House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Feb 1992

Column 69

gesture, they will renounce whaling altogether. Such a decision would be welcomed throughout the other 17 countries.

I hope that the restrictions on the dumping of Norwegian farmed salmon will be maintained. I seek an assurance from the Minister on this because dumping of such salmon has caused serious problems to our communities, which are largely dependent on the still young industry of sea fish farming. Although I have some reservations about the agreement, I think that in general it is a fine thing. 6.24 pm

Mr. David Howell (Guildford) : There can be no doubt that this is an important day for the changing shape of Europe, with the creation of a gigantic single market with a gross national product of £4,000 billion. It is much the world's largest single free trade area, being bigger than Canada and the United States together, and even when those two countries are joined with Mexico. Clearly, this change should be unreservedly welcomed as an advance in free trade which will bring prosperity to all peoples, provided that the lawyers and the European Parliament allow that to happen.

I must confess some sympathy with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about the workings of the European Court of Justice and its tendency always to find in favour of the treaty and the union in its most narrow sense. No doubt we shall come to those matters when the House debates the ratification of the Maastricht accords, particularly in the light of the subsidiarity item, item 3b in the draft Maastricht treaty. Presumably the judicial figures in the European Court of Justice will have to take account of that in the future.

In the meantime, we have this fabulous area of free trade, which we must strongly welcome and support. I have three quick points to make about it. First, this is all very temporary. We are looking at an arrangement that, almost before it comes into being, will be out of date and irrelevant, for the simple reason that several of the countries involved in it want to move on, as rapidly as possible, to full membership of the European Community. Austria and Sweden already have their applications in and hope that they will be under discussion as from June this year. Finland is reaching the decision that it wants to join, on certain terms. Switzerland will have a referendum in September, and I think that it will want to join, as will Norway.

The whole idea that the European economic agreement, creating economic space, would provide a new arrangement that would satisfy the EFTA countries has backfired. Far from satisfying them, it has disturbed the relationship that they had with the Community before and has led to the strong view that they must have membership. That is what is coming and, inevitably, this will lead to a pattern that is entirely different from the one that we are discussing today. Secondly, what we are looking at today is part of the enlargement process that is about to sweep forward and will include not merely the five EFTA countries but the eastern European troika whose association agreements the House will discuss later, and perhaps the three Baltic states. Malta and Cyprus are also on the list, with Turkey at the end of it. There are also the new states of Slovenia

Column 70

and Croatia, and heaven knows what other states will emerge out of the Balkan stew. All may want to become full members of the European Community.

The European economic agreement is just the first step in the gigantic drama of enlargement of the European union. We still speak of the European Community but, from the moment of ratification of the Maastricht document by all Parliaments, we shall have something which is quite different and which is moving in a different direction--the European union of the 1990s.

My third point relates to some remarks made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) who spoke clearly and comprehensibly from the Opposition Front Bench about the changing nature of the Community institution. She is right to say that this step, and even more the further steps that follow inevitably from it through enlargement, are already changing the structure, character and nature of the European Community arrangements and the traditional or classic Community of which we have been a member for some years and which began in 1957, before our membership, with the original Six, under the aegis of the treaty of Rome.

We are now seeing the beginning of a huge change in the institutional structure. The document that we are discussing proposes that the 19 members should operate in a system that will give the new "Eftans" some kind of observer status, and a part-time relationship with parts of the Community structure and parts of the new union structure. It is difficult to see how that will work. We need only consider the problems--a positive tower of Babel--that will result from translation and interpretation requirements.

All that, however, is just another element of change in a European union that is already changing before our very eyes. What emerged at Maastricht-- we shall discuss that further--was not just a system involving the Community, the old federal bit of Europe, but a system involving the intergovernmental or confederal bit in balance or alongside it : the pillars of common foreign security policy, interior policy, justice policy and so on. The EFTA countries will be associated with those pillars in a mild way through the agreement, and will want to be fully associated with them when they seek full membership of the Community, as they will do over the next two or three years.

