House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Mar 1993

Column 1273

Friend's mind, I remind him that the proposals in the report did not relate to proceedings on Bills that are taken in Committee of the whole House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : The Leader of the House and your good self, Madam Speaker, know that early this morning five of my constituents perished in a house fire in Auchendarroch street in Greenock. Four of those who died were brothers aged four, three and one, and their infant sister aged four months. I am sure that the House will extend its deep sympathy to the family, my constituents. The Strathclyde firemaster, Mr. John Jamieson, said that it was a tragedy and that they had all died for the sake of £5--the cost of a smoke detector.

The Secretary of State for Scotland has plans to lay regulations before the House concerning the installation of mains-operated smoke detectors in new houses. In the immediate aftermath of that terrible tragedy, may I ask the Leader of the House to impress upon his right hon. Friend the need to lay those regulations next week and to extend them, if he can, to existing houses in the public sector where most of these terrible tragedies take place?

Mr. Newton : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for courteously giving me notice that he wished to raise that matter if he had an opportunity to do so. I share entirely his sadness at this morning's tragic incident in Greenock when four young children and one adult died in a house fire, particularly as it comes so soon after a number of other fire fatalities in Fife in recent weeks. The Strathclyde fire brigade is investigating the full circumstances of the incident. In the meantime, I, on behalf of the Government, and I am sure on behalf of everyone in the House, endorse the expression of sympathy that the hon. Gentleman included in his remarks.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has the issue under consideration and will bring forward regulations as soon as possible to make the fitting of wired-in smoke detectors compulsory in all new dwellings, but I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an immediate promise that that will happen next week.

Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester) : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the excellent progress that we are now making on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? What comfort can he give me about the prospect of time for debates on a wide range of other equally important issues which have been squeezed out by the disturbing delaying tactics used, I regret to say, by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am thinking in particular of an early debate on law and order and a review of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the shortcomings of which are becoming daily more apparent.

Mr. Newton : I share my hon. Friend's satisfaction at the further progress that we have been able to make in recent hours, or recent days, however one wishes to describe it, on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. I would wish to have a little more evidence of continued progress before responding as openly as my hon. Friend would like, but I shall bear his request in mind. However, despite the pressures to which he has

Column 1274

referred, I have found time--I accept that it was on a Friday--within the recent past for a full day's debate, effectively, on law and order matters.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I remind the Leader of the House of a request for an early debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and myself on the recent television revelations about the origins of the Provisional IRA, which confirm the widespread belief that successive Irish Governments assisted in the creation and support of that organisation and that successive British Governments knew about that and did not make an adequate response. Does the Leader of the House realise that his actions in building a wall of silence round this by refusing a debate and by blocking questions, confirmed by a letter that I received today, will only lead to the conclusion that the Government still have something to hide?

Mr. Newton : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not for a moment accept the implications that he chooses to read into what I have said on one or two occasions in recent weeks, what I think some of my right hon. Friends have said and what I have just written to him. I certainly shall not seek to add to that this afternoon.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : May we have a debate next week, before the Easter recess, on the rates of council tax set by individual local authorities for next year? During that debate we could highlight the fact that the average council tax set by Labour-controlled authorities is £100 higher than the rate set by Conservative-controlled authorities.

Mr. Newton : I need hardly say that nothing would please me more than to be able to respond to my hon. Friend's request, but I am afraid that I literally cannot find time for that specific debate. However, he is not doing badly himself in drawing attention to that important fact.

Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington) : Is the Leader of the House aware that there are groups of dreadful people who spend much of their time looking at and exchanging photographs of naked children in obscene poses? To get even more compromising poses, some sick people, who should be banned and locked up for ever, are using digital imaging techniques to create ever more terrible, obscene pictures. Will the Leader of the House co-operate with the Metropolitan police and with other police forces to get this practice stamped out and, more importantly, to get the perpetrators caught so that they can be locked up for life?

