|Previous Section||Home Page|
Column 754Government will launch a national awareness campaign on the particular problems and needs of disabled people, and on the obstacles that they can face in their daily lives.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): I have been lucky enough to finish fifth in the private Members' ballot. I am minded to introduce the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill back into the House. One thing that would prevent that would be someone who came before me in the ballot choosing that Bill. Otherwise, it is really up to the Minister to tell me now why the legislation that he is propounding is adequate to meet the proposals in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Are not his proposals limited and qualified, welcome though they are? Does not the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill go far beyond them? That Bill should be introduced again, not least to continue to push the Government a bit further along the track they have entered.
Mr. Hague: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his good fortune. The objective of the proposals that I have outlined today is exactly the same as the objective of those who have campaigned for legislation on the matter in the past. That objective is to eliminate discrimination against disabled people throughout our society. The legislation that I have proposed is broad. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will look carefully at the legislation when it is produced, because it will assure them--
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): And hon. Ladies.
Mr. Hague: And hon. Ladies. It will assure them of the breadth of what is intended. The Government believe that, in some sectors, it is more sensible and practical to proceed in a different way, but those sectors are quite limited in scope. The measures in this package, taken together, will bring an end to discrimination against disabled people. The House should make no mistake about the purpose of this package.
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): I congratulate my hon. Friend on a truly comprehensive package. I know that it will be very much appreciated--certainly by the Sutton Alliance of Disabled People, and indeed, by the vast majority of those who supported the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. In particular, they will appreciate his proposals to bring in the low-level platforms on buses. However, does he agree that some issues can be tackled by using plain common sense rather than blanket legislation?
Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. Plain common sense is exactly what is called for in this case and plain common sense characterises the proposals that I have put before the House today. We need legislation to tackle discrimination against disabled people, but we need to bring it into force in a sensible and practical way. In other sectors, such as public transport, which I have already mentioned, it is plain common sense that the best way in which to tackle the problems is on a replacement basis as new rolling stock or new vehicles are purchased. Common sense is exactly what is called for, and it runs throughout these proposals.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): Will the Minister join me in congratulating disabled people and their organisations on the political pressure that they have exerted since I introduced the first comprehensive anti-discrimination Bill in this House
Column 755exactly 11 years ago this month? The Leader of the House--who is present--told us while in a previous post that education and persuasion were all that was required. I am pleased to see at least a partial result of the campaign by those disabled people, which shows that political pressure sometimes works, even with a very slow-moving Government. Will the Minister confirm that the Bill will cover places of entertainment and public resort and that it will give a service to blind people with guide dogs?
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of education and persuasion. A mixture of education, persuasion and legislation has always been, and remains, the Government's approach. We are, of course, proposing more legislation today than we have proposed in the past. I have no wish to hog the credit for that. Conservative Members would be happy to share it with Opposition Members and with many people outside the House who have raised the issue of disabled people. I can confirm that the right of access for goods and services will be intended to apply to places of public entertainment and the other places that he mentioned. Of course, within the definition of disabled people, the Bill will also apply to people with guide dogs.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington): Will the Minister explain why he has chosen to exclude firms which employ fewer than 20 people, given that they account for 96 out of every 100 firms in the country and that they employee 37 in every 100 people? As for the enforcement of anti- discrimination rights, will he extend legal aid to disabled people on low incomes? Otherwise, those rights will remain illusory. Will he ensure that, in the proposed Bill, the onus of industrial tribunals will be on an employer or service provider showing that discrimination did not take place, rather than on the disabled applicant showing that it did? Will he ensure that the Bill also tackles indirect discrimination, such as employers asking job applicants for driving licences when no such skill is needed in the job for which they are applying?
Mr. Hague: I can confirm that it is our intention to tackle instances of indirect discrimination, although we may need to structure the Bill in such a way as to include a power to regulate for specific instances of indirect discrimination so that there is no doubt what we are talking about. The hon. Gentleman asked about the provision for fewer than 20 employees. More than 80 per cent. of the employees in the country work for firms with more than 20 employees. Other legislation in the rest of the world includes provisions for minimum numbers of people. Employment provisions in the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 do not apply to firms with fewer than 15 employees. The reason is that many small firms do not have the personnel functions or specialist advice to enable them to cope easily with such provisions. We do not wish to add to the burdens on small businesses, while still providing for the vast majority in employment.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about means of redress. We have no plans to change the general rules on provision of legal aid, but I reiterate that we intend to provide conciliation services and effective means of redress for all the rights that I have outlined today. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not have given a better welcome to the proposals. I know that he is enthusiastic for
Column 756anti-discrimination legislation. That is what the Government are now bringing forward and it deserves the whole- hearted support of the House.