I welcome what has taken place, and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the work that he has done in setting up such a gigantic free trade structure. We as a House of Commons, however, should realise that we are viewing what is merely a passing scene--a brief photo- shot of European development. Everything will change radically ; soon, we shall be debating the development of a European union totally unlike the Community that we have known in the past and institutionally different from that Community. What we are debating this evening represents only one step in that direction. 6.41 pm

Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : It is most unsatisfactory that we should have to take part in such a truncated debate on a very practical and important matter within the European Community. It is particularly unsatisfactory for those who must speak at the tail end of the debate.

Column 71

Speakers constrained by the time limit, as was the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), find it impossible to develop points that I consider important.

It is an extraordinary experience for me to congratulate the Government twice in one afternoon : first, on apologising to Commissioner Millan and putting right the whole RECHAR business ; secondly--without reservation--on the EFTA achievement. A very good job has been done, which will benefit both the Community and the EFTA countries. I feel that the Commission's officials should be congratulated as well ; we tend to forget that they have been working on this for a very long time.

Let me issue a warning. It seems to me, from what I have read and from talking to continental colleagues, that some member countries wish to postpone full membership. As has been mentioned, Austria and Sweden have already applied for full membership, and it is certain that Finland will do so in the next few weeks. We know, however, that some member countries wish to block that development. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are eager for EFTA countries to gain full membership as and when they apply. I found the statements by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) quite extraordinary. I first heard him speak on Europe in 1979, when we were together in the European Parliament. It struck me then that the hon. Gentleman had an imperfect grasp of what the Community was about, and I am sorry to note that he has regressed further since coming to the House.

Is it not clear that the EFTA countries--far from being satisfied with their current status, and far from considering themselves self-sufficient-- seek the Community's help on two grounds ? First, they wish to improve their own prosperity ; secondly, there is a certain idealism involved in their application for full membership. That certainly did not apply in the 1970s.

May I advance a small defence of the European Parliament, in relation to its dealings with the European Court of Justice? During the negotiating process, there was considerable dispute about what legal rights were contained in the treaty, and whether they could be put in place while still fulfilling the Community's rules. The Parliament, very properly, placed them before the Court of Justice, which--far from behaving in the way described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)-- responded very positively, as anyone can see who reads the whole judgment.

The Court gave certain advice about how the treaty could be changed so as to fulfil the obligations that exist as a result of the various treaties that make up the Community. All that the Parliament is doing now is announcing a "holding position" : it is saying, "Let us consult the Court of Justice to make sure that everything is right." Both Conservative and Labour MEPs, and people from all the countries concerned, have strongly backed the negotiations. The odd rogue elephant on either side has bucked them, but, on the whole, they have fought very hard for those negotiations. To suggest that MEPs are being obstructive is nonsense, and a failure fully to understand the proper custodial duties they have.

Much has been said this evening about eastern and central Europe, and the possible acceptance of those countries into full membership. I urge caution : it seems to

Column 72

me that merging central and eastern Europe with the west has become very much the flavour of the month, but that no practical thought has been devoted to how the process should take place.

For instance, it is no good the Government saying to the Community--as they have said--"We must give all possible assistance to eastern Europe's move towards democracy and its attempts to reform its economies," and then saying, "But, Mr. Commissioner"--or "Mr. Delors", perhaps--"we will not let you spend any money on it." That, in effect, is what the Government did, and that is what is being attacked now. That is nonsense : either practical assistance is to be given to eastern Europe or it is not. The Government really should make up their mind.

With the advent of EFTA countries to the European Community, the social chapter will clearly become much more important, because it is an important part of their institutions. Where do the Government stand in that regard? How did they talk to those countries? What negotiating stance will the Government take when those countries are entering the Community, and-- eventually--pushing for what the other 11 are already demanding?

While we are talking about cohesion, let me say that I have great sympathy for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all parts of the Community that have problems. We should remember, however, that the northern regions of England have the same problems ; but, because we are not put together-- although we have a sense of cohesion--we do not benefit from the cohesion funds. We have only recently begun to benefit from RECHAR, and we hope that that money will arrive very soon.

I must leave the Minister time to reply, but there has been no chance in this short debate to discuss external affairs. The relationship between the ACP--African, Caribbean and Pacific--countries and the EFTA countries is important.

