| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Newton : I understand that my noble Friend the Minister responsible for health and social services in Northern Ireland is not only aware of the concern that has been expressed but has requested an urgent report from the Eastern health and social services board. I think that perhaps the first thing would be to see what that report says.
Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : Last Friday the House approved the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) calling for specific provision to combat hurtful and unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people. May we have a statement next week about the Government's intentions as to implementing that resolution of the House?
Mr. Newton : The right hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly have been present and have participated in that debate and he will know that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made a considered statement of the Government's approach to these matters and indicated the way in which the Government would seek to carry them forward. I do not think that against that background it would be appropriate for me to make a commitment about a statement on the time scale that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : While it is agreeable to have all these debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill on Mondays and Thursdays, can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any particular reason why we cannot have such debates on a Tuesday or a Wednesday?
Mr. Newton : It sometimes strikes me as curious how these questions come from those having a particular view on the Bill--not that I complain about that. I shall simply
Column 475
say, cautiously, that there is a range of factors which determines the pattern of business which the Government suggests to the House.Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) : Is the Leader of the House aware that 2,000 miners and their families in my constituency will be disappointed that we still have not come to a conclusion about their future, and their future work, which was to end at the end of this month. It is now patently clear that the Government cannot sort out the future of the coal industry. We have had a Select Committee report. Can the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate next week on that report? If the Government cannot do it, let this House decide the future of the British coal industry.
Mr. Newton : I have touched on that subject twice already in the course of responding to questions and I have indicated the hope of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he will be in a position to make a statement at the earliest possible moment, but I cannot add to what I have said.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Can I follow the point made by my right hon. Friends about the Jopling report? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that there is a recommendation that there should not be controversial business after 7 o'clock on a Thursday evening. He will also know that on 13 July he gave a certain amount of support to that principle. I understand that next week there is controversial business about terrorism until 7 o'clock on Wednesday, but that thereafter it is not particularly controversial. I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House and to my right hon. Friend if Wednesday's business were exchanged with Thursday's business. That would be very much in accordance with what the Jopling report suggested and my right hon. Friend supported.
Mr. Newton : We would all like to make progress, as I have said several times, on the recommendations of the Jopling report, but recommendations such as those to which my hon. Friend has referred were associated with proposals on the other side of the balance for much greater programming of the progress of Government Bills. I accept that those proposals would not have applied to Government Bills on the Floor of the House, but if my hon. Friend could see his way to agreeing to some programming of Government Bills on the Floor of the House, everything might be a little bit easier.
Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : Would the right hon. Gentleman consider having a debate as soon as possible on the procedures and practices in this House? I refer him paticularly to the way in which Ministers these days seem disdainful of hon. Members on the Back Benches. We are used to having oral questions dodged, but we are now seeing written questions being dodged and, more importantly, Ministers being unavailable for or unwilling to meet hon. Members on crucial issues. I give just one example. The privatisation of Greater Manchester Buses is putting a great deal of difficulty on the work people in that enterprise who do not know from day to day what the future of their pensions is likely to be. Hon. Members from the Greater Manchester area have been refused a meeting with the Secretary of State over
Column 476
that question and I have had questions, as I said earlier, blatantly dodged on that issue. That should not happen and we need a debate to iron out these problems.Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman has given me one example, but only one, and I do not complain about that, of the kind of concern that he has in mind. I would be prepared to look at any examples that he gives me and I will specifically take up with my right hon. Friend the point that he has mentioned.
Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham) : Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on compensation orders? As he knows, the courts have power to award compensation to members of the public who have suffered a burglary, a theft or some other crime against their property, but more often than not the person against whom the order is made gets an instalment order for £1 or £2 a week which is very unsatisfactory. The House should debate whether we should adopt the same system as we have for the Child Support Agency, whereby the state gives the money to the person entitled and then chases, in the case of the Child Support Agency, the absent father, and in the case of victims of crime, the criminal against whom the order has been made.
