---

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I, too, strongly object to the way in which, yet again, the Government are using Parliament as some sort of legislative convenience. It is quite outrageous that, when a Bill of this importance

---

Column 312

is being considered, the Government, because of their majority, will introduce a timetable motion that will sweep to one side the very important considerations involved in the Bill.

In years to come, when the Government are producing delegated legislation through Ministers, they will refer to section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, which is also referred to in the Bill, because that is the section that gives the administrative machinery extra power to produce delegated legislation and to bypass this House.

As the Leader of the House knows--I have raised the matter several times-- timetable motions sweep Bills through the House without adequate debate and without adequate time to table amendments and to have a proper Committee stage. There is a different pattern of consideration for other Bills, so the House presumably regards the longer period allotted to them as adequate. If the time available for this Bill is to be curtailed, by definition that amount of time must be inadequate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others have raised a wide range of issues, and we need time to discuss them. For example, the Bill gives untrammelled powers to Ministers. It provides for the removal of

"exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations" from the operation of clause 2. In other words, even though we will be forced to pass the Bill so hurriedly, Ministers will still be given untrammelled powers to make exceptions by means of delegated powers.

The Government claimed that they would take the legislative burden off the backs of the people, yet they treat this place with such contempt that the vast majority of their legislation emanates from subordinate instruments produced by Ministers. It is not on a trivial scale ; they have produced more statutory instruments than any Government in the history of Parliament --3,500 last year.

Mr. Skinner : Never!

Mr. Cryer : My hon. Friend expresses surprise, as well he might. Many of those instruments exceed the power, size and extent of much primary legislation.

As the Leader of the House knows, the opportunities to debate subordinate legislation in the House are extremely limited. When this Bill is regrettably passed and hon. Members table prayers against the potentially huge raft of subordinate legislation produced by Ministers, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that, while he holds office, time will be provided for all those prayers to be debated? Of course he will not give such a guarantee--he cannot, because he has competing demands on time in the House.

Some hon. Members--the new, trendy intake--want to shut up shop at 5 o'clock and go home for tea and crumpets. They want a four-day week. There simply will not be the time for scrutiny of the potentially huge amount of subordinate legislation that will affect people's daily lives. The law is the law, whether it is made through primary legislation, through a truncated version of primary legislation--such as we are being asked to approve this afternoon--or through the whole process of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report and Third Reading, the House of Lords and then back to the Commons.

The delegated powers used by Ministers have the same effect as primary legislation, and often include criminal sanctions. It is important that time is provided to debate the

---

Column 313

powers that this Bill will hand to Ministers. People are sick and tired of the huge volume of legislation introduced by this Government and their predecessors. Clause 5 states :

"The power to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument".

There is no definition showing whether they will be made under the affirmative procedure--a resolution by the House to approve an instrument-- or under the negative procedure. Apparently, that is to be left entirely to the Minister. That is not right. More instruments should be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that the House can have some sort of bite at the cherry. It is called democratic scrutiny.

The Government want to curtail the democratic processes for producing primary legislation. Then, within that curtailed process, they want to produce primary legislation that will give further powers to Ministers to produce subordinate legislation, which we are certain will not receive any scrutiny in the House.

The Bill provides for subordinate legislation to be produced to cover a wide range of instruments, including

"Orders in Council, orders, rules, regulations, schemes, warrants, byelaws and other instruments made under any Act."

That is not a narrow range. It is true that "any Act" is defined to some degree in the Bill, but it is important that the House has an opportunity to curtail such wide powers.

I object to Ministers being given such huge powers, because of the way that the Whips carry out their business--Conservative Whips and, I regret to say, Labour Whips reaching agreement to hand Ministers a huge range of subordinate powers.

Mr. Spearing : My hon. Friend illustrates the need for proper scrutiny. Does he agree that the motions, especially the ways and means motion that will be debated tomorrow--I hope we do not actually get as far as that--include the power to lay a tax at some future time, under any existing Act, for purposes unknown? To that extent, the motions are "open sesame"--not only for regulations, but possibly for taxation for specific purposes.

