| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 31
Mr. Dalyell : I believe that there is a genuine case, on grounds of urgency and importance, for this matter to be discussed under Standing Order No. 20.
In the very nature of things, there are many different views in the House of Commons which, bluntly, may differ from those of both Front Benches. In those circumstances, question and answer, doubtless conducted in good faith, is insufficient to deal with an immensely important problem. There can be no doubt of its importance. Military experts, such as Colonel Dewar of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, whom the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs heard at lunchtime, say that this could be the beginning of a Vietnam.
If, in the opinion of serious experts, we could be embarked on a situation parallel to that of Vietnam, getting deeper and deeper into a situation that may not be too obvious at the beginning, surely there is a serious case, not for the posture of arguing for two minutes for a debate but for you using your discretion, Madam Speaker, to grant a debate for those many hon. Members who have views to put on this overwhelmingly urgent matter.
Madam Speaker : I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). As the House knows, I have to give my decision without giving a reason for it. I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20-- [Interruption.] Order. Therefore, I cannot submit the application to the House-- [Interruption.] Order. I am on my feet. Although I do not feel, at this stage, that it would be appropriate for me to grant the Standing Order No. 20 application, let me make it clear to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and to the House that I recognise the gravity of those developments--a recognition that I hope and I believe is shared by the entire House. Several Hon. Members rose --
Madam Speaker : Order. I hope that I have made my views on the matter known, so that there will be no further points of order.
Mr. Benn : I did not know that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was to seek the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, and it was my intention to make a request based on a narrower but important point--that British forces are being committed to military action without a debate. That is not the more general question raised by my hon. Friend. In the past--30 or more years ago--I raised a similar point when a Minister failed to give an assurance that British troops would not be used without the consent of Parliament. The House should assert its authority now, to require a statement as to the circumstances under which the forces are to be used and the seeking of its authority for such a move before we adjourn today.
I hope that you recognise, Madam Speaker, that I am not challenging your ruling on the request made by my hon. Friend, but I ask you to consider that point carefully. If we lose control of the Government, and they do everything that the American Government want, we might as well pack up and go home.
Madam Speaker : I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, it is a much wider point than that on which the original Standing Order No. 20 application was made. As he also knows, he should have given me notice of such an application by 12 noon
Column 32
today. However, I have heard what he says. I carefully considered the words that I used following the normal statement that I make on these matters. I hope that the House will allow it to rest there for the time being.Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker : Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Corbyn : It is a related point of order.
Madam Speaker : Let me see how closely it is related.
Mr. Corbyn : Thank you, Madam Speaker. I listened carefully to your statement, as did many others. As you are aware, many hon. Members do not share the consensus between the two Front Benches on the issue. Should further hostilities be resumed tonight, and further applications under the Standing Order No. 20 procedure be made, and should the Government still be reluctant to have an open debate on their policy towards Iraq, would you be minded to ensure that the House had that debate, despite the wishes of the Government?
Madam Speaker : I am always ready, according to the rules and procedures, to look at Standing Order No. 20 applications when they are made.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker : Does it relate to the previous point of order?
Madam Speaker : Separate and different?
Mr. Cryer : Separate and different, Madam Speaker.
During questions to the Secretary of State for Defence following his statement, points were made about the effect of the attack on citizens who are involved in Iraq. The Secretary of State said that it was a matter for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. As that Secretary of State is here, could you say, Madam Speaker, that, if he were to request the opportunity to make a statement later today, perhaps tonight, it would be received with approval? A serious consequence of the warmongering of George Bush is that the lives of British citizens could be at stake.