Mr. Newton : Two things occur to me. First, I doubt that it would be stretching the rules of order to make such a point in the debate on crime and crime prevention tomorrow. Secondly, if that fails, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be here this day week to answer questions.
Ms. Angela Eagle (Wallasey) : Will the Leader of the House take time to look at early-day motion 1436, which involves the victims of human growth hormone injections?
[That this House notes that 1,980 British children were treated with cadaver-derived human growth hormone between 1959 and 1985 as part of a medical research programme and drug trial conducted by the UKMRC ; notes that the treatments were withdrawn after reports from the United States of America of the deaths from Creutzfeld-Jacob disease of United States recipients ; notes further that six confirmed deaths amongst United Kingdom recipients have since occurred ; notes with great concern that the cadaveric material consisting of approximately 900,000 pituitary glands was collected and paid for by UKMRC with no practical regard for meeting legal requirements on human tissue removal or the screening out of infected glands ; notes that administration of human growth hormone continued without the product ever appearing to fall within the regulatory frameworks of the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956 or the Medicines Act 1968 and thus it escaped any regulation with respect to its strength, quality, purity, safety or efficacy ; notes with great concern the plight of the remaining United Kingdom recipients and their families who are faced with the prospect of possibly incubating this disease in its pre-clinical state for up to 35 years, that there are no tests that will detect its presence prior to the onset of clinical symptoms, and that once symptoms occur death is inevitable, particularly horrific and usually follows within 12 months ; and demands that the Government intervenes to establish a compensation scheme along the lines of the MacFarlane Trust (Special Payments (2)) for the victims of this scandal and the families of those who have died.]
Will he consider finding time next week for a statement or a short debate on the plight of the 1,908 recipients of
Column 477
those injections who are now at risk of contracting the human equivalent of mad cow disease? Eight people have already died, and there is no way of knowing how many more are at serious risk. Will he consider offering some support to the families of those victims who face a terrible, anguished plight?Mr. Newton : I well understand why the hon. Lady has felt it right to raise those tragic cases. She will know that the unhappy background is that the treatment concerned was in international use for 25 years and conformed with the best known scientific and clinical practice of the time. In those circumstances, my right hon. Friends have not found it possible to accept that there are grounds for compensation over and above the services available under the national health service and social security Acts.
Mr. David Shaw (Dover) : My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are a number of early-day motions on the Order Paper criticising the affairs of Monklands district council. Is he further aware that the Labour party in Scotland has today published a report saying that the selection and recruitment procedures of that council are open to criticism? Can we have a debate in which the two Monklands Members might voice their criticisms of the council?
Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion which I might ask the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to note and perhaps to pass on to her right hon. and hon. Friends. Were the Leader of the Opposition to join in the request for such a debate--it would be understandable if he did so--obviously I would have to give it close attention.
Mr. Peter Hain (Neath) : Will the Leader of the House find time next week for an urgent debate on early-day motion 1462 and a further early-day motion that I tabled today on the return of 19th-century working conditions to private licensed mines in my constituency? [That this House calls upon the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Wales to condemn the disgraceful behaviour of certain private coalmine owners in South Wales who are openly flouting employment law, contractual agreements with employees and cutting corners on health and safety provisions ; and condemns moreover, the backdoor attempts by British Coal to privatise production at Tower Colliery in the Cynon Valley by contracting-out to commercial companies the surface operations at that colliery, a move which will result in job-losses and a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money in the form of recent investment in surface machinery and equipment, the benefit of which will be enjoyed not by the taxpayers but by the private companies contracted by British Coal, many of which have recently been created by former British Coal staff and managers eager to cash-in on the prospect of the privatisation of the industry.]
