INTERPRETATION AND ORDERS (Hansard, 16 July 1979)

§ Mr. Stoddart
I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 6, line 9, leave out from ' instrument' to end of line 10 and insert ' a draft of which shall have been approved by both Houses of Parliament.'. This Parliament has had a great deal of experience of the negative procedure as the result of which hon. Members who have wished to pray against an order suddenly find that the time has run out, without the Government having found time to debate the matter and, therefore, has [...] by default.
There are important financial matters which would be subject to the order procedure. I refer to such matters as making provision as to the periods of service as a Representative which are to be taken into account for pension purposes'. and to provide for deductions to he made by the Treasury from Representatives' salaries at a prescribed rate by way of contributions towards the cost of providing the pensions payable by virtue of this section'. The Committee has shown by these long debates that Parliament is interested in the subject of European Assembly salaries, conditions of service, pensions and the rest. Therefore, it would be right and proper that the affirmative procedure should be used on any order brought forward in connection with the Bill. Parliament is entitled to be certain that we shall discuss any orders that may be laid. It is democratic to do so, and the Government may find that they will avoid embarrassment and accusations that they want to cover matters up if they adopt the affirmative resolution procedure.
I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider and accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Spearing
Today's discussion has shown that the Bill contains unforeseen pitfalls. If that has been demonstrated tonight, it will also surely be demonstrated in the months and years to come. The Assembly Representatives who are affected by the Bill and whose lives and facilities are governed by it will be active in the pursuance of their interests. We gather that they have been active since Second Reading. If that is the case, there will be strenuous activity when the vague picture emerges from the gloom. We are not sure, on the admission of the Minister how events will proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member tot Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) has put down an amendent to make every statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. That may sound extravagent, but I do not believe that it is, for this Bill, which not only causes problems but is a constitutional Bill because it provides the sustenance for those who are likely to be the rivals of all hon. Members. At some stage the House may want to go into these matters in detail and if the Bill provides for the negative procedure only that will make matters difficult. Front Bench Members will know that getting time to debate a negative order is not an easy matter. The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is present—

§ Mr. Graham Page
The Chairman was present a moment ago—the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). I am the ex-Chairman.

§ Mr. Spearing
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). He will confirm that the present procedure for dealing even with affirmative orders—let alone negative orders—is defective. The previous Labour Government put down an affirmative order at the end of the Order Paper after an uncontentious debate that might last for two or three hours and the House nodded it through at midnight or 2 a.m. The original intention was for it to go through at 3.30 p.m. at the commencement of public business. If the Procedure Committtee's proposals for such a change were to go through, that would facilitate matters.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon. If the matter is routine it 1251 will go through on the nod without any difficulty. If we believe that hon. Members count—we are told that the Government believe that individuals count—there should be an affirmative procedure for every order. Defective though the procedure is, it is a greater measure of protection than that which operates at present.

§ Mr. Graham Page
May I add a point for consideration by the Minister of State? I support what other hon. Members have said about the procedure for negative resolution being ineffective. Prayers may be put down against an order and never be debated. It is probable that if the Government have to obtain an affirmative resolution an order will be debated.
In the Government's new clause, they have accepted the need for an affirmative resolution. That clause deals with the important matters of allowances and facilities, but I do not think that they are more important than pensions, severance grants and the block transfers under clause 5, which are included in the other part of the Bill under which orders are to be used. Those matters are just as important and interesting to the House.
I know that there is no rule, or even a convention, as to which provisions should have the negative procedure and which should have the affirmative procedure, except the interest of the House. If the House has shown interest in a Bill that enables a Secretary of State to add to it by order, that should be recognised by making the order subject to the affirmative process.

§ Mr. Brittan
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is right in saying that there is a requirement for an affirmative resolution on the allowances provision. The amendment therefore applies primarily to the pension conditions.
Although our parliamentary pension scheme is contained in Acts, it has been the normal practice for pension schemes in the public service to be made by sub-bordinate legislation and during the passage of the Parliamentary Pensions Act last year many hon. Members agreed that it would be desirable to get the parliamentary scheme out of primary 1252 legislation and into rules. In all other cases where pension schemes are made by subordinate legislation, the relevant statutory instruments have been made subject to annulment. There is no obligation to lay them before Parliament in draft and to have affirmative resolutions.
In considering whether to take more precautions over the European pension scheme than over others, one should take into account that the Government intend that the scheme for European Members shall be modelled closely on that for Members of this House, with all the relevant provisions incorporated in full. Only where the nature of service as an Assembly Representative differs from that of being a Member of this House will variations be recommended. Such variations are expected to be confined to a few fairly minor points. I can assure the Committee that the Government do not intend that the terms available to European Members should be any more favourable than, or significantly different from, those available to Members of this House.
There is, therefore, an important difference between the proposal to require an affirmative resolution for orders concerning expenses and the procedure in the Bill for orders relating to pension arrangements. Quite simply, we are not yet in a position to indicate what expenses might be met from the powers in the Bill, but we have stated quite clearly our plans for the pension arrangements of Assembly Representatives and their great similarity to our arrangements. I hope that in the light of those facts the Committee will feel that it is reasonable to proceed as envisaged in the Bill.

§ Mr. English
This is not good enough. We have been in Committee for the best part of five hours and we have not had one concession from the Government Front Bench. We do not blame the Minister. We know why he cannot concede anything. There is a custom and practice on these premises. Once the Cabinet, or the appropriate committee of the Cabinet, has agreed something, assurances or concessions may be made only by a Cabinet Minister. But why send a boy to do a man's job? It is bad enough that the Government have to introduce something that they did not necessarily prepare themselves, but it is silly to have a Minister replying to 1253 debates who cannot give assurances on anything because he is not allowed to do so by his masters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) has made a sensible suggestion. Earlier I made a suggestion that Members should not be paid twice and that there should be some control over public expenditure. No assurances have been given. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not even reply to something that he was capable of replying to, namely, whether the Bill is legal under Community law. These matters have not been replied to properly. It is not good enough.

§ Mr. Stoddart
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not been able to make a concession. I understand his argument about pension schemes, but it may be that the House has slipped up. It may be that our own pension scheme and other schemes should be subject to the affirmative order procedure. There is a desire among hon. Members to be properly consulted and to be able properly to debate orders coming before the House of Commons. There is no question but that the negative order procedure causes great difficulties for Back-Bench Members. I know that a good deal of upset has been caused because, whether rightly or wrongly, Back Benchers have received the impression that the Government are out deliberately to do them down by refusing time to debate a negative order.
I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider his position on the procedure that I suggest in the amendment. If he did so, he would be making a step forward and pleasing the Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has said, he has not pleased it very much yet.