Madam Speaker : That is a somewhat hypothetical question but, as the House knows, when any Minister makes it known that he or she wishes to make a statement, that statement is allowed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On the question of Standing Order No. 20 applications, the Speaker has to play an important role in making a decision, albeit rarely, on the requests that are made by Back-Bench Members. I specify Back-Bench Members, because on this occasion the application could come only from them. That is because the two Front Benches and the Liberal Democrats are all in cahoots. Your role, Madam Speaker, is extremely important on this occasion, because we have an American-led war only because of the role of the two Front Benches. As we cannot expect the Government to make a decision unless George Bush allows them to have a debate, your role in responding to Standing Order No. 20 applications is more
Column 33
important now than on any other occasion when such applications are made. You have to overcome the two Front Benches, and the fact that we are talking about the Americans running the show.Madam Speaker : I take my role extremely seriously. I can assure the House that I am not in cahoots with anyone.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : May I help you, Madam Speaker, and the Government by reminding you that I have introduced the Declaration of War (Requirement for Parliamentary Approval) Bill ? If the measure were brought forward for swift debate, we would have the opportunity to discuss various matters. Those who think, as I do, that we are seeing a personal vendetta being pursued by the United States President would be able to explain that view. We would also have the opportunity to vote against such action.
Madam Speaker : The hon. Member is astute when it comes to public relations in relation to his proposed legislation.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I wish to ask a question on the length of statements and the time that is given to them. Are you in a position, Madam Speaker, to outline the criteria that you employ in determining just how long questions on a statement should run ? In the light of the Standing Order No. 20 application and the observations that were added to the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), it seems that some statements should be allowed to run a little longer than others, because of the gravity of the subjects that they raise.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Madam Speaker : Order. Are these points of order really necessary? I am attempting to deal with an extremely serious matter. I shall reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I am not in a position to set out the criteria for determining the time that I allow for questions following a statement : that must be a matter for my judgment. I have to ensure that a fair proportion of Members who are anxious to put a question are able to do so. I must ensure also that there is a variety of opinion within those questions, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House are dealt with as fairly as possible.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) : I listened carefully to the Standing Order No. 20 application that was made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and to your measured response, Madam Speaker. Although the application followed a statement on Iraq, I did not hear the hon. Gentleman give a title to it ; nor did I hear you announce the title when you gave your measured response. This is an important matter, because you gave an indication to the House of your own views. It is-- [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has expressed concern about both Iraq and, on a separate occasion, the intervention in Bosnia. It is important that we know the heading of the hon. Gentleman's Standing Order No. 20 so that we can judge your measured response to it, Madam Speaker.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Column 34
Madam Speaker : Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to let me do this. I am capable of letting the House know that the title of the application was
"The changing military situation in Iraq".
Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham) : Having sat through the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on Thursday and again this afternoon, and having failed, sadly, to catch your eye on both occasions, Madam Speaker, and given the exchanges that have taken place over the past 15 minutes, it seems that many right hon. and hon. Members--especially the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)--have been able to catch your eye this afternoon, as they did last week, and thereafter to raise the matter again. It seems that some Members are getting more than their fair share of debating time.
Madam Speaker : Order. If the hon. Member is seeking to criticise the method by which I call hon. Members, he had better table a substantive motion. I invite him and any other Member who is expressing such criticism to stop by my office. I shall then ensure that they are given a printout from my computer of the number of times that they have been called.
Mr. Conway : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. That is definitely not the case ; you misunderstood my point. Those hon. Members who have been critical of the opportunity that they have had to express a view this afternoon have had several opportunities to do so during the last three sitting days. I make no criticism of your selection, Madam Speaker-- you have a difficult job--but it appears that some hon. Members are ungrateful for the opportunities that they have been given.
Madam Speaker : How very kind of the hon. Gentleman. I am always happy to receive bouquets.
Point of Order
4.24 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had an opportunity to rule on the very serious allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) last Wednesday about the tabling of parliamentary questions? I note that there is a question on the Order Paper today from the hon. Member in relation to whom it was alleged that a civil servant had initiated his question. Have you ruled on that, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker : No, I have not done so. The matter is still being investigated, but I assure the House that I shall give a ruling at the earliest possible moment.
SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Local Government Reform
That the Matter of Local Government Reform in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.-- [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
Column 35
Orders of the Day
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Considered in Committee [Progress, 14 January]
[Mr. Michael Morris
in the Chair ]
Clause 1
Treaty on European Union
4.25 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will recall that last Wednesday, under a ruling from the Chair, I was not successful in moving a motion to report progress. Of course, that is a past matter. I think that you will agree that unlike our system for applications under Standing Order No. 20, to which moving a progress motion or an amendment in Committee is at least comparable, the Chair is given no criteria on which to make a judgment. Therefore, hon. Members also do not have any distinct criteria to guide them.
Would I be correct in assuming that the major factor that the Chair takes into account when deciding whether to accept a motion to report progress-- which is effectively the adjournment of the Committee--is whether information, an event or some other factor outside the proceedings of the Committee is of sufficient importance to require clarification before debate continues? I assume that that is the criterion. I do not want to hold up the Committee on a future date and if you, Mr. Morris, could endorse my suggestion, modify it or give some indication of the criteria, that might ensure that our proceedings move at maximum speed.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that the Chair does not give reasons. However, I can tell him that I take everything into account in reaching a decision on any point of order that is raised.
Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central) : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
(except Article 130 on page 35 of Cm. 1934)'.
The Chairman : With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments : No. 3, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert (except Article 129(a) on page 34 of Cm. 1934)'.
No. 14, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
(except Title XV on page 37 of Cm. 1934)'.
No. 132, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
(excluding Article G D (21) on page 16 of Cm. 1934).'.
No. 184, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 3 (e) on page 9 of Cm. 1934'.
No. 189, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 3 (1)'.
No. 190, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 3 (m)'.
No. 243, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130i'.
No. 244, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130j'.
No. 245, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130k'.
Column 36
No. 250, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130f'.No. 251, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130g'.
No. 252, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 130H'.
No. 357, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 3(b) as referred to in Article G on page 9 of Command Paper number 1934 '.
No. 358, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 3(c) as referred to in Article G on page 9 of Command Paper number 1934 '.
No. 360, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 3(g) as referred to in Article G on page 9 of Command Paper number 1934 '.
No. 361, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 3(h) as referred to in Article G on page 9 of Command Paper number 1934 '.
No. 384, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 130l as referred to in Article G on page 38 of Command Paper number 1934 '.
No. 385, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 130n as referred to in Article G on page 39 of Command Paper number 1934 '.
No. 386, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 130o as referred to in Article G on page 39 of Command Paper number 1934 '.
No. 387, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 130p as referred to in Article G on page 39 of Command Paper number 1934 '.
Mr. Fatchett : This is a large group of amendments, which essentially deals with European Community industrial policy, consumer protection policy, commercial policy and policy relating to research and development.
Amendment No. 1 is, in some respects, rather bizarre. Its purpose is to provide a peg for debate. If the amendment is put to the vote later, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to support it. The Labour party at both national and European Community level favours industrial policy, but the amendment would delete all references to that in the treaty. Therefore, for that reason there is a clear contradiction in our position. As I said, the purpose of the amendment is to provide a peg for a discussion on European industrial policy, the Government's intentions and the way in which the Government define that policy.
It may seem to many outside the House watching our proceedings that that is a strange way of making progress, but it is the only means of allowing us to debate issues that are crucial to many people.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : I heard my hon. Friend say that members of the Labour Front Bench--I emphasise the words "Front Bench"-- support Common Market industrial policy. I hope that my hon. Friend will revise his opinion. In all the years since we joined the Common Market in 1973, we in the mining industry have been struggling to sell our coal. We have the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe. It is twice as cheap as German and Spanish coal, yet the Common Market's tinpot industrial policy means that British miners have not been able to sell coal to the rest of the Community.