Madam Speaker : Order. That is barely a business question. The hon. Gentleman should be asking the Lord President whether there will be a debate on the matter.

Mr. Boyes : The Lord President has known me long enough by now.

Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have known him a long time. I not only bear him no ill will, but understand the spirit in which he has asked his question. He will understand that the proper response is for me to undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which I shall do.

Column 1275

Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) : The duty of the Leader of the House is to uphold the rights and privileges of the House. Does he think that he has carried out that duty with regard to the White Paper, "The Prospects for Coal : Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review"? Does he have any plan to improve the House's powers of scrutiny? If he has, will he make a statement?

Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman makes his own point in his own way. I think that I have demonstrated in recent weeks a number of ways, some of which are better known in the usual channels than more openly, in which I have considered the interests of the House as a whole and of the Opposition parties in particular. I do not apologise for having contributed to the statement having been made before Easter and for having provided an early opportunity, on Monday next week, to debate it. I do not regard that as a failure of my responsibilities to the House ; I regard it as the fulfilment of those

reponsibilities.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : Will the Leader of the House consider providing an opportunity as early as possible, preferably next week, for the House to discuss the role of receivers and liquidators in cases in which factories have closed and an alternative bid has been made? That would give me an opportunity to discuss the case of Pendleton's Ice Cream in my constituency. Following the closure of Clarke Foods, a viable business plan was put together by myself and others. The plan has been financed, and it has been supported by the Department of Trade and Industry and by the local authority, yet the receiver Robson Rhodes, headed by Mr. Ipe Jacob, has refused to reach a deal over a licence on the lease for the site. At this very moment, Nestle is ripping out the machinery, plant and equipment, although there could have been a viable business on the site.

Mr. Newton : I cannot promise a debate on that matter next week. There are substantial opportunities for a wide range of matters to be raised within the business announced because we are due to have a number of Adjournment debates towards the end of the week. The hon. Gentleman may prefer not to or may be unable to raise the matter in that way. As he acknowledged by the direction of his gaze at one stage, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs has heard his remarks and will no doubt reflect on them.

Mr. Brian Donohue (Cunninghame, South) : Will the Leader of the House make time next week for a debate on early-day motion 1669? [That this House condemns the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary in intervening in the long standing successful pay formula adopted by the Fire Fighters National Organisation which has meant many years of trouble-free operation ; and calls on the Government to support its continuation as failure to follow this advice may lead to a damaging unnecessary dispute.] The motion has been signed by more than 170 Opposition Members. Given the long-term industrial peace among the fire brigades, does the Leader of the House agree that it is important that, at the very least, a statement on that important subject should be made by the Home Secretary?

Mr. Newton : My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, as I recall because the subject was raised

Column 1276

at business questions last week, made a number of points in the wake of his meeting with a number of members of the firemen's union in the middle of last week. He made it clear then, and I make it clear now, that my right hon. Friends have made no decision to do away with the fire service pay formula, to which the Government are not a party. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government's policy is that, in the current pay round, the pay rises of all public sector workers should not exceed 1.5 per cent. The Government do not consider that fire fighters should be an exception to that policy.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : In contemplating future business of the House, will the Leader of the House have regard to the fact that this week alone the Government have made two major announcements which affect millions of people in south-east England--the statement in the House on the channel tunnel rail route, and yesterday, without coming to the House, the announcement of the east Thames corridor proposal? Does he agree that both those announcements justify a separate debate in Government time? If he feels unable to agree to that, will he contemplate a debate in Government time on south-east England, which was the battleground at the 1992 general election and will be at the next? A debate would give hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to refer to the high levels of unemployment and of business failure in south-east England, and to discuss the proposals, parts of which are quite absurd and not in the best interests of the 10.5 million people living in south-east England outside Greater London.