For example, Crugua colliery in the vale of Neath, owned by Rhys Jeffries, and Parc Level colliery in Rhiwfawr, owned by Rosemary Griffith, have been operating such practices as the denial of payslips in breach of employment contract law to the men working there, refusing to give sick pay or holiday pay and a number of other breaches of contract and employment law. In one case, again in defiance of their contracts, workers were
Column 478
denied the right to opt out of working over Christmas, and were sacked because they refused to do so. Is this an ominous dress rehearsal for the privatisation of British coal which the Government are planning, and could we have an urgent statement?Mr. Newton : It does not sound to me as if the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that what he describes is an ominous rehearsal for anything, and if he does, I can disabuse him. He is alleging various breaches of the law or of health and safety requirements. The proper thing for him to do is to bring those allegations, if he wishes to continue to make them, to the attention of the authorities responsible for enforcing the law.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : Once again, my right hon. Friend has announced that no less than one third of the allocation of parliamentary time for six working days ahead is to go to the ratification process of the proposed treaty on European union. Could he please bear it in mind, particularly as the Budget debate will take up the week after next, that the debate on the defence estimates is long overdue, as the White Paper was published way back in June 1992? Many people in the armed forces and the defence industries will begin to think, as I and many people outside do, that the Government care more for European union than they do for the defence of the realm.
Mr. Newton : They would be quite wrong, as would my hon. Friend, were they to attempt to draw any such conclusion. Britain's position in Europe is of great importance, as are our defence forces. In the past two or three weeks, we have had at least two full-day debates on matters relating to defence.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1423 on London's health service, which has now been signed by 101 hon. Members?
[That this House is appalled by the Statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the future of London's Health Service and believes her methods are a cynical manipulation of procedure to allow valued and much loved institutions to wither on the vine ; further believes that her strategy for the closure of hospitals and the loss of a large number of beds is a product of the internal market and will exacerbate the crisis for the 150,000 people already on the waiting lists and will lead to huge job losses amongst hospital workers ; also believes that the Tomlinson Report is seriously flawed in its statistical base and fails to take account of the mobile population of commuters and tourists ; further fails to examine the causes of ill health linked to poor housing and unemployment and that its claims that London is over provided is erroneous ; is concerned that the proposals for funding of improved primary care are inadequate to meet the needs that already exist and that the hospital closure programme will seriously damage the accident and emergency services and lose first rate research and teaching facilities ; and accordingly calls for the establishment of a London Health Authority which should examine the health needs of Londoners, ensure the best use of existing resources and halt the hospital closure programme.] Will he now make arrangements for a full debate on the state of London's health service? Can he comment on the fact that the Secretary of State for Health is employing people in her Department to implement the Tomlinson
Column 479
report and to take part in the closure of hospitals and crucial facilities and the loss of a large number of hospital beds and jobs, with no authority whatsoever, from the House or anywhere else? Does he not think it is time that we had a full debate on the fate of London's health service?Mr. Newton : In view of the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has spoken, I shall say simply that my right hon. Friend made a full statement, and exposed herself to considerable questioning, in the House earlier this month. I might pay even greater heed to his request, which I note, had he made at least some reference to the fact that the Government are proposing to invest £170 million to build up primary health care in London.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : During the next few weeks, can we have a debate on the high-speed rail link? It will not surprise my right hon. Friend to know that hon. Members representing Kent will put up a vigorous defence and call for environmental protection in what may be proposed. Those of us who represent north-west Kent will wish to discuss the prospects for jobs were an interchange station to be located there.
Mr. Newton : Although I come from the other side of the Thames, I well understand the concern felt in Kent. I cannot promise a debate in quite the way I was asked, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be responding to questions on Monday next.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : Can I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1504, which calls on the Secretary of State for Scotland to step in and cap the rent increases in Kyle and Carrick, in the same way as he is able to cap poll tax rises?
[That this House deplores the council house rent increases in Kyle and Carrick, which are the largest in Scotland, and on average £5 per week, rising to over £15 per week at the top end ; notes that this is a direct consequence of the change in political control at the local elections in 1992, and is a warning to voters in other parts of the United Kingdom ; recognised that it will be impossible for most people to pay the increases without enormous hardship, since wages are increasing less than the level of inflation, or are frozen or even reduced ; and calls on the Secretary of State for Scotland to intervene to cap these rent rises at no more than the current level of inflation.]
