§ Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East)Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 MAY—Progress on the remaining stages of the Railways Bill.
TUESDAY 25 MAY—Completion of remaining stages of the Railways Bill.
Motion on the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Revocation) Order.
WEDNESDAY 26 MAY—Second Reading of the Welsh Language Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 27 MAY—Debates on the Adjournment.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week back after the spring Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 7 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.
Motion relating to the Welsh Language Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 8 JUNE—Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1993.
Motions relating to the Legal Aid (Northern Ireland) Regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 9 JUNE—Opposition day (13th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced—and, for all I know, decided.
Motion on the Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order.
THURSDAY 10 JUNE—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on administration, in so far as it relates to the Department of National Heritage's expenditure on the legislative framework and general arrangements for the press. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 11 JUNE—There will be a debate to take note of improved productivity in UK manufacturing on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Tuesday 25 May—Committee B, document No. 11096/92 relating to the safety and efficiency of nuclear power stations in non-member countries. Wednesday 26 May—Committee A, document No. 11011/92 relating to the future development of the common transport policy; Committee B, various documents relating to carbon/energy tax, details to be given in the Official Report. Wednesday 9 June —Committee A, documents Nos. 10344/91 and 5019/93 relating to marketing standards for milk and non-milk fats; Committee B, document No. 4180/93 relating to prospecting for and extraction of hydrocarbons.
370 [Tuesday 25 May:
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document:
11096/92 Community aid to promote nuclear safety in eastern Europe
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxv (1992–93).
Wednesday 26 May:
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Document:
11011/92 Transport policy
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:
HC 79-xxiii (1992–93) and HC 79-xxvii (1992–93).
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Documents:
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:
7018/92 Carbon/Energy Tax 8328/92 4182/93 7847/92 +COR1 7757/92 7569/92 5705/93 7157/92 SEC(92) 1996 HC 79-vii (1992–93), HC 79-xx (1992–93), HC 79-xviii (1992–93), HC 79-xxvi (1992–93), HC 79-xxix (1992–93), HC 79-xv (1992–93).
Wednesday 9 June:
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Community Documents:
10344/91 5019/93
Marketing standards for fats
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:
HC 24-xiv (1991–92) and HC 79-xxiv (1992–93).
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document:
4180–93 Licensing of exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxi (1992–93).
Tuesday 8 June:
Legal Aid Regulations:
Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 121);
Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 123);
Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 122);
Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 124).
371 Thursday 10 June: Estimates Day: class XI, vote 7, Department of National Heritage:
Administration; the fourth report from the National Heritage Committee, Session 1992–93, on privacy and media intrusion (HC 294) is relevant.]
§ Mr. BrownI shall put to the Leader of the House a number of requests with which I am afraid he will be all too familiar.
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for continuing the practice of giving us more than a week's notice of the business ahead? It is widely appreciated in all parts of the House, and I urge him to continue with it. However, the Government need to be flexible in these matters. Therefore, may I ask him not to rule out a statement or debate in Government time on the situation in the former Yugoslavia?
May I also draw the Leader of the House's attention to the fact that on 28 January, and again on 25 February, I asked when we could expect the usual one-day debate on the Government's public expenditure plans? In view of today's 34 per cent. increase in Government borrowing April to April to cover the PSBR, is it not astonishing that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is not willing to come to the House of Commons and share his problems with us?
May I ask the Leader of the House again for a debate on the defence estimates and for the Government to find time to discuss the affairs of Scotland, notably water privatisation and the so-called stocktaking exercise?
When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to bring forward proposals concerning the allocation of the six extra European Parliamentary seats and to explain how the legitimate expectations of the Boundary Commission to be involved in the process will be met?
§ Mr. NewtonThe hon. Gentleman, perhaps understandably—I suppose it has the merit of consistency, which we do not always see—has repeated a number of the demands that his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made last week. On several of them, including the requests he made in relation to Scotland, the extra European parliamentary seats and the Government's public expenditure plans, there is not very much I can add to what I said to the right hon. Lady last week.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's comments about my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary were a bit unreasonable, given that the Chief Secretary came to the House and made a statement and has certainly spoken in a number of debates since the public expenditure reviews, to which some reference has been made recently. were set in hand.