Mr. Newton : I do not accept, despite the county we have in common, the thrust of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The major infrastructure improvements about which we are talking are an advantage to many parts of south-east England and not simply to Essex and to Kent, although they happen to pass through those two counties and through parts of London. Leaving aside whether or not I agree with the hon. Gentleman, I cannot undertake to find time as he requested, but I shall bear his request in mind. I suspect that his request may interrelate with some of the suggestions made earlier about the Standing Order concerning a regional committee, or whatever one wants to call it.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : When will the Leader of the House be able to implement the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that we should have two weeks' business in one announcement? That would bring a little less chaos into our lives. Next Tuesday we are to have what is described as progress on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill--the 19th day. Last night, I saw Ministers with folding beds in their rooms in the House. Who pays for those beds? Are they available to Opposition Members? We may need them in future.

Mr. Newton : I regard it as progress, whether the hon. Gentleman does or not. I managed to snatch an hour or two's sleep in a chair and not on a bed, folding or otherwise. I slightly envy those to whom he refers.

Mr. Foulkes : Two weeks' business?

Mr. Newton : It is probably the relatively modest amount of sleep I had in a chair that is leading me to miss some of the questions. I do not seek to evade the hon.

Column 1277

Gentleman. I made some comment on that matter when we debated the Jopling report last July. It was not a report by the Procedure Committee in the technical sense. There are real difficulties about going as far as the Committee suggested in terms of the way in which we deal with Government business and the planning of the House's programme. I hope that it has been clear in the period since July, although I accept that this may be masked a bit at the moment by the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, that I have been making every endeavour to move in the direction that the Jopling report recommended in a number of matters, including having announced the Easter recess so far in advance that some people did not realise that I had announced it.

Column 1278

Easter Adjournment

5.58 pm

Madam Speaker : I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment, which will take place on Thursday 1 April rather than immediately following the passing of the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill. Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my Office not later than 10 pm on Tuesday 30 March. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day.

Normally the time allotted would not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different hon. Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of hon. Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn. May I take the opportunity to remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 2 April up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my Office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Column 1279

Orders of the Day

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 24 March]

[Mr. Michael Morris

in the Chair ]

Clause 1

Treaty on European Union

Amendment proposed [24 March] : No. 81, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert

(with the exception of those Articles and Protocols set out in Schedule [Second stage for achieving economic and monetary union.])'.-- [Mr. Denzil Davies.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : I remind the Committee that we are also considering the following : Amendment No. 83, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert (other than Article 109h)'.

Amendment No. 170, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert (except Article 73e on page 14 of Cm 1934)'

Amendment No. 171, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert (except Article 73f on page 14 of Cm 1934)'.

Amendment No. 172, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert (except Article 73g on page 14 of Cm 1934)'.

Amendment No. 196, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 3a(2) on page 10 of Cm 1934'.

Amendment No. 200, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 73g(2) on page 14 of Cm 1934'.

Amendment No. 204, in page 1, line 9, after II' insert except Article 109e(2(a)) on page 25 of Cm 1934'.

Amendment No. 206, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 109e(5) on page 25 of Cm 1934'.

Amendment No. 207, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 109(f)'.

Amendment No. 210, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 109m(1)'.

Amendment No. 211, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 109m(2)'.

Amendment No. 319, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert (except Article 3a(3) on page 10 of Cm 1934).'.

Amendment No. 333, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert (except paragraph 5 of Article 109e on page 25 of Cm 1934)'. Amendment No. 363, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 3(a) Paragraph 3 as referred to in Article G on in page 10 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 366, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 73b as referred to in Article G on page 13 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 367, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 73b as referred to in Article G on page 13 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 368, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 73c as referred to in Article G on page 13 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 369, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 73D as referred to in Article G on page 14 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 370, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 73H as referred to in Article G on page 15 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 380, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 109g as referred to in Article G on page 27 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 381, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 109i as referred to in Article G on pages 27 and 28 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 382, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert

Column 1280

except Article 1091 as referred to in Article G on pages 29 and 30 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 409, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert (except the Protocol on the Convergence Criteria referred to in Article 109j of the Treaty establishing the European Community on page 112 of Cm 1934).'.