Of course, Kyle and Carrick became Tory-controlled at the last local elections in Scotland. Can we have a debate on the subject next week, so that the record of Tory-controlled councils in Scotland, few though they are, can be exposed?
Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that the increases to which he refers are entirely a matter for the local authority, and Ministers have no power to intervene.
Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : So far, the Leader of the House has been negative about having a debate on the mining industry next week. Can I put to him the urgency of a statement from the President of the Board of Trade next week on Grimethorpe pit, which supplies coal to industry? The industry that has been taking that coal is now suffering from lack of supplies. It is urgent that the pit be put back into production. Will the Leader of the House please help to do something about it?
Column 480
Mr. Newton : I will certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : Further to the Leader of the House's previous answers on coal and the energy review, will he reflect on the fact that it would be completely illogical to have a Budget statement with tax-raising announcements without a White Paper on energy and a chance to debate the funding and taxation of sources of energy in Britain? It would be completely the wrong way round. We need the energy White Paper and a debate on that so that the Chancellor can make the right decisions on energy taxation in future.
Mr. Newton : I am not sure whether I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the logic of the situation, but I have now said several times that my right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as he is able to do so. I cannot yet say when that will be.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Will the Leader of the House make an early statement resulting from his inquiries about marriages in the chapel of St. Mary Undercroft, which I suspect has been a voyage of discovery for both of us? Will he confirm that marriages according to the rites of the Church of England can take place in the chapel, under a licence issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury in an Act of 1533, and that future marriages depend on the registration of the chapel, which lies with the Lord Chief Chamberlain, the Lord Chancellor and Madam Speaker? If there is a fair wind for registration, what would be the parliamentary mechanism for achieving it?
Madam Speaker : Order. That is one example of what is not a business question. It was a question for the Lord President to answer when he comes to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on such matters. In this case, the Lord President is not in a position to answer such a question. I shall therefore pass on to Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : Which one?
Madam Speaker : I am so sorry. I meant Robert Hughes ; but now I know who the next questioner will be.
Mr. Robert Hughes : Does the Leader of the House recollect that some weeks ago he said that he hoped that there would be an announcement soon on the transfer of the petroleum engineering division from London to Aberdeen? Bearing in mind that the Ernst and Young consultants' report has been in Government hands since 5 October, which is almost five months ago to the day, and that every written answer gets the same response--that a decision will be made soon--can he arrange for the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement next week? Let us get the decision over and done with, and stop dithering about.
Mr. Newton : I recollect the exchange some weeks ago, but I am not up to date with when a statement can be made. I shall certainly seek to ensure that I am better informed by the time that I answer questions next week.
Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East) : Could I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1355, which was signed by 110 right hon. and hon. Members, on the decision of the Secretary of State for
Column 481
Wales to authorise a waste disposal plant in my constituency, following the application by a dubious American firm with a long criminal record?[That this House condemns the action of the Secretary of State for Wales in giving the go-ahead to the American concern Browning Ferris for the construction of a waste disposal plant in the Liswerry area of Newport, Gwent despite the unanimous opposition of the Newport Borough Council and the flagrant disregard of the wishes of the people of the town; and notes the questionable record of the company involved, the traffic hazard near to a heavily built-up area, the danger to cattle and agricultural products, the detrimental effect on property values and on health and the environment, which overall will have the effect of turning Newport, Gwent and South Wales into a dustbin for waste products from all over the world.]
Does the Leader of the House appreciate that that decision has caused great anger and dismay among my constituents? If the Government are going to make such controversial decisions in that questionable field, surely we should have a full debate on the matter in the House so that they can announce their policy.