Conversely, the Common Market has been used as a laundering base for South African slave labour coal and Colombian coal. Twenty million tonnes of it were laundered in the Common Market and sold to Britain last year, with the result that the equivalent of 15 pits have been shut. If we do not change that policy, many more
Column 37
miners--and all those who provide goods and services to the mining industry--will be thrown on the scrap heap. I hope that my hon. Friend will take a different view of the Common Market's industrial policy. It is supposed to be based on a level playing field, but instead of buying British coal, the other member states buy German and Spanish coal--anybody's coal bar our own. It is high time that members of the Labour Front Bench took a different view of the Common Market's industrial policy. In my view, it stinks, and it has added to Britain's unemployment figures.Mr. Fatchett : My hon. Friend makes a number of cogent and well- argued points, with which I am not unsympathetic. I suggest that he returns to them when the Committee debates the next group of amendments, which deal with transport, telecommunications, and energy policy--when the intervention that he just made will be even more apposite.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Does my hon. Friend place under the heading of the Community's common industrial policy regulations concerning terms and conditions of employment ? I ask that in relation to what is known by the acronym TUPE--regulations for the protection of employees on the transfer of undertakings. I am given to understand that the Government are in flagrant violation of the directive enacted by the Community 15 or 16 years ago. What is the point of the Committee debating such important issues when we have a Government who choose deliberately to ignore a Brussels-based directive that has the force of law throughout all 12 member states ?
Mr. Fatchett : My hon. Friend makes an important point. I suspect that it drifts a little from amendment No. 1, but he will have an opportunity later in Committee directly to address employment issues. No doubt my hon. Friend agrees that there is no future for any industrial economy that is based on cheap labour and poor employment conditions.
Dr. Godman : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. When my hon. Friend offered his assessment of the validity of my remarks, I thought for a second or two that you were nodding in assent. I hope that I will not be ruled out of order when I come to talk about terms and conditions of employment throughout the 12 member states.
The Chairman : Order. We shall have to wait and see what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) does next, but I draw his attention to the marshalling of amendments on the paper. I hope that he will stay within the terms of the amendments with which we are dealing. Now that we have moved on to specific matters, we have a fairly tight debate ahead of us.
Mr. Fatchett : I was not trying to assume your responsibilities, Mr. Morris. I suspect that my task is difficult enough without my taking on additional onerous duties.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : The House will regret the curmudgeonly attitude of many Opposition Members. Do not the cohesion funds, in particular, provide tremendously exciting opportunities for a socialist Europe ? No wonder those who want the power of politicians to be expanded at the market's
Column 38
expense were so enormously encouraged by the Government's support for the extension of the cohesion funds at the Edinburgh summit. There is no doubt that Labour Members are presented with a tremendous opportunity by the exciting and on-going vision of cohesion funds. They will give politicians the chance to beat the market, and to select not merely individual industries but countries and even individuals for the benefactions of taxpayers throughout the Community. This is indeed a tremendously exciting opportunity : all true socialists ought to grab it, and to thank the Prime Minister for giving it to them.Mr. Fatchett : I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention --intriguing though it was--was necessarily directed at me. It may well be part of the current debate within the Conservative party, some of which I read in last week's Hansard.
Europe's key social and economic problem at present is rising unemployment. Unemployment corrodes social cohesion, lowers living standards, removes hope, creates social tension and establishes the conditions for right-wing political extremism. We have witnessed the development of all those conditions in Europe over the past 18 months to two years--which is not surprising, given the backcloth of rising unemployment.
Let us examine the standardised seasonally adjusted unemployment rates provided by the International Labour Organisation. Between June 1990 and October 1992, unemployment rose by 18 per cent. across the Community ; that overall pattern however, fails to take account of the disparities between individual countries. The Danes, for example, have experienced a 20 per cent. increase, and the French a 13 per cent. increase. The Federal Republic of Germany--West
Germany--experienced a 6 per cent. reduction, Ireland a 17 per cent. increase, Italy a 9 per cent. increase, the Netherlands a 20 per cent. reduction and Spain a 17 per cent. increase.
What stands out like a sore thumb is the United Kingdom figure. As I have said, according to the ILO the European Community average rose by 18 per cent. in the period concerned ; in the same period, unemployment in this country rose by a staggering 81 per cent. This country's figure is four times as bad as the Community average. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) drew attention to the potential for further job losses in the coal industry, he clearly had in mind the poor performance of the British economy in regard to employment.
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) rose --
Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose --
| Next Section
| Home Page |