If it seemed right or necessary, of course the Government would arrange for statements to be made on the former Yugoslavia, or indeed elsewhere, should developments during the recess make that necessary.
I am rather more sympathetic to the learned Gentleman's request for a debate on the defence estimates than I am to some of his other requests, as I have already signalled to his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South. I realise that I have not been able to require that desire in what I have announced today, but I am looking for ways of meeting it in the not too distant future.
372 I thank the learned Gentleman for the kind words he said at the beginning of his remarks. It will not always be possible, but I am certainly working towards giving the House as much advance notice as I can of its business.
§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is increasing concern up and down the country at what Sir John Banham and his commission are doing? May we please have an early debate on his proposals for Derbyshire? If he is proposing the creation of maxi district councils throughout the country, he will meet with opposition throughout the country.
§ Mr. NewtonI cannot be as forthcoming to my hon. Friend as he would wish. However, I cannot do badly because, last Tuesday, immediately after having to listen to the spring Adjournment motion debate in which my hon. Friend made a similar point, I went to the CBI annual dinner, and, lo and behold, I found myself talking at some length to Sir John Banham, so I was able to tell him that some of my hon. Friends had expressed reservations about his proposals. It was not a public conversation, but I hope that Sir John will not mind my saying in general terms that he said that he is always willing to listen to representations.
§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)Irrespective of what side of the argument hon. Members are on, it is generally agreed on both sides of the House that the public are bewildered by the incomprehensible procedural wrangling surrounding the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Now that that process is beginning to wind down—I hope this evening—does the Leader of the House think that it is time to look at the way in which the House does its business? Can he assure the House that he will arrange for a statement or, better still, time for debate to try to get a bit of sanity into the way in which the House works?
§ Mr. NewtonI suspect that, at times, it is not only those outside who have been bemused by some of the procedures of the House. It would be rash for me—indeed for anyone who may hold this office—to undertake to sort out all the tangles to the extent that the hon. Gentleman thinks right. If there are lessons to be learnt, we shall try to learn them. The Chairman of the Procedure Committee is not in his place, but I am sure that he will be turning his fertile mind to ways of making further improvements.
§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)Can my right hon. Friend announce today a date for the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill?
§ Mr. NewtonI may have given my hon. Friend an informal indication of it. He may have noted that I announced that, on Tuesday 8 June, the Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock. What is named for private business is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I would be somewhat surprised if that did not prove to be the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill.
§ Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)The Leader of the House has made very welcome arrangements in the past for announcing recess dates. Can he tell the House why he has not yet announced the date at the end of July? Is it to be another pawn in the Maastricht negotiations with the Lords? Can he tell us when the House will rise?
§ Mr. NewtonI would not seek to make the hon. Gentleman, whom I much respect, a pawn in any negotiations, but I acknowledge that there are a number of uncertainties about the progress of important business which lead me to be cautious before proceeding in quite the way that the hon. Gentleman would like.
§ Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns expressed about the risks to occupational pension schemes, perhaps personified by the disaster that overcame the Maxwell pensioners. Will he make time for a debate in which we can explore various ideas on how those schemes might be strengthened and come up with a way to provide a safety net for pensioners who may suffer when schemes fail?
§ Mr. NewtonI cannot promise time for a debate. My hon. Friend, who has taken a close and significant interest in these matters over many months, will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has shown himself willing to consider ways to make improvements in this sector. As it happens, my right hon. Friend will be here to answer questions on Monday 7 June.
§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's failure earlier to answer the question about prescription charges, and the fact that the Tories have already increased those charges by more than 2,000 per cent. since they came to power, may we have an early statement giving us a categorical assurance that the Government have abandoned any move to reduce further eligibility for free prescriptions? Why should sick pensioners and the parents of sick children be expected to bail out this discredited Government?
§ Mr. NewtonMy right hon. Friend made absolutely clear the position on the question that was raised. I will not add to it.
§ Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton)Will my right hon. Friend make time at an early moment for a debate on the reaction of some local authorities to compulsory competitive tendering? I ask that question for three reasons: first, so that I might draw to the attention of the House the unlawful termination of a grass cutting contract by Labour-controlled Plymouth city council, which was won lawfully in 1990 under compulsory competitive tendering by a company named Krinkles, the termination of which, in my view, is the greatest public scandal—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. Although the House may be interested in the hon. Gentleman's views on other occasions, this is not the moment for him to put them. If he would like to put his point briefly, I am sure that the Leader of the House will respond. His question must be brief, and he does not need to argue his case.
§ Mr. StreeterMay we have an urgent debate on the important matter of this unlawful termination, costing my constituents £750,000?
§ Mr. NewtonWhile I am not fully familiar with the details of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, it certainly sounds as if it may well merit a debate. However, much as I might wish to offer one, I must be mindful of the fact that we had a debate, I think on a Friday, on local government matters only a few weeks ago. Happily, my hon. Friend may have an opportunity to raise the matter 374 soon, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is due to answer questions on Wednesday 26 May.
§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)Is the Leader of the House aware of the suggestion in today's press that the Government intend to change the law to remove the protection of workers who were automatically moved from either state or local government units into the private sector without their agreement? Will he please undertake to ensure that the Secretary of State who is responsible makes a public announcement in the House if any such suggestion is to be pushed?
§ Mr. NewtonI am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, as with any of my right hon. Friends, would make any statement that it was felt was appropriate in relation to any proposal that they felt it right to present. I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend to whom she refers, the Secretary of State for Employment, will be here for questions even earlier than the Secretary of State for the Environment—that is to say, on Tuesday 25 May.
§ Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)I welcome the verdict of the jury which vindicated the actions of three police officers in bringing to task those responsible for the Guildford bombings. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on compensation for those officers, who have suffered traumatic experiences?
§ Mr. NewtonOnce again, I do not think that it would be possible for me to promise time for such a debate, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)Why is the Leader of the House shrugging off the demand for a debate on the privatisation plans for Scottish water? Is he aware that his Scottish Office colleagues are briefing the Scottish press in private about their latest indications on the matter? If the Tory party wants to swallow Scottish water in two gulps rather than one, would not it be wise to share those views and test the temperature of the House first?
§ Mr. NewtonThe hon. Gentleman's question hangs on the request for a debate. I have said a number of times in recent weeks, indeed several times to the hon. Gentleman, although I understand why he continues to be so persistent, that the appropriate time for a debate is when the Government have some proposals. At the moment the Government are still considering the results of the consultation.
§ Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that there is great concern in Northern Ireland about the proposed closure of many hospitals, including one of the largest maternity hospitals in Belfast, the Jubilee. I am sure that he is also aware of early-day motion 1798 on the subject which has been signed by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and me and by Belfast Members.
[That this House deplores the intended removal by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board of patients' choice for maternity services at the Belfast Jubilee Maternity Hospital when that hospital already complies with all of the quality, safety and other criteria laid down by the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, and 375 reflected in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board's own Prospectus for the Purchase of Maternity Services; and considers that this is contrary to the Patient's Charter.]
If he is not able to arrange a debate, will he refer this matter to the Northern Ireland Committee? Will he explain to the House how that Committee functions and how we can get business before it? On a previous occasion when I put a matter to the right hon. Gentleman, it was evidently scratched by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and we were not allowed to discuss it.
§ Mr. NewtonI shall leave aside the comments at the end of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am not sure whether he had an opportunity to ask my right hon. and learned Friend about the matter during today's Northern Ireland questions, but I can confirm that I have received his request for a meeting of the Committee. At the moment I can only say that I want to assess what support there is among Northern Ireland Members before considering whether that would be an appropriate step.
§ Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen)Does the Leader of the House agree that, if a fragile economic recovery is under way, nothing should happen to prevent it from developing? In the light of that, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to take an early opportunity, possibly next Tuesday, to make a statement about the position in the Southampton container terminal, which is on the verge of an industrial dispute provoked by the determination of management to sack workers and bring in casual workers?
The House must be given the opportunity to debate the threat to industrial peace from that sort of management action, which includes the recruitment of casual labour who have been asked whether they would be willing to cross picket lines. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House should discuss whether that sort of macho management is what this country needs when economic recovery may be getting under way?