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Madam Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a statement about the business for next week. The business for next week will be as follows.
Monday 28 November----Second Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
Motion to take note of documents relating to the 1995 budget of the European communities. Details will be given in the Official Report .
Tuesday 29 November----My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement. Wednesday 30 November---- Continuation of the Budget debate. Thursday 1 December----Continuation of the Budget debate. Friday 2 December----There will be a debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Monday 5 December----Continuation of the Budget debate which will be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 6 December.
[ Monday 28 November:
European Communities (Finance) Bill--Relevant European Community documents: 1. European Communities Act 1972 (as amended) 2. 1994 Own Resources Decision 3. 1988 Own Resources Decision 4. 1985 Own Resources Decision 5. 1992 Edinburgh European Council Conclusions 6. 1993 Inter-Institutional Agreement 7. 1994 Budget Discipline Decision 8. 1994 Council Regulation No 2728/94 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions 9. 1994 Council Regulation No 2729/94 amending Regulation No 1552/89 10. 1994 Council Regulation No 2730/94 amending the Financial Regulation 11. 1993 Structural Fund Regulation 12. 1993 Cohesion Fund Regulation 13. 1994 Working Methods Paper on the UK Abatement 14. Executive Summary of the European Court of Auditors report on implementation of the 1993 EC Budget.
Floor of the House--Relevant European Community documents: a) COM(94)400 1995 Budget, b) 8782/94 1995 Budget, c) 9943/94 Adjustment of the financial perspective with a view to enlargement of the European Union, d) Unnumbered Document-European Parliament Minutes for the Sitting of the 27 October 1994 relating to the Draft General Budget for the European Union for the financial year 1995, e) Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum-Council Decisions on the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft General Budget of the European Community for the financial year 1995; relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: a) HC 48-xxiii (1993-94), b) HC 48-xxvi (1993-94), c) No report, d) No report, e) No report.
Tuesday 29 November:
Chancellor of the Exchequer--Budget statement: The following documents are relevant to the Budget debate: Unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 22 September 1994 relating to the
Column 758Commission opinion on the existence of an excessive deficit in the United Kingdom and recommendation for a Council decision, drawn up in accordance with Article 104c.5 and Article 104c.6 of the Treaty establishing the European Community; Unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 14 October 1994 relating to the Council recommendations to the United Kingdom with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive Government deficit, prepared by the Commission in acceptance with Article 104c.7 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. On Monday, in the event of the Leader of the House being successful in brow- beating Conservative Members into the Lobby and, as usual, a rebellion petering out, and the European Communities (Finance) Bill receiving a Second Reading, will it be committed to a Committee of the whole House as befits a measure of such importance as--I think--the House would wish?
If the Leader of the House remains in office after Monday's vote, will he find time, as a matter of urgency, to debate the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report and its recommendation of a code of conduct, which would be very useful as a buffer against ministerial party political excesses? It would be of great advantage to everyone to have an early debate on that issue.
Will the Leader of the House also tell us when he expects to find time to debate the Jopling report and the proposals to which he referred in his speech last night?
Mr. Newton: Let me take the latter two questions first. The hon. Lady well knows my desire to find time to debate the proposals that she and I have been able to agree--I think that is now the right word--for the Jopling report. However, she will equally understand that, with the business immediately facing the House and with five days--which, I may say, responds to the wishes of the Opposition--being allocated to debate the Budget, it would be difficult for me to make a promise of a debate before the week after next--at the earliest--on either of the matters that she has raised. I cannot give a commitment even on that at this stage.
The hon. Lady's first question is, of course, a matter for the House, but it is a matter of record that, normally, the practice for such Bills has been to discuss them in a Committee of the whole House.
Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): One of the most important measures announced in the Queen's Speech was the Pensions Bill to protect the interests of occupational pensioners. When will that be introduced? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will start its progress in this House?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend, above all, knows that the Bill will be long and complex. Its preparation is not yet completed and, at this stage, I cannot give a definite date for its expected introduction. We are still considering, in various parts of the legislative programme, precisely how the balance as to where Bills should originate will fall between the two Houses.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that it has been a long time since the House debated agriculture in Government time? Is he aware that hon. Members on both
Column 759sides of the House have hill livestock farmers in their constituencies who are under some pressure? The new budgetary format means that hill livestock compensatory allowance payments will be made in the aftermath of the Budget statement. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House could give us some idea of when an agriculture debate will take place and when the announcements about HLCA payments will be made.
Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot be as specific as the hon. Gentleman would evidently like me to be. However, I do not think that his questions will go unanswered for very long.
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) rose --
Mr. Harold Elletson (Blackpool, North): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about unregulated DSS hostels and houses in multiple occupation, which continue to have a thoroughly damaging effect on the quality of life and the economy of many seaside resorts throughout the country? Is he aware that this week the Government issued a consultation paper about a potential licensing system for houses in multiple occupation? Does he understand that many of my constituents want to see a self- financing licensing system for all existing hostels introduced as soon as possible?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that I am aware of the consultation paper. For reasons that I have already touched on, I cannot promise an early debate. However, I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be in the House to answer questions next Wednesday, which may give my hon. Friend an opportunity to underline his concern.
Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West): Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland next week about his outrageous proposal to publish death rate league tables for Scottish hospitals? Bearing in mind that a spokesperson for the Secretary of State for Health is quoted as saying that she has no intention of following the Scottish example because she has no enthusiasm for "counting dead bodies", why on earth is the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuing such a ghoulish policy?
Mr. Newton: I understand that the clinical outcome indicators report, which I think underlines what the hon. Gentleman referred to, has been prepared by a working group of health professionals, public health doctors and NHS managers. While I understand why the hon. Gentleman used his phrase, the proper way to describe the process is "clinical outcomes", and of course a large number of outcomes are highly successful.
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud): Could we have an early debate on the subject of social services, bearing in mind that certain shire counties, including Gloucestershire, have been badly served by a change in the funding formula? It is rather difficult to explain to our constituents why help is being withdrawn at a time when we are about to devote billions, seemingly uncounted, to extend Italian motorway systems.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has commented about social services in recent times-- most recently in the debate on the Queen's Speech, which we concluded yesterday. The hon.
Column 760Gentleman will know that substantial additional sums of money have been allocated in connection with the development of community care policy.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): The Minister will remember that I asked last week for a statement about sudden infant deaths. The Minister had an opportunity to make some reference to the subject this week, but did not do so. I press the Minister to give the House an opportunity to explore the matter.
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman, rather
uncharacteristically, is being a little unfair. That is clearly a matter which requires careful professional advice. He will know that last Friday the chief medical officer convened an expert working group to consider what had been said on the "The Cook Report". It has advised that the programme provided nothing to invalidate earlier reports, but raised questions which need proper investigation, and further work is progressing urgently. I think that that is probably the right way to approach this difficult matter.
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North): Given that we are debating European Community finances on Monday, can the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues give serious consideration to how the House, the Parliament, and indeed the United Kingdom, can contribute to monitoring and examining the colossal fraud that is perpetrated throughout the European Community? Would not Monday's debate provide an opportunity to suggest some positive ways to deal with the problem?
Mr. Newton: From the way in which my hon. Friend has phrased his question, I know that he needs no reminder from me that the background of the Court of Auditors report deals in part with the efforts that the Government have made to ensure that the Community tries harder to combat fraud. The British Government need no urging in their attempts to ensure that the Community's efforts are reinforced and supported in every possible way. I have no doubt that it is a matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will advert in the debate on Monday.
Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South): Taking on board the fact that the House will have the opportunity later tonight to vote on ministerial and other salaries, will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the level of remuneration for elected local councillors from all political parties who often work long and hard for very little reward?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to find time for a debate, but I will bring the concern that the hon. Gentleman has raised to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who I think is the appropriate Minister to refer it to, as well as to the attention of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): Are not there two main subjects of discussion in connection with the European finance Bill debate on Monday: first, the question of whether it is a matter of confidence, and all that flows from that; and, secondly, the financial arguments, which could properly be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Column 761Is not it the case that the subject should be dealt with in a two-day debate, and that the first day should begin with the Prime Minister explaining how he regards it as a matter of confidence? Is not it unsatisfactory for this debate to be truncated into one day, which is overshadowed by the Budget, so as to ensure that the constitutional impropriety of the Government is given as little attention as possible?
