---

Pensions (Amendment)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually on service pensions, war pensions and war widows' pensions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March, and to be printed [Bill 72].

REFORM OF THE STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDS

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 17th April 1998 relating to reform of the Structural Funds, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 17th April 1998 relating to Agenda 2000, reform of the Cohesion Fund, and European Union Document No. 5480/99, an amended draft Council Regulation on the European Regional Fund; and supports the Government's view that reform of the European Structural and Cohesion Funds is essential in preparation for enlargement and should be concluded by a fair, affordable and durable outcome for all Member States; agrees that the Cohesion Fund is no longer justified where Member States have been admitted to Stage 3 of EMU, and should be phased out as soon as possible, and that the European Development Fund Regulation provides a suitable basis for the use of that Fund.--[Mr. Dowd.]

24 Mar 1999 : Column 399

Orders of the Day

Local Government Bill (Allocation of Time)

3.47 pm

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill:

Timetable
1. Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put
2. For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)--
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
3. On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Miscellaneous
4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting this day; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
5. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.
7. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes a Motion to alter the order of proceedings or to recommit the Bill, the Question shall be put forthwith.
8. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.
9. If at the sitting this day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
10. If the House is adjourned at the sitting this day, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The Local Government Bill was in Committee for more than 36 hours, over 15 sittings. Detailed scrutiny of more than 200 amendments and nine new clauses took place. Debate was conducted in good spirit: it was overwhelmingly constructive, and there was a general intention to improve the Bill, not to wreck it. An informal timetable was agreed, and it was used effectively and

24 Mar 1999 : Column 400

without curtailment of debate on any point raised by the Opposition. There was no complaint, from either side of the House, about insufficient time having been allocated for debate. In fact, the Bill finished earlier than the timetable allowed. We spent an average of 37.5 minutes on each group of amendments. Last night, in five hours--six if we include the money resolution--we managed to consider just two groups of amendments.

Today, we will complete Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. It has received widespread support from local government, the public and private sectors as well as the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry. It is a measure of the isolation of the official Opposition that, despite widespread support urging us to enact the Bill, they sought last night to make a mockery of debate on the Bill. We saw their tactics in the Chamber last night. More importantly, we know that they had briefed journalists that they intended to use those tactics. I was told that they intended to disrupt proceedings.

All the huffing and puffing of Opposition Members--we saw much of it last night--is only so much hot air when we recall their enthusiasm for guillotining debate on the poll tax and the abolition of the Greater London council. That legislation was passed in the face of bitter opposition from local government, let alone the people of this country, in contrast to the support that this Bill has received. Their protests are exposed for the sham that they really are when we recall the use of 12 guillotine motions in one Session of Parliament when the Conservative party was in government.

Let us now stop the childish bickering and get on with debating the Bill. It is a serious matter and it deserves serious consideration. So far, it has not been treated seriously on the Floor of the House on Report by the Conservative party. We look forward to a constructive debate today.

3.51 pm

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): I detect a marked change of tone between the Minister today and the Leader of the House last night. The Minister expresses some regret at having to move the guillotine motion. There was no sense of regret from the Government last night. The guillotine was announced with glee and joy by the Government. They exulted in curbing discussion and debate in the House last night.

We are constantly reminded that the Labour party claims to be a people's party, but the Government behave more like the only party that rules the People's Republic of China than a party in a democratic state. I am sure that the Minister agrees that there must be a better way of conducting these affairs. Why, then, was no approach made to any Conservative Member about the slow progress made yesterday afternoon? No formal approach was made. If concerns had been raised, they would no doubt have been heeded.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. I had contact with his Whip on the Bill. I said that progress was slow and asked whether we were expected to go through the night and whether that was sensible.

Mr. Jenkin: At no point did the Minister suggest that his patience was as short as it was or that he was so

24 Mar 1999 : Column 401

looking forward to his early bed. It would have been better if the Government had engaged in some proper discussion rather than acting precipitately and with triumph in their eyes to crush discussion and debate.

There remain many substantive issues to discuss. Many of the issues will have to be raised in the other place. However, we know what will happen if the other place takes a different view from that of the Government--it will be treated with scorn and derision too, and set aside as though it had no right to any discussion. It has become characteristic of the Government that proper discussion and debate are stifled. I want to take only a little time on the motion, because we want to devote the time available to the substantive issues raised by the amendments rather than to the motion.

The motion is the worst kind of guillotine. At no point was there any discussion about how the time might be allocated to different parts of the Bill. Worse than that, the motion sets a limit of five hours on the conclusion of all the proceedings on the Bill, including on the guillotine. So this discussion on the guillotine comes out of the time available for discussion on the Bill.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): It has happened before.

Mr. Jenkin: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: Not only has it happened before, but when the Tory Government were in power it happened quite regularly. Many of us on the Opposition Benches then used to curb whatever we had to say on the guillotine motion in order to spend more time on the principle of the debate. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to talk about autocratic regimes and all the rest of it. I was in the House when the Tory Government, who had 18 years, introduced guillotines on most of the privatisation legislation. They introduced a guillotine on the Single European Act. They introduced guillotines every single year. We had them coming out of our earholes. We have had only one guillotine since 1 May 1997. Who are the autocrats now?

---