. The most interesting point to be raised in the debate, apart from the informative description of the Procedure Committee's idea that we should have five Committees, was the remark made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who proposed a Grand Committee. Perhaps he can say whether the Government's inability to proceed with the Procedure Committee's suggestion has something to do with Opposition Members pushing for a Grand Committee. By failing to co-operate with the idea of producing enough Members for the Committees, perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton is actually trying to move towards one Grand Committee to consider the enormous amount of legislation. If that were so, would he not agree
Column 289
that the Grand Committee would have to sit as often and as long as the House to pay proper attention to the amount of legislation that the European Community puts our way?Mr. Robertson : I do not think that this is the time or place-- particularly not the time--for a lengthy debate on the idea of a European Grand Committee, which I think is sound. However, for the sake of accuracy and so that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) can return to other aspects of her speech, the Grand Committee proposal is not the reason why the Leader of the House is here today with his suggestion for two Committees. That was not the motivation behind the workings of the usual channels.
Mrs. Gorman : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As my hon. Friends have suggested in their interventions, I am still intrigued to know how the Government came to their conclusion that two Committees were enough. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will say whether there must be 13 people on the Committees or whether, instead, there could be three Committees of eight, nine or even seven, especially as the quorum is only three, presumably the Minister, the Opposition spokesman and A. N. Other--[ Hon. Members :-- "The Whip."]--and the Whip. All those details have yet to be made clear, and I am concerned that the Government should pay due attention to the need to scrutinise the information adequately.
Mr. Favell : My hon. Friend has addressed the issue of the number of Committees, which is important, and I have asked about it. Will she consider amendment (d), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on the necessity of the Committees, no matter how many of them there are, reporting back to the House? If they do not, the power will not lie with the scrutineers, but with those who choose them. The power will be with the people who decide the make-up of the Committees, rather than with the House, and the power of the House will be taken away.
Mrs. Gorman : My hon. Friend makes his point perfectly well. I will not continue with my remarks, as I see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House anxiously looking at the clock, but I hope that, when he winds up, he will make clear the reasons for the Government's decision, as I am not clear what their motives really are. 11.58 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : I shall make three quick points. First, I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in his disquiet at the choice of Chairman for the Committees. They would benefit greatly from permanent Chairmen, not ones chosen ad hoc from the Chairman's Panel. There has been plenty of talk about that, so I will not pursue the matter, but I believe that there is a need for permanent Chairmen.
The automaticity of the proposed procedure will make it very difficult for the House to intervene, despite the fact that very serious issues, with political ramifications, ought to be discussed on the Floor of the House. The report-back situation, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), is very important. If one of the Committees disagreed with the position that a Minister intended to take at the Council of Ministers, a
Column 290
difficult situation would arise. It would be very difficult indeed to proceed with a measure with which Parliament disagreed. Lastly, I want to know how a Minister, having been ignored or defeated by the Council of Ministers, would report to the House. 12.1 amMr. MacGregor : In the few remaining minutes, I shall respond to as many points as possible.
This has been a very interesting debate. I am glad that so many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members support--albeit sometimes with reservations- -the course on which we are embarked.
My hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) all agree that it is right to get on with these proposals, as they represent a considerable improvement. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives that scrutiny will be improved and intensified. I am grateful for his support. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked whether non-members of the two Committees would be able to question Ministers and, if so, what priority their questions would have. Indeed they will be able to put questions. The degree of priority will probably lie with the Committee Chairmen. No doubt the Committees will evolve their own ethos. The hon. Gentleman asked whether Ministers would be full members. No, they will not. However, they will be questioned in the hour's session, and they will be able to sum up and respond to points in the normal way.
The servicing of these Committees--another point that the hon. Member raised--will be similar to that of other Standing Committees. Indeed, these will be Standing Committees, not Select Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) raised a number of points, with which I shall deal as quickly as possible. He made several critical comments about the number of hon. Members involved. I repeat that any hon. Member will be entitled to attend and participate in Committee meetings. Clearly, Members will want to hear the debates on documents in which they are interested. Scrutiny of documents will be longer than it is under the present arrangements.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden wondered just how many Members would attend for some of these scrutiny operations. Their doubts may well be justified : that is why we set the quorum at a reasonable level. I hope that we are wrong ; I hope that 149 of the colleagues of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden will attend each Committee meeting. We shall have to wait and see, but I doubt it very much. Certainly we are providing more opportunity for participation. In any case, this is one of the matters that may be subject to review in the light of experience.
The hon. Gentleman made a great deal of the point that this would not enable the House to examine European issues. Indeed, he went way beyond the documents, to deal with such issues as agricultural surpluses. The House, he said, would not be able to examine these matters sufficiently closely. He knows as well as I do that there are many other means of addressing wider issues. They can, for instance, be dealt with by Select Committees and on the
Column 291
Floor of the House, as is done pretty frequently. For instance, on Thursday we shall have an all-day debate on the important subject of economic and monetary union.It is a substantial misrepresentation of the situation to suggest that the major European issues will be dealt with solely by these Committees, or that the House's general scrutiny of European matters will be confined. Far from it--the Committees will be concerned with particular European Community documents that the Select Committee recommends for further consideration. The documents that are most important politically will still be taken on the Floor of the House. I spent about four years attending intense debates in the Council of Agriculture Ministers and I experienced the decision taking, the policy making and everything else. The House probably scrutinises most of the European proposals more than most, if not all, of the other European legislatives. This is a great help to Ministers, and I believe that this proposal will be an even greater help. The Minister who has been questioned and has listened to views for an hour and, following that, to a debate for an hour and a half in Committee, will have his hand strengthened for when he goes to the Council of Ministers, because he will have a greater knowledge of the views taken by Parliament. That opinion is based on my experience. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) knows, in the Council of Ministers, decisions are often taken on a majority basis, and if we cannot make our view prevail on any issue, there is not a great deal that the scrutiny Committees can do. It was never intended that these Committees would deal with that issue. I confirm to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that I intend to announce forthcoming Committee debates in the weekly Business Questions. That will strengthen the position of the Committees, and will alert hon. Members who are not on the Committees to what will happen, and enable them to adjust their diaries accordingly. As he rightly said, it will also bring the Committees more publicity.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised, both in an intervention to me and in his own speech, a point about the division of the subjects between the two Committees. This is also something that can be adjusted in the light of experience, and each session will be different. In the last Session, 23 scrutiny debates would have fallen to Committee A, and 19 to Committee B, so I hope that we shall get balance right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has great knowledge of these matters, so I listened to his speech with great interest. I accept that the Committees that we are proposing are different from those proposed by the Procedure Committee, of which he is Chairman. There can be a number of views about how we set up these Committees, and about their membership.