Amendment No. 440, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert (except from "(79)" to "force" on page 58 of Cm. 1934)'. Amendment No. 51, in page 1, line 10, after 1992', insert but not Article 109c in Title II thereof'.

Amendment No. 60, in page 1, line 10, after 1992', insert but not the Protocol on the statute of the European Monetary Institute.'.

Amendment No. 205, in page 1, line 10, after 1992', insert except Article 109e of Title VI of Title II thereof'.

Amendment No. 208, in page 1, line 10, after 1992', insert but not Article 109j of Title VI of Title II thereof'.

Amendment No. 209, in page 1, line 10, after 1992', insert but not Article 109k(1) of Title VI of Title II thereof'. Amendment No. 225, in page 1, line 10, after 1992', insert but not the Protocol on the Transition to the Third Stage of Economic and Monetary Union'.

Amendment No. 400, in page 1, line 13, after Community', insert with the exception of the Protocol on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on pages 114 to 116 of Cm 1934.'.

Amendment No. 444, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, after intends', insert not'.

Amendment No. 35, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, at end add ; but in circumstances where convergence in economic performance as established in Article 109 has been achieved and where other major member states have decided to move to the third stage, the proposal for the United Kingdom to do so shall be placed before Parliament for affirmation.'.

Amendment No. 42, in clause 2, page 1, line 23 at end add and the decision in principle so to move has first been approved by a separate Act of Parliament'.

Amendment No. 420, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, at end add and unless Her Majesty's Government has reported to Parliament on its proposals for the co -ordination of economic policies, its role in the European Council of Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) in pursuit of the objectives of Article 2 as provided for in Articles 103 and 102a, and the work of the European Monetary Institute in preparation for Economic and Monetary Union.'.

Amendment No. 39, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, at end add-- (2) As from the beginning of the year 1993 the Secretary of State shall--

(a) not less often than once in every six months, lay before Parliament a report stating what, if any, steps are being taken by the United Kingdom with a view to moving to the third stage, and (

(b) seek Parliamentary approval for any such steps as are being, or are proposed to be, taken with that objective in view.'.

New clause 56-- Convergence for economic and monetary union : reporting fulfilment--

In complying with the requirement to submit information under Article 103(3), Her Majesty's Government shall report annually to Parliament on the extent of its fulfilment of the criteria set out in Article 109j, and shall include within its reports a statement on the implementation of a programme to

Column 1281

improve economic performance, including measures for investment and employment measures to realise the objectives of Article 2.'. Amendment No. 82, new schedule :--

Second Stage for Achieving Economic and Monetary Union-- (1) Article 109e.

(2) Article 109f.

(3) Protocol on the Statute of the European Monetary

Institute.'.

6 pm

Mr. Stephen Byers (Wallsend) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will remember that, when the Committee met on 4 March, in response to a point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Hamilton) about whether you would be in a position to permit a further debate on the protocol on social policy, you said that the nearer we get to a Division the better your position would be to judge whether to accede to requests for a further debate. As we have had the opportunity of spending 20 of the past 26 hours in Committee on the Bill, I assume that we are now substantially nearer to a Division. Do you intend to allow a further debate on social policy and, in that context, are you minded to rule new clause 74 in order?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : I shall comment only on the substantive point that the hon. Gentleman raised. I am well aware of the Committee's concern about this matter, but I stand by my undertaking to make an announcement in good time.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell) : At our last sitting, we made good progress on the treaty's implications for Britain of economic and monetary union. Under the first group of amendments, we considered the implications for monetary policy of stage 3, if we choose to go that far.

