HC Deb 09 June 1998 vol 313 cc930-2

4.—(1) In the case of proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendment, on any further Message from the Lords or on a Motion relating to a Committee to draw up Reasons—

  1. (a) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply,
  2. (b) the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House,
  3. (c) no dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown (in which case the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith),
  4. (d) if the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period allowed for the interrupted proceedings, and
  5. (e) if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the proceedings are concluded, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Today we shall, I hope, conclude the House's consideration of the treaty of Amsterdam. The European Communities (Amendment) Bill has had detailed scrutiny here and in another place. We have had a grand total of 15 days' debate on those issues, not to mention the numerous other instances of reports and ministerial appearances before Select Committees of both Houses. On the Floor of the House, 31 hours, over six days, have been spent debating the Amsterdam treaty. In another place, some 53 hours and 44 minutes were spent in detailed scrutiny of the Amsterdam treaty, over a full nine days.

Throughout our debates, the overwhelming support for the Bill both here and in another place has become apparent: majorities in favour of the Bill in this House of 230 and 225, on Second Reading and Third Reading respectively, and a clear majority supporting the Bill in another place.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson

Not at the moment.

The Bill has been subjected to exhaustive consideration, and has won support from all quarters. So great was the all-party support for the Bill that all but one of the Opposition's attempts to amend it failed—almost all, but not all, for today we have before us an amendment from another place, which seeks to delay the passage of a Bill that commands the support of both Houses. Without the votes of 76 Tory hereditary peers, that amendment would have been stopped in its tracks by a Government majority of 12.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am listening sympathetically to what the Minister is saying about the support for the Bill. Is he in a position to say how many referendums concerning the treaty have been held in other member states? Of those, in how many did the people vote in favour of the treaty?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. We are in danger of straying into the next business. The motion before us is the allocation of time motion, so we should discuss only the allocation of time at this stage. When we discuss the next business, it will be perfectly in order to widen the matter before us.

Mr. Henderson

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend on the subject of timing by mentioning that, in both Denmark and Ireland, time was found in their political scrutiny systems to allow a referendum, which, in both cases, was carried overwhelmingly.

I return to the business of our Parliament. It is important that, in due course, we examine the specifics of the amendment. I believe that the proposed allocation for this stage of the Bill will allow the House the necessary time to discuss the specific issue before us. I say that to the House in the knowledge and in the context that the substance of the issue has been discussed in other forums in the House.

The Government have sought to limit the debate to the specific issue before us, and to allow the necessary time for that issue to be debated. Tonight is not the time to re-run the arguments, which the Opposition have fought and lost, on the Bill in general. We shall discuss a specific issue, and I look forward to debating it with colleagues in the House when we move from the timetable motion, which I hope that the House will accept.

7.3 pm

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)

This lamentable Bill is ending its life in Parliament under a squalid guillotine. Unjustifiably, the Government introduced a guillotine very early in its proceedings—a classic example of their contempt for Parliament. However, in view of the large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to take part in the debate, I do not wish, in debating the guillotine, to take further time out of the time that should be available to them. Let us get on to the substance of the matter.

Question put and agreed to.