Mr. Newton: I must make one point to my hon. Friend, in view of the phrasing of his question. The question about whether this is a matter of confidence is not open for discussion: it is, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, a matter of confidence. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister both explained and made clear the position on who should participate in the debate in his Question Time only a couple of hours ago. Thirdly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred repeatedly to the Bill's financial details in recent days. He has made it quite clear-- as no doubt he will on Monday-- that the effects of the Bill in implementing the Edinburgh agreement will amount to £75 million next year, rising to £250 million by the end of the century.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East): Is the Leader of the House aware that the compensation recovery unit of the DSS is clawing back vast amounts of compensation awarded for ill health and injury? For example, a Glasgow man who was awarded £30,000 ended up with £2,000 at a time when he was at his very lowest ebb in financial and health terms. In the interests of justice, will the Minister institute an early debate on a subject which affects a large number of innocent individuals and groups throughout the country?
Mr. Newton: As a former DSS Minister, I know that the principle of compensation recovery is a long-established one. I do not think that anyone looking at it would argue seriously that state benefits should replace permanently compensation due from a party found guilty of negligence. The current scheme ensures that the cost of compensation falls where it should: on the person who has been negligent.
Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam): May we have an early debate on the free accommodation provided for Sheffield Labour Members of Parliament and the Sheffield Member of the European Parliament so that we may ascertain whether that practice is widespread or just a local difficulty? The matter was highlighted in yesterday's issue of The Star in Sheffield.
Mr. Newton: I shall obviously consider my hon. Friend's point. However, he will have some opportunity to raise the matter next week because, as I have already said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be here to answer questions on Wednesday. I think that we can also anticipate in the latter part of next week the annual revenue support grant statement.
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay): I apologise for trying to butt in at the start of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson). My right hon. Friend will be aware that, this afternoon, the Prime
Column 762Minister said that the leakage of classified information that was reported today in The Independent had not originated from British Telecom. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a serious leakage of highly classified information and that if British Telecom denies that it was responsible for that leak, it must be a matter for a statement by the Home Secretary?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will probably understand that I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon, which was clearly based on urgent but careful inquiry. However, I shall bring my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Will there be a debate at any time next week on "The Health of the Nation" statement, which was made by the Secretary of State for Health? A debate is especially important in view of the dangerous development of suicide squads--these religious cults--which seems to have spread to six Cabinet members. Is the Leader of the House one of the six? I can tell him that if they intend to start blowing people up, we are not going with them.
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman were going with us, it might tempt some of us. Beyond that, I cannot add to what has been said.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): Given that, after the debate on Monday, the Whip may well be withdrawn from a score or so of my right hon. Friend's hon. Friends, would that score or so constitute a political party and would it be entitled to facilities in the House and to public money?
Madam Speaker: Order. Those are internal matters.
Mr. Marlow: If, at a later stage, the Government were to table an amendment and the new, improved Conservative party opposed it, would the doctrine of collegiate, corporate Cabinet Go tterda mmerung still apply?
Mr. Newton: I shall probably be pulled up for saying that I did not hear a request for a debate, Madam Speaker. If there had been such a request, I would have said that I could not find time for it.
Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun): During this spell of mild weather, the Leader of the House might be forgiven for forgetting about the poor, the disabled and the elderly who will suffer during the winter. Is not it time that we had a debate on that matter so that we can discuss legislation to put in place a properly constituted and adequate cold climate payment?
Mr. Newton: I have been familiar with those matters for many years because of my time as a social security Minister. In a brief answer, I shall not attempt to rehearse all the difficulties. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to what has been said.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): Given what the Lord President said yesterday evening about the Jopling report and the progress that he hopes to make on it, and bearing in mind that yesterday evening he told us
Column 763when he expected the Easter recess to start, is he aware that Christmas comes before Easter? Can he give us any information about when that recess will start?
Mr. Newton: I am aware that Christmas comes before Easter and I wondered last night whether I might do a little better on that front. The best that I can do at the moment is to say that I expect the Christmas recess to start in the week before Christmas and to include Christmas day. I shall give further and better particulars when the scene becomes clearer. As I said last night, many hon. Members have spotted that Easter is about as late as it can get and thought that the recess would probably come before Easter. That was why I sought to make the matter clear but I am bound to say that my phrasing allowed for not having an Easter recess at all.
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): Would my right hon. Friend consider a debate to mark next week's visit to this country by the Speaker of the Kuwaiti Parliament and seven of its Members? It would be an opportunity for the House to share its concern with them over the plight of 625 missing prisoners of war and detainees held in Iraq. These are crucial days and we hope that talks between Kuwait and Iraq are about to begin. It is important for the Iraqis to see that this country supports the allies in making sure that the Iraqis comply with UN resolutions and to realise that sanctions will not be lifted until all those issues are resolved.