Mr. Cryer : My hon. Friend clearly shows the need for more time. It is a relatively short Bill--indeed, the Maastricht Bill was also relatively short--but it is important. It is disgraceful that the Government should attempt to curtail proceedings on it. There is no need to do that. We have just been on holiday for 11 weeks. Hon. Members perform various tasks during that time and so are not completely free for those 11 weeks but, nevertheless, we have just had an 11-week recess. We will be here for a few days and on 4 November, so it is said, the House will go into recess again so that some Members of Parliament can recover from the shock of returning here after 11 weeks' holiday. Then we shall have another fortnight's holiday, coming back on 18 November. Why should the House have a fortnight's holiday at the convenience of the Government? The Government want this place shut up to reduce scrutiny and challenge. Ministers make statements on television with no challenge other than a few soundbites from Opposition Members, who are in a subordinate position because the Minister is given prominence. Why should we not take two or three of those 10 weekdays? If the Leader of the House is in difficulty, I shall table a

---

Column 314

resolution to curtail that fortnight's recess and, by a nod and a wink, he can tell his troops to slip off and let the Labour party approve the resolution.

It would not be popular among some hon. Members but, none the less, on the basis that we have plenty of time, I am prepared to do it. We can then have an additional two or three days in which to scrutinise the legislation without any difficulty.

Mr. Cash : Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that one reason why the Government are so anxious to get the legislation through as quickly as possible before 1 November may be that that is the date on which the Maastricht treaty has legal effect in the United Kingdom? The drafting of this Bill is based on the assumption, which I am glad some of us managed to prevent being realised, that the Government would get the Maastricht treaty through in a jiffy. For practical purposes, the Government must get this Bill on the statute book before 1 November. Therefore, although it would be a good idea to have more time, we would need to have that time between now and 1 November.

Mr. Cryer : I am not in favour of this Parliament being subordinated to the convenience of other members of the EC. If Parliament wishes to take extra time to scrutinise legislation, we are entitled to do so. I do not accept the notion that we should be subordinate in the headlong rush for integration into the Common Market.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, the Common Market has been a millstone around the neck of the British people. It has not provided jobs ; it has reduced them. It has eroded our manufacturing base. We import from the Common Market nearly half the total number of cars registered on our roads each year. The Common Market exports much more to us than we export to it. Our economic relationship with the Common Market is dependent on its economic survival. It is diminishing--hence the stalling of our recovery. We face a deluge of legislation from the Common Market, much of it irrelevant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman was doing well and keeping entirely in order, but he is now going beyond the scope of the two motions--far further than even the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) went.

Mr. Cryer : The implications of our relationship with the Common Market are relevant, because the treaty that the Bill implements links the EFTA countries with the Common Market. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, demonstrates beyond peradventure the need for extra time to debate this comprehensive, complicated and extensive legislation. Your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, demonstrated the nature and range of the debate that would be in order if adequate time were given, and that shows how shoddily the House is being treated by the Government.

We are always in some difficulty on motions such as this. The first motion, which allows amendments to be tabled, was objected to because we wanted time to debate the motions and that was the only way to achieve that. But in the final analysis, if we are presented with the Government's organised majority, perhaps with some

---

Column 315

absentions from pro-market fanatics on the Labour Benches and all the Liberals who vote for anything from the Common Market without any critical thought passing between their brain cells, we must decide whether we take advantage of the motion in order to table amendments.

Therefore, perhaps on balance we should allow the first motion to go through, but vote against the second motion, which compresses the amount of time to an unacceptable degree. It is in effect a guillotine. It is the sort of thing that the trendy tendency in the House wants for every bit of legislation.

People can take warning from this. Those who want to finish at 5 o'clock in the national legislature to get home for crumpets and tea, and who are prepared to accept a guillotine at the beginning of each piece of legislation, should note that this is what it is like--compressing time at the Government's convenience so that we cannot exercise proper scrutiny. I am opposed to that, and we should vote against the second motion.

5.56 pm

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : I support and endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who spoke bravely and well about the serious constitutional issue at stake here. I am sure that what he has said will be widely appreciated by the British people whom we represent. It is a great shame that not more of their representatives were in the Chamber to hear what my hon. Friend said.

Hon. Members will not be unaware of a certain election which took place in Tower Hamlets a few weeks ago. Before you rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me explain the significance of that for what we are discussing this evening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are debating only motions Nos. 1 and 2, and he will have to be highly creative if he wishes to go down the track that he proposes and stay in order.

Mr. Gill : I shall do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will bear with me if I expand my argument. What I am saying in all seriousness is that history is repeating itself. An event in the history of this country 30 or 40 years ago on which the British people were not consulted had a profound effect on this country and, had they been consulted, they might have concluded quite differently.