Under the second group, we considered the implications for fiscal policy at stage 3. This group concentrated on the obligations and implications for our national law of the interim stage--stage 2 of the process of economic and monetary union. For Britain, stage 2 is different from stage 3 because, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) rightly said at the beginning of the debate, we have a treaty obligation to move to stage 2 at the beginning of stage 2, which is envisaged in the treaty to be 1 January 1994. In addressing the question of obligations in stage 2, therefore, we are indeed addressing the obligations that will rest on Britain from the beginning of stage 2.

The right hon. Member for Llanelli said, I think, that he saw no clear divide between stage 2 and stage 3 within the treaty. I do not think that he meant to suggest that there was not a clear divide between the legal obligations that arise under stages 2 and 3, because it is clear from any reading of the treaty that there are fundamental and radical differences in the legal obligations. In stage 2, in so far as there is a Community monetary institution, it is the European Monetary Institute, not the European system of central banks. It is clear from the treaty that stage 2 envisages that monetary policy will remain a national Government

responsibility.

In stage 2, as we discussed in an earlier group of amendments, the treaty's provisions on deficits do not have the teeth that are envisaged in stage 3. If one looks at

Column 1282

the treaty's text on stage 3, one finds that, by that time, the EMI will have dissolved itself and become the European system of central banks. It is clear that, for at least 10 of the 12 member states, stage 3 involves a single currency and does not therefore involve national responsibility for monetary policy. It also involves clear enforceable powers in the deficit provisions that we discussed earlier.

It does not seem to be a sustainable argument that there is not a clear divide in terms of legal obligation between stage 2 and stage 3. I think that the right hon. Member for Llanelli was seeking to develop the argument that the web of obligations that is envisaged under the treaty is "seamless", and that the obligations that arise in stage 2, which are identifiably different from the obligations under stage 3, elide into each other in a way that does not allow for an effective break-point. He sought to argue, therefore, that it would be impossible for us to opt out of stage 3 because of the indivisibility of the obligations that arise between stages 2 and 3. It must be accepted in all parts of the House that there is a clear and fundamental difference between the obligations as defined in stage 2 and those as defined in stage 3. The question is whether the United Kingdom protocol effectively allows us a break-point so that we can choose whether we move from the stage 2 obligations, which we have accepted, to the stage 3 obligations, which in the Government's contention we have not yet accepted.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : The hon. Gentleman has a fair case : the protocol makes it clear at what stage the break-point is reached. I am puzzled by the first paragraph of article 109j, which proposes that the Commission and the EMI will report on the progress of all member countries in moving towards EMU. That is not excluded from the process under the protocol, but it is under paragraph 2, because the United Kingdom will have to notify the Council before the Council makes an assessment under article 109j. Paragraph 1 of article 109j, which proposes a pretty formidable process, is not broken by the protocol.

Mr. Dorrell : I understand that the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 109j apply to all 12 member states, but the obligation under that paragraph is for the Commission and the EMI to report to the Council. I shall deal later with the nature of the convergence obligations that rest on individual member states. That is indeed a substantial issue, and I should like to go through that for the Committee so that it can be fully understood.

Sir Trevor Skeet (Bedfordshire, North) : My hon. Friend has been dealing with the obligations that arise under stage 2, but there are a few others, such as responsibility for maintaining some connection with the EMS --he has already said that he proposes to rejoin at the first opportunity-- and his obligation to exchange rates.

Mr. Dorrell : My hon. Friend is right that I have not sought to give an exhaustive list of the obligations that arise in stage 2. I sought to draw out three of the obligations that are clearly different between stages 2 and 3 to substantiate my proposition that are that there are clear and identifiable differences of obligation between the two stages. The question is whether we can make an effective choice not to move, if we choose not to do so,

Column 1283

from stage 2, for which we have a treaty obligation, to stage 3, for which, the Government contend, we have no obligation.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : Will my hon. Friend give the Committee a categorical assurance that the British opt-in will not be overturned by the European Court?

Next Section

Home Page