I hope that the fact that any hon. Member will be able to come to these Committees--I keep stressing this point because it is an important feature- -will mean that some of the worries about their being simply confined to the 13 members of each Committee will be overcome. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that it is better to get the Committees up and running so that we get the experience, because they are an improvement on the
Column 292
present system. I am also grateful for all the work that he and his Committee have done in enabling us to get to this point.I am happy to restate my assurance that I am prepared to review this at the end of the Session--a point about which my hon. Friend asked. Many of the hon. Members here tonight will wish to express their views in the light of the experience of the next six months. I hope that we can get on with these Committees so that we can gain that experience.
Amendment made : (b), after thirteen', insert
in paragraph (4), line 24, leave out "two" and insert "three".'.-- [Mr. Spearing.]
Amendment proposed : (d), at end add
in paragraph (8), line 65, at the end add "The Committee shall also have power to report to the House its conclusions on any matter arising out of its consideration of documents referred to it under the provisions of the Order.".'.-- [Mr. Teddy Taylor.]
The House proceeded to a Division ; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- declared that the Noes had it.
Amendment negatived.
It being more than one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 January], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, as amended, and of the motion relating to European Community documents.
Ordered,
That the following Amendments be made to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees) :
in paragraph (1), line 1, leave out three' and two';
in paragraph (3), line 15, leave out ten' and insert thirteen'; in paragraph (4), line 24, leave out two' and insert three' ; in paragraph (6), line 34, leave out several' and leave out the table following pargraph (6) and insert the following table :
|Works cost
|£ million
------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton Street/Blackwall Tunnel |3.5
West India Dock Road Junction phase 2 |0.6
Butcher Row Junction |0.7
Canning Town Flyover/Ironbridge
widening Advance works phase 2 |9.2
Canning Town Flyover/Ironbridge
widening |21.0
A13/A112 Junction Improvement |44.4
A13/A117 Junction Improvment |35.6
Ordered,
That--
(1) European Community Document No. 6701/90, relating to pollution from diesel engines, which stands referred to European Standing Committee B, shall instead stand referred to European Standing Committee A ; and
(2) the following Documents which stand referred to European Standing Committee C shall instead stand referred to European Standing Committee B :
European Community Documents Nos. 8353/90, relating to customs controls on baggage, 8073/90, relating to organisation of working time, 9025/90, relating to nuclear fusion research, 6703/88, relating to burden of proof in the area of equal pay and treatment for men and women, 8461/88, relating to import duties on weapons and military equipment, 8162/90, relating to procurement procedures of water, energy, transport and telecommunications undertakings, 8075/90 relating to safety on temporary work sites, 8792/90, relating to protection of pregnant women at work, 8460/90, relating to protection of individuals in relation to processing of personal
Column 293
data in the Community and information security, 10149/90, relating to the promotion of energy efficiency in the Community, and the Commission Report on the benefits and costs of economic and monetary union.-- [Mr. MacGregor.]PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Mr. Jeff Rooker be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and that Mr. Norman Hogg be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. Kirkhope]
BROADCASTING, &c.
Ordered,
That Joan Ruddock and Mr. Brian Wilson be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c., and that Mrs. Lin Golding and Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. Kirkhope]
ARMED FORCES BILL
Ordered,
That Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes be discharged from the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and that Mr. Julian Critchley be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. Kirkhope]
PETITION
Opencast Mining (Rigside)
12.12 am
Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : I wish to present this petition on behalf of the community of Rigside, a small village in my constituency, which objects to the imposition of a public inquiry by the Secretary of State for Scotland to again consider the planning application of L. A. W. Mining Company to mine opencast on the Townhead site near Rigside.
The Clydesdale district council unanimously rejected this application in the first instance, but was overruled by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the court in Edinburgh ruled that his decision to overrule the council's objection was flawed and in breach of planning law. In presenting this petition, I express my full support to the local community of Rigside, and in particular the Rigside community council, for their unstinting efforts to prevent such a disastrous development.
I commend the petition to the House. It reads :
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
The Humble Petition of the people of Rigside and others sheweth. That the Community of Rigside is opposed to L. A. W. Mining planned extraction of fire clay and coal by open cast method at Townhead Farm in its midst.
That a clear reason for refusal of planning permission for this development has been identified during Court of Session proceedings. That the planned development is unreasonable when National Guidelines are observed.
That it were an ill precedent for future development in this valley, with its high reserves of coal and rich with its mining tradition, should instance of this sort of mineral extraction be approved. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House now seek a determination from the Secretary of State for Scotland in acknowledgement of the Judges' findings without recourse to further inquiry.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
I beg leave to present the petition.
To lie upon the Table.
| Next Section
| Home Page |