Mr. Newton: Even without a debate--we recently had a full day on foreign affairs during the debate on the Address--I assure my hon. Friend that, on the matters that she mentions, as on others, the Government remain concerned to ensure compliance with all United Nations resolutions.
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on NHS hospital trusts, thus giving the Labour party an opportunity to comment on an outburst by a leading light in my local Labour party who appeared to be claiming that his application to join a local NHS trust board was rejected because of his party's hostility to sensible Government reforms of the NHS?
Mr. Newton: If I were to provide time for debate on every unreasonable outburst by local Labour supporters, we should be debating nothing else.
Mr. Secretary Lang, supported by Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Sir George Young and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, presented a Bill to reform the law of Scotland relating to children, to the adoption of children, and to young persons who as children have been looked after by local authorities; to make new provision as respects the relationship between parent and child and guardian and child in the law of Scotland; to make provision as respects residential establishments for children and as respects certain other residential establishments; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 4].
Madam Speaker: All the matters that are covered in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will of course be in order during the debate on the Government motion so that we may debate them. If the House wishes to allow Divisions at the conclusion of proceedings, I propose to allow them on amendments (a) and (b).
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move
That Standing Orders A and B below shall have effect and Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business), No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) shall be amended as set out below. A. Deregulation Committee
(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Deregulation Committee, to examine every document containing proposals laid before the House under section 3, and every draft order proposed to be made under section 1, of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. (2) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every document containing proposals laid before the House under the said section 3, either--
(a) that a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) that the proposals should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House; or
(c) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of the proposals.
(3) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every draft order laid before the House under the said section 1, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved. (4) The committee may report to the House on any matter arising from consideration of the said proposals or draft orders. (5)(A) In its consideration of proposals the committee shall consider in each case whether the proposals--
(a) appear to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation; (b) remove or reduce a burden or the authorisation or requirement of a burden;
(c) continue any necessary protection;
(d) have been the subject of, and take appropriate account of, adequate consultation;
(e) impose a charge on the public revenues or contain provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribe the amount of any such charge or payment;
(f) purport to have retrospective effect;
(g) give rise to doubts whether they are intra vires;
(h) require elucidation or appear to be defectively drafted; (i) appear to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union. (B) In its consideration of draft orders, the committee shall consider in each case all the matters set out in sub-paragraph (A) above and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the Committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration. (6) The committee shall consist of sixteen members. (7) The quorum of the committee shall be five. (8) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament. (9) The committee shall have power--
Column 765(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit
notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time; (b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
(c) to appoint a sub-committee, of which the quorum shall be two, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
(d) to communicate its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest to any committee appointed by this House and to any committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation proposals and draft orders. (10) The committee and the sub-committee shall have leave to meet concurrently with any select committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation proposals and draft orders and any sub-committee thereof. (11) The committee and the sub-committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees. (12) The committee and the sub- committee shall have power to invite Members of the House who are not members of the committee to attend meetings at which witnesses are being examined and such Members may, at the discretion of the chairman, ask questions of those witnesses; but no Member not being of the committee shall otherwise take part in the proceedings of the committee or sub- committee, or be counted in the quorum. (13) It shall be an instruction to the committee that before reporting either--
(i) that any proposal should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House, or
(ii) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of any proposal, or
(iii) that any draft order should not be approved, it shall afford to any government department concerned an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to it or to the sub-committee appointed by it such explanations as the department think fit. (14) It shall be an instruction to the committee that it report on every draft order not more than fifteen sitting days after the draft order was laid before the House, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division. B. Consideration of draft deregulation orders (1) If the Deregulation Committee has reported under paragraph (3) of Standing Order A (Deregulation Committee) that a draft order laid before the House under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 should be approved and a motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to that effect, the question thereon shall--
(a) if the committee's recommendation was agreed without a division, be put forthwith;
(b) if the committee's recommendation was agreed after a division, be put not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion. (2) If the committee has reported that a draft order should not be approved, no motion to approve the draft order shall be made unless the House has previously resolved to disagree with the committee's report; the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion for such a resolution to disagree shall be put not later than three hours after their commencement; and the question shall be put forthwith on any motion thereafter made by a Minster of the Crown that such a draft order be approved.(3) Motions to which this order applies may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business)
Line 14, after `procedure))', insert `or Standing Order B (Consideration of draft deregulation orders)'.