The European Community has fishing agreements with third countries, particularly in Africa, where it has agreements with Senegal, Guinea-Bissau and a number of others. Has consideration been given to those African countries? It has not been mentioned in any document that I have seen, but are any EFTA countries asking for entry into such agreements?

The Government, in a first, faltering step, have done a very good job, and I congratulate them on it.

6.50 pm

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : I, too, shall be brief. I add my voice to that of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) as I, too, want to know what European unity means in the context of the treaty and, in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) I want to know about the moving panorama. It has taken a long time to reach this stage, with more countries wishing to become part of the Community or to have some relationship with it. In the meantime, the world is changing around us. If we are to join the European railway train, I have two questions for the Minister. First, where is the train going? If I get on a train at Euston, I would like it to go to Liverpool. Otherwise, I have made a mistake and I end up somewhere else. Generally, I do not get that wrong. If I get on a train for European unity, where do I and the United Kingdom think that it will go?

Column 73

I travelled with the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to the EFTA countries, and they had some idea of where they wanted to go. Business men, bankers and financiers all wanted to join the Community, but there was little mention of idealism. They realised, however, that there was a huge market that would be beneficial to their importers and exporters. That is why they wished to join. I refuse to be stampeded by people to whom the word "Europe" involves almost a political orgasm. That cannot be right. Europe is or will have to be something, but we do not yet know what. If we were in a station waiting room, it would be helpful if all the people waiting for the train decided where they wanted to go and if they wanted to go together. If they want to go to the same place, all well and good. If they do not, let them make some other arrangements. I make no pretensions to be president of Mensa, but I can read the odd document. I become dubious about things if they cause 57 questions to be asked of the Minister--I gave up counting after that. Perhaps the Minister will give his own brand of reply. Let us not dwell in a fantasy land, because, as Humpty Dumpty said in "Through the Looking- Glass",

"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

I am getting off that train for the moment.

Mr. Enright : To have an orgasm.

6.53 pm

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : I shall not follow up that invitation while I am in the Chamber.

I, too, welcome this historic agreement, which has been negotiated over 20 months with great skill, patience and no few difficulties. It represents a great achievement if one considers that 380 million people will be part of a European free trade economic area. I am interested in this issue because, between 1969 and 1970, I was chairman of the European Union of Christian Democratic and Conservative Students, which covered the then EC and EFTA countries. I particularly remember that many of the countries that are now involved in this agreement were very concerned about the European Community because of their neutrality.

Times have changed. The Swedish Government have almost officially dropped neutrality and Austria does not talk about neutrality or its treaty obligations, because of its relationship with the Soviet Union. The changes right across Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, have led to a further dramatic impact, because countries such as Sweden, Finland and Austria feel that they no longer have to pay lip service to their position as neutral powers.

I was delighted that the agreement made its final leap forward under the Portuguese presidency of the EC. Portugal was the last member of EFTA to join the EC. It therefore understood the interests of its more recent partners. The agreement underlines the vitality of the European Community as a series of institutions. Let us not evade that fact. It is an agreement whereby EFTA countries have entered into a series of complex negotiations and accepted the "Acquis Communautaire" and the regulations in the areas in which the agreement has been formed, which were agreed by members of the Community--not them.

They have also accepted a remarkable series of commitments to be developed by the Community. They

Column 74

have done that not just because they want to have access to an enlarged free trade area--important though that is--but because they understand why they wish to be part of the political union which the European Community represents. As Carl Bildt, the Conservative Prime Minister of Sweden says :

"Now we are heading full speed to the EC."

EFTA members understand that it is important to be part of the most vibrant political bloc in the world today. What sort of Community will it be if EFTA members join, as I hope that they will be able to do quickly?

There are important questions that we shall have a chance to debate in the House--certainly the British Government will have a chance to consider them in more detail during our presidency of the Community, starting on 1 July. How will the enlarged Community cope with subsidiarity? How will institutions be streamlined? Up to 19 countries could be trying to make decisions at once.

For example, if all the countries made opening statements to the council of Ministers, it would take more than three hours before they could commence the meeting. That is implausible. There would be enormous complications for the European Parliament, given the number of extra nations and their delegates. There would be great difficulties if the Commission were expanded beyond its current base. Those matters must be tackled quickly. Obviously, they will be tackled in ways which mean that certain concessions must be made by nation states. We must think carefully about what we would like those concessions to be.