Mr. Newton : Many decisions on planning matters are controversial, and I accept that that decision was. I understand that it was taken on the recommendation of an inspector following a full public inquiry, as is the case with most such decisions.
Several hon. Members rose--
Madam Speaker : Order. We must now move on.
BILL PRESENTED
Disability (Grants)
Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mr. Alistair Burt, presented (under Standing Order No. 48 (Procedure under bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to provide for the making of grants by the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland to the Independent Living (Extension) Fund, the Independent Living (1993) Fund and Motability : And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]
Column 482
Orders of the Day
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Considered in Committee [Progress, 25 February]
[ Mr. Michael Morris
in the Chair ]
Clause 1
Treaty on European Union
5.2 pm
Several hon. Members : On a point of order--
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. Before I take any points of order I have two announcements. First, I have concluded, after due reflection, that amendment No. 443 is not in order. Secondly, if Members have requested a separate Division on an amendment and I have decided to grant the request, I propose to announce my decision before the Committee begins the debate immediately preceding the separate Division. Thus, we are about to embark on a debate on amendment No. 18. When that debate is concluded I shall be prepared to permit a separate Division on amendment No. 28, before beginning the next debate, which is on amendment No. 29, on subsidiarity.
Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will understand my disappointment on your ruling, but, of course, I accept it, and I accept that your rulings on all such matters are final.
I ask for your further guidance on a related matter : our ability to table amendments to clause 1(2), which would express approval for some parts of the Maastricht treaty, for the purposes of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, but not of other parts. You will be aware that I have been delving into the debates in Hansard covering the time when the Act was passed. In the debate on 2 February 1978 the then Minister of State, now Lord Judd, said in response to questions from the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench at the time and inquiring about the general point :
"The other point, also properly raised by the hon. Gentleman, was whether Parliament could amend a Bill to authorise an increase in the Assembly's powers. Again, the answer is Yes.' "
He added :
"Parliament would not be able to alter the words of a treaty, but it could require the Government in some cases to ratify subject to a reservation."-- [ Official Report, 2 February 1978 ; Vol. 943, c. 834.]
In the light of that statement and of the recent House of Lords decision, which indicates that Ministers' explanations and statements at the Dispatch Box are to be taken as evidence of the meaning and intention of legislation, will you consider the matter further? I am not asking you to give further consideration to my amendment. I ask whether section 6 of the 1978 Act allows this House to express its approval of some parts of a treaty but not others, which is the inference to be drawn from the statement by the Minister of State in 1978.
Column 483
The Chairman : I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member has expressed his point of order. I shall consider the matters that he has raised, but he will understand that I will have to do so in the context of a written amendment.
Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I fully understand and accept that you do not give reasons for your judgments and decisions about whether an amendment is in order. If amendment No. 443 was technically defective--as I and some others think that it might well have been--may I assume that a decision on a similar amendment, which was not defective, would not be pre-empted by your decision today?
The Chairman : I repeat what I told the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). I have to have something in writing before I can rule. Obviously, if it is a question of a minor technical matter, such as English, guidance will be given by the Clerks in the Public Bill Office.
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I appreciate your remarks in relation to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), which was similar to the starred amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. Clearly, we should all like to approach you to seek advice on how a similar ploy might be attempted again.
On the question of the admissibility of amendments broadly concerned with the social protocol, we have already mentioned that our ability to table them again and have them selected, as distinct from their being found to be in order, relates directly to your decision to allow another debate on the issues surrounding amendment No. 27.
I appreciate, Mr. Morris, that last Thursday you made it clear that you did not intend to take an early decision on the matter. May I ask your advice on where we stand in relation to further amendments that might relate to the part of the treaty that we have now passed, in terms of debating opportunity? That would help the Committee. I do not want to press you beyond the hint that you may have given in your statements last Thursday and on the previous Monday, but we should like to know whether amendments that might be deemed in order would have a reasonable chance of selection if you chose to allow further debate on the general subject.