You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the 1950s and 1960s, anyone who spoke against mass immigration to this island was pilloried and vilified--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We are debating motions Nos. 1 and 2 on the European Economic Area Bill, not mass immigration or a part of London. Every other hon. Member who has spoken has stayed in order, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to stick to the two motions.

Mr. Gill : The debate has been wide-ranging, but had you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allowed me to complete my next sentence, you would have understood the drift of my argument. Had the British people been allowed a referendum in the 1950s or 1960s on that important issue, we might have avoided one of the great difficulties that we are now experiencing.

---

Column 316

There is a real danger that history will repeat itself, and that what we do in the Chamber today, carelessly, will, in 30 or 40 years' time, be regarded by the British people as a serious and fundamental dereliction of duty.

Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and others are right to say that we should have more time to debate these matters because they deal with the fundamentals of our constitution. It is only right and proper that the argument in this place should be extensive. It is regrettable that that argument has not been allowed to include the British people. Many of us believe that they should have been consulted through a referendum, in the same way as they should have been consulted on the other important issue many years ago.

One of the things that determined me to obtain a place in this House was that, throughout my adult life, I have seen this Parliament backing away from tough decisions. I have seen my country drifting rather than facing up to reality. I believe also that, on these important fundamental constitutional issues, the people should be consulted. At the end of the day, the people will be the all-time losers as a result of our failure to represent their interests adequately and well.

6 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I wish to refer to motion No. 2. The first motion causes me no concern. It specifies, rightly, the tabling of new clauses and schedules. However, motion No. 2 should be rejected by the House.

The House has been denied a detailed scrutiny of the treaty. I think that I am right in saying that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has not reported to the House on the treaty. I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and I can inform the House that that Committee's terms of reference have prevented it from examining the treaty. If the Bill were deliberated in a sensible way, it would allow us to voice some concerns that we have about the treaty. I am interested particularly in parts 2, 3 and 7 of the treaty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that the House is interested in all parts of the treaty. However, this afternoon we are concerned only with the two motions. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address his remarks to those motions.

Dr. Godman : If the second motion is passed, it will deny us the opportunity to voice our reservations. I have already tabled a reasoned amendment to the Bill. If the Leader of the House were to apply Standing Order No. 91 to the Bill--the setting up of a Special Standing Committee-- it would allow for the sort of scrutiny that hon. Members have demanded.

If I am in order, I should like to quote from Standing Order No. 91 :

"A special standing committee to which a bill has been committed shall have power, during a period not exceeding 28 days from the committal of the bill, to send for persons, papers and records, and, for this purpose, to hold up to four morning sittings of not more than three hours each."

That is what the Bill needs. In those circumstances, if needs be, the Foreign Secretary could be called to give evidence about the treaty and its implications for many communities in the United Kingdom.

The Standing Order also says that oral evidence can be given and

---

Column 317

"shall be printed in the Official Report of the Committees' debates together with such written evidence as the Committee may order to be so printed."

If that procedure were to be followed, the Bill would be given the scrutiny that it needs. It would allow us reasonable time to table amendments and new clauses to the Bill if we thought fit. The proceedings need not be too lengthy, but a Special Standing Committee would meet some of the reservations that have been expressed. 6.5 pm

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : There seems to be some familiar voices and faces in this debate. I wonder whether one day is adequate for all the issues being raised. I know that, during consideration of the Single European Act, four or five amendments were grouped together. During consideration of the Maastricht treaty, we changed gear and up to 30 or 40 were grouped together. Now, we have changed gear again and 550 pages have to be dealt with in one day.

We spent 27 or 28 days debating the Maastricht treaty because we thought that it was wholly wrong. However, I wonder whether it is slightly perverse that we should have spent 27 or 28 days debating the Maastricht treaty when the House had no power to alter a semi-colon, colon or even a comma, and then to spend just one day on a 550-page measure when we do have some power to look at the amendments.

If my wife wants to go shopping, she may come back to me and say that there may be a

"small amount of additional expenditure as a result".

However, I wonder whether that is the type of phraseology that we need for this type of Bill, when we are talking about the application for income support by EFTA nationals, of whom there are many millions who can, presumably, make claims. It seems to include Switzerland, which many of us thought had turned down the entire notion, no doubt wisely.