This country is at the forefront of those wanting the Community to be widened. As I have said before--I repeat it now, because it is essential to appreciate this point--widening is not necessarily a way of avoiding deepening, closer integration. Widening will involve deepening. We must ensure that we understand clearly what the process entails and that we appreciate the difficulties. In the course of pursuing a policy to widen the Community, we must be prepared to accept deepening integration.

There are 13 official languages, giving 156 combinations for translation. It is clear that the broadened Community could grind to a halt. As the House knows, I am a good European and I obviously expect the Community to make the most sensible decision and to adopt English as its sole language. However, Scottish accents will be encouraged.

Institutional change is inevitable. We should think carefully about what that should be. As soon as possible we should welcome into the great Community those members of EFTA that have signed the European economic area agreement. When they become part of the Community, the Community and free trade will be strengthened, there will be a decline in the protectionist attitudes present in certain parts of the Community and the European union will be made much stronger. 6.59 pm

Ms. Quin : I shall be brief, because I had an opportunity to raise a good many issues in my opening speech and I am sure that the Minister is waiting eagerly to answer in full the many questions that have been addressed to him.

The Minister said that the debate was timely. I somewhat disagree with that. Indeed, following the comments made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), I feel that we are being presented with an agreement that is virtually complete,

Column 75

and that it would have been helpful to have a wider and perhaps longer discussion at an early stage in the proceedings. None the less, many useful points have been made during the debate and I hope that the Minister will give a full response.

Reference has been made to the legal considerations and the views of the European Court and the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) took me to task slightly because he felt that I was downgrading some of the legal aspects of the case. I did not intend to do so. I realise their importance, but I also believe that the vital political and economic considerations that the agreement represents should not be overlooked. That was the danger to which I referred.

I am not surprised that many hon. Members spoke about their respective regions and the issues and industries in their parts of the United Kingdom ; nor am I surprised that some hon. Members feel that their regions have been short-changed by the agreement and that it would have been a good idea to include the interests of some other regions in the agreement, not simply restricting it to the objective 1 areas in the European Community. In that respect, the Government are the victim of their own propaganda. They have made many dubious claims about economic miracles but they are not prepared to accept the real economic situation of our regions and the country as a whole.

I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the gastarbeiter and immigrant workers in the European Community, and the real danger that they may be consigned to second-class status.

I hope also that the Minister will respond to the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who urged that the EEA agreement should not be used by certain members of the European Community as an excuse to block progress on applications for full membership submitted by certain EFTA countries.

I believe that the United Kingdom can derive considerable benefit from the agreement, but I still have grave doubts about the Government's priorities in Europe and their overall strategies. It is simply not credible for the Prime Minister to say that he wants us to be at the heart of Europe yet, through the double opt-out at Maastricht, do his best to consign us to the periphery.

The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) said a good deal about trains. In many aspects of European policy, we are in danger of missing the train altogether unless we act to ensure that we do not lose the opportunities available to us. We need to make a success of our membership, both of the Community and of the European economic area, and ensure that our industries and regions can benefit to the full, not just in the Europe of the Twelve but in the wider Europe that we all want to see created.

7.5 pm

Mr. Sainsbury : The most important part of this short debate has been the general welcome that has been given to the agreement on the European economic area by both sides of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member

Column 76

for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, it should be unreservedly welcomed. However, reservations, or should I say questions, about the agreement rained down upon me. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I too lost count of the number of questions that I was being asked. I must take advantage of the suggestion put by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that I should send "a wee note", as he so charmingly put it, to those hon. Members whose questions I could not answer in the short time available to me. I shall scour the pages of Hansard to ensure that everyone who has asked a question receives such a wee note.

I agree, at least on one issue, with the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). It is sensible that the agreement comes into force on 1 January 1993 at the same time as the completion of the single market.

