ON Monday the first of a series of debates on Europe was held. The substantive motion was on the Second Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill.

However 24 MPs from the smaller parties, including myself, with 18 Labour rebels tabled an amendment as follows: "That this House declines to give a second reading to the European Union (Amendment) Bill as no provision for a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon is made within it.."

It went on to list the parties that had promised a referendum. This would have forced a vote on the very issue that bothers most people -- that a referendum was promised and so should be held.

To my amazement the amendment was not selected for debate by Mr Speaker and so the only vote at the end of the debate could be whether to pass the Second Reading or not.

This was much more difficult for many MPs to oppose, even though they felt the promise of a referendum should be honoured.

With Liberal Democrat support the motion passed with a majority of 138 despite rebellion by about 18 Labour MPs.

The great disappointment to me, in addition to the result, was that so many MPs wished to speak that about 12 of us were not called.

I cannot complain as the Speaker is kind to me on health issues. The limited time for debate was because the Government had arranged for two urgent statements to be made during the same afternoon which took up nearly two hours of debating time!

The next day, Tuesday, when the debate was on the Energy Bill, less likely to cause opposition action, there were no statements and the full time from 3.45pm until 10pm available for the debate. Perhaps any party in Government would have planned its programme to its advantage similarly.

The issue will now return to a committee of the whole House, rather than a separate small reviewing committee, for further consideration.

I hope that there will be another opportunity to tackle the Government on its refusal to hold a referendum because of its claims that the Lisbon Treaty is so different from the European Constitution that it replaces, that its promise no longer applies. Many experts disagree with the Government on this.

I understand from DEFRA and the Environment Agency that the predictable floods in Bewdley have been held at bay by the demountable defences, which we now trust, and also by the pallet defences on the Wribbenhall side of the river.

Even though these pallets were leaking a little, at the time of writing, I was told that single line traffic was being allowed past.

I have requested this to try to avoid complete isolation for Bewdley from the East when the pallets are deployed.

In Stourport, Lickhill Manor, although cut off for normal vehicles, was still accessible to 4x4 vehicles when I wrote this column.

If readers wish to write to Dr Taylor, they should address correspondence to his constituency office at 137 Franche Road, Kidderminster, Worcestershire, DY11 5AP.

9:06am Wednesday 23rd January 2008

Print   Email this   Comment