We must look also at the movement of people and our dependencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has mentioned Gibraltar. Also, Bermuda is considering whether it wishes to remain in the Commonwealth. We are not necessarily treating them badly, but I understand that all the citizens of the French dependencies can enter this country freely.

We will end up with the extraordinary situation--I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to confirm this--in which the citizens of British Guyana will not be able to enter this country, while as EC citizens people from French Guyana will be able to do so.

Those are just some of the major items that we will have to debate in one day. Is that right and reasonable?

6.7 pm

Mr. Newton : Despite the numerous references to the length of the recess, I have to say, I hope rather wryly, that during the past two hours it has seemed as if we have never been away. Although not without interest, there was a sense of de ja vu. I remind the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that I made it clear that the fact that there had been an understanding in what are conventionally called the "usual channels" was not being used as a matter of argument. I re-emphasise that to my hon. Friend the

---

Column 318

Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and others. It is simply part of the background that the House should understand.

The hon. Member for Newham, South referred to the use of the word "proceedings" in my statement before the recess. I am sorry if that misled him. It is perfectly conventional terminology, and is usually taken to mean that the debate is not expected to be confined to Second Reading. I shall consider on future occasions whether there is any way in which I can make that clearer.

Mr. Spearing : I thank the Leader of the House for that remark. It would be helpful to say that "further stages" may also be taken. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's comment about de ja vu, that is not quite the same. Does he agree that democracy has not only to be done but must be seen to be done? In respect of the time for this Bill, it might have been better to do it in a different way.

Mr. Newton : If I may, I shall deal with that point in what will not be an extensive speech. What I have just said is without commitment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters closely, that I did not intend to mislead him by the wording of the statement that was made before the summer recess.

I say to a number of hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East, for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), that the second motion simply provides for the Ways and Means resolution to be taken after the money resolution and Second Reading. Sometimes there is a difference, but normally that is precisely when money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions are taken.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East maintained that this is a further demonstration that democracy is dying, yet gave a convincing demonstration that it certainly is not. He has been able to spend much time looking at points that he thinks should be raised under this Bill.

Were I to respond to many of the other matters about which we heard from the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South, they would, although they were in order, take me into a wide-ranging defence of our current economic arrangements with and beyond the Community. I say, however, to the hon. Member for Bolsover, who comes from Derbyshire and who adverted to jobs in Britain, that I do not believe for one moment that Toyota, which is in Derbyshire, would have located in Britain if we were not a member of the European Economic Community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), although he may not have meant it in this way, used the phrases "short notice" and "short time". I shall deal with "short time" in a moment. The Bill was ordered to be printed in the Commons on 25 November 1992, so it can hardly be said that there has not been time to study it. Equally, I gave notice of the proceedings intended for tomorrow before the summer recess. There can rarely have been an occasion when the House has had more time to study a matter or to consider the proceedings that we expect to have tomorrow.

Many hon. Members, most notably the hon. Member for Bradford, South, spoke of the motions as though they constituted guillotine or timetable motions. All they allow is for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading and

---

Column 319

for the Money and Ways and Means resolutions to be taken immediately after Second Reading. There is no timetable motion before the House. These are sensible procedural motions to enable the House to proceed from Second Reading to detailed discussion, and I hope that the House will now pass them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, in respect of the European Economic Area Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

Motion made and Question put,

That, if the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolutions come to by the House on the European Economic Area Bill [Lords] [Money] and [Ways and Means] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.-- [Mr. Newton.]

The House divided : Ayes 287, Noes 35.

Division No. 365] [6.14 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Aitken, Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Amess, David

Ancram, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Ashby, David

Atkins, Robert

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bates, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Beresford, Sir Paul

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Booth, Hartley

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Bowis, John

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Brandreth, Gyles

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butcher, John

Butler, Peter

Butterfill, John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Carttiss, Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Churchill, Mr

Clappison, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coe, Sebastian

Colvin, Michael

Congdon, David

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Couchman, James

Cran, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Devlin, Tim

Dickens, Geoffrey

Dicks, Terry

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Duncan, Alan

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Durant, Sir Anthony

Eggar, Tim

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Evennett, David

Faber, David

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Fishburn, Dudley

Forman, Nigel

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

French, Douglas

Fry, Peter

Gale, Roger

Gallie, Phil

Gardiner, Sir George

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Garnier, Edward

Gill, Christopher

Gillan, Cheryl

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

---