The resolution of the European Parliament was referred to by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). The recent amendments made to the agreement take account of the court's opinion last December. I am aware that the European Parliament has made a resolution that a further opinion should be sought. However, as the amendments take account of the court's earlier opinion, it seems to me that no further opinion is necessary and we should be able to go ahead with ratifying the agreement. Another issue that attracted attention from a number of quarters, including the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), was fish. That is a particularly difficult and complex issue. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow recognised, it is primarily a responsibility for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I was asked precisely how much extra fish would be available to British fishermen. I am not capable of answering that question, because it depends on the total allowable catch. The good news part of the agreement for United Kingdom fishermen is that the European Community's share will be increased from 2.14 per cent. of the total allowable catch to 2.9 per cent. It is impossible to quantify that precisely, because it is a percentage of the total allowable catch. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye asked about another important matter --public procurement. I assure him and the House that EFTA has agreed to implement fully the directives on public procurement. That is one of the major advantages to be derived from the agreeement.

The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and various other hon. Members asked about cohesion. The House will appreciate that reaching an agreement on that part was difficult. Some objective 1 areas in France, Germany and Italy will not be beneficiaries of the cohesion aspects of the agreement. It will be appreciated that, if they are excluded, there will be no question of bringing in objective 2 areas. Indeed, it was only through the Government's strenuous efforts that we had Northern Ireland included as a beneficiary. I emphasise that the agreement will facilitate EC membership for any EFTA countries that want to join. Through the agreement, they will already have adopted most single market provisions, and negotiations have

Column 77

covered much of the ground of an accession negotiation. That is a positive aspect of any EFTA country that wants to join.

The issue of the so-called gastarbeiter was raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. The new freedoms of movement for persons and of establishment for individuals and the self-employed apply to nationals of the European Community. Therefore, there is no discrimination. The new freedoms are specifically intended for nationals.

Dr. Godman : Will the Minister give way ?

Mr. Sainsbury : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I shall send him one of the wee notes which I mentioned earlier. Time is limited.

The hon. Member for Gateshead, East spoke about the steel industry. I emphasise that the EEA will broaden the opportunities available to United Kingdom steel makers, and that EFTA steel producers will be brought under the competition and state aid rules governing European Community industry. Some of the export restrictions which have protected the market for scrap and alloys in some EFTA countries to the advantage of their local producers will end. That is another positive point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South wondered where we are going. I emphasise that the agreement is worth while even if it is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford suggested, short-term. Not least among the reasons why it is beneficial is that it will help the entry of EFTA countries that seek to join the Community. There is no question of the agreement in any way blocking applications.

The House has recognised that this is an excellent agreement. It is a substantial achievement by the Government. It will provide new opportunities for British business men, bring benefits to consumers, and help in the development of the new Europe.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th December 1991, relating to the draft Agreement on the establishment of a European Economic Area ; and supports the Government's view that the Agreement should be entered into by the Community and its Member States subject to agreement on amendments to the draft necessary to deal with incompatibilities between the draft and the Treaty of Rome identified by the Court of Justice in its Opinion 1/91.

Column 78

Local Government Bill [Lords]

(Allocation of Time)

7.11 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I beg to move

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill [ Lords ] :--

Committee 1.--(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill has been allocated shall report the Bill to the House on 18th February. (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on that day may continue until Midnight whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 19th February. Report and Third Reading 2. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Proceedings in Standing Committee 3.--(1) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(2) On the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of proceedings 4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in the Standing Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Dilatory motions 5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. Extra time 6. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Private business 7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings 8.--(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)-- (

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair ;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time ; the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill) ;

Column 79

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government ; and

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded ;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If the allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders 9.--(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If on the allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before Ten o'clock, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving 10. Nothing in this Order shall--

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order ; or (

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal 11.--(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Business Committee and Business Sub-Committee 12. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) shall not apply to this Order.

Interpretation 13. In this Order--

"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day ;

"the Bill" means the Local Government Bill [ Lords ].

This is an important Bill, which implements parts of the citizens charter. The measures in part I will result in substantial improvements in the quality of local government. Part II initiates a review of the structure of local government in England that has been enthusiastically and widely welcomed. In many parts of the country--certainly in many parts that I have visited--local authorities and others are gearing themselves up for their hearings in front of the Local Government Commission and are anxious to get on with that.

Next Section

Home Page