The Chairman : It is not the practice of the Chair to consider starred amendments until they cease to be starred, so those on the Order Paper that are starred will be considered on Monday. We are still some way off having to consider anything to do with amendment No. 27. As the hon. Gentleman will know, attempts are being made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to produce more amendments relating to this broad area. It would be wrong of me to make a judgment at this point on whether other amendments--or how many of them--may exist by that time. The nearer we get to it, the better my position will be to judge whether to accede to requests for a further debate.
Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Following the ruling of the Attorney-General on amendment No. 27 and its consequences, I think that there was a general view that
Column 484
hon. Members would like a vote on whether the United Kingdom should adhere to the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. Are you not against that in principle?The Chairman : I think that I need to study the amendments before I make any announcements.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You did not mention in your statement my amendment No. 445, which is related to amendment No. 27, but which, it is proposed, should be included in the Bill as an exception from the provisions of the protocols. Am I to understand that you are still waiting to make a decision on that amendment, or do you agree that it is in order? Amendments Nos. 441 and 442 both exclude the French and Portuguese protocols. Amendment No. 400, tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, excludes the United Kingdom's protocol in respect of the European central bank--and, of course, our opt-out--so it is similar to amendment No. 27.
Quite apart from the merits of my amendment, do you agree that it would be invidious to distinguish between it and others of a similar kind.
The Chairman : Hon. Members normally speak to their own amendments and can look after themselves without the assistance of other hon. Members, but, as a general rule, if, after it is no longer starred, an amendment is not on the Order Paper, it is not selected.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Morris. You referred to the need to have a written amendment to consider before making a ruling. I invite you to consider amendment No. 448 in the context of an appeal for a renewed debate on the social chapter. With your indulgence, Mr. Morris, may I take the opportunity to put before you certain factors to do with the previous debate on the social chapter which in my submission are relevant to your decision on whether to allow another debate--
The Chairman : Order. That is exactly what I will be considering. As I have already said, amendment No. 448 is starred.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will be aware that the Government are likely to be anxious to secure procedural motions later today. Through unusual channels I understand that the Government are in negotiation with some of the minor parties. Before any vote is taken today
The Chairman : Order. Negotiations between the parties in the House are nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Marlow rose --
The Chairman : Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to complain about the Government or the Opposition, he knows where to do so. It is not the responsibility of the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In what I can only describe as a
characteristically courteous note from you that I received today, you informed me in response to my request that you do not intend to call new clause 26, which
Column 485
I have tabled, for a separate vote. The new clause enjoys immense support in Scotland, but that is not my point of order.What criteria do you use, Mr. Morris, in determining whether to select or reject amendments and new clauses for votes?
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman will understand that many factors come into that consideration.
5.15 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Among the many considerations that you have to bear in mind when deciding whether to call an amendment, do you pay any attention--you will probably tell me that this is not true--to political alliances and shifts of opinion in the House? Is it conceivable, now that we are moving up towards Newbury, that the Liberal party is shifting its ground and pushing a bit harder against Maastricht? The party does not really mean that, but it might try it. Will you pay attention to that over the next three months?
Mr. Peter Hain (Neath) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In view of the changed domestic arrangements that we would be required to make, I wonder whether you have had any communication from the Government to the effect that, after moving the 10 o'clock motion next Thursday, they will intend to take the debate through the weekend?
The Chairman : I am concerned about today, not next week.
Mr. Cash : Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Morris. Do you agree that if amendment No. 27 were passed, it would be essential for the matters in question to be complemented by provisions in the Bill, so that it would be quite wrong not to consider selecting an amendment that translated the effects of amendment No. 27 into the Bill? Parliament would then have instructed the Government, by passing the amendment, that the social protocol should be excluded from the treaty and, hence, from the Bill.
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he is well aware of the Report stage.
Without further ado, we may now begin discussing the amendments.
Mr. George Robertson : I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
(except Article 138d on page 42 of Cm 1934)'.
| Next Section
| Home Page |