§ Mr. NewtonI doubt whether I could or should promise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will make a statement. However, as the hon. Gentleman implied in his question—and as I have already told another hon. Member—my right hon. Friend will be here to answer questions next Tuesday. I can now predict one question and so ensure that my right hon. Friend is forewarned.
§ Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an early debate on the improvement in Britain's economic position? Is it not correct that the fall in unemployment that we have welcomed today is the result not only of the Government's current economic policy, but of the supply-side reforms of the 1980s? Is not this a useful opportunity to tell the House and the country that sustainable economic growth can come only from deregulated, free-market economics—something that only Conservative Members believe in?
§ Mr. NewtonMy hon. Friend hardly needs me to say that I am sympathetic to his proposition. Indeed, I had thought of making similar comments in response to the previous question. I am glad to say that, just before coming here this afternoon, I had the pleasure of being present at a function—[interruption.]—related to the 376 motor industry—[Interruption.] It was a caring organisation concerned with providing residential care. At that function, it was clear that the motor industry was in a distinctly optimistic frame of mind.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Will the Leader of the House arrange for a further statement on the coal industry and the closure of pits? Does he recall that, when we debated the White Paper, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that a number of pits would be kept open on a care and maintenance basis? Is he aware that there has been a conspiracy between the Government and British Coal to shut those pits? Many miners are being offered redundancy payments which, if they do not take them on the spot, will be reduced by more than half later in the year, in compliance with the law of the land. Is it not high time that that conspiracy was broken?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the women who camped on Abingdon green, outside the House of Commons, the other day were told by the people with cameras that they had been instructed by the Government that in no circumstances should they take pictures of those women, who were protesting against the illegal closures?
§ Mr. NewtonI suppose that I must say—although, once again, I feel that it is hardly necessary—that I wholly reject the allegations that the hon. Gentleman so freely throws around about conspiracies of one sort or another. Frankly, his concerns would be a good deal more credible if he did not lard them with such silly allegations.
§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)Will it be possible in the near future to have a debate on the need for continued restraint in public expenditure during which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary can be made aware of the fact that, based on current trends, it is likely that in the not too distant future more people will be employed in central and local government than in manufacturing industry?
§ Mr. NewtonMy hon. Friend will be well aware that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is aware of concerns of the kind that he has expressed about public expenditure, and that is precisely why he is engaged on the reviews that appear to have led to some controversial speculation.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)The usual question, Madam Speaker.
§ Mr. NewtonThe answer is not quite as usual. For those who are not part of the group that takes part in these exchanges, may I say that this is about Members' interests. I hope that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests will not mind my saying that I had a further word with him last night on the convenient timing of a debate. However, at present I cannot give an exact date.
§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill on 8 June. May we have a debate on roads next week so that I can raise the important matter of the proposed closure of part of Berkley avenue in my constituency, which is opposed by thousands of my constituents and myself, and on which we are awaiting the decision of the Department of Transport inspector who conducted an inquiry many months ago? We need his decision. May we have a debate so that I might secure it.
§ Mr. NewtonNo one would be more surprised than my hon. Friend were I to promise the debate that he seeks, but I hope that he will take it in the friendly spirit that it is meant if I draw his attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport will be here more or less continuously next Monday and Tuesday, either answering questions or dealing with the remaining stages of the Railways Bill. Thus, on a number of public and private occasions, my hon. Friend may have an opportunity to nobble him.
§ Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)Will the Leader of the House consider arranging an urgent debate on the way in which the unemployment figures are compiled? The Prime Minister again today evaded a question on the serious things that are happening in the way in which the unemployment figures are put together, and the Secretary of State for Employment is signally trying to avoid a dialogue with me on the question of people who are clearly not sick and who are being diverted from the unemployment benefit list to the sickness benefit list. That is undermining the community health service as doctors are being inundated with pro forma forms from the Department of Employment to be completed in order to give a sick note to people who are clearly well. That is a fiddle, and the three months' good figures really are not so good after all.
§ Mr. NewtonI sometimes find it a bit strange that at almost one and the same time we hear such allegations together with allegations which are often thrown at the Secretary of State for Social Security about how the Government are attempting to take people off invalidity benefit by subjecting them to medical examinations.
§ Mr. LewisPeople are being taken off the unemployment benefit list and put on the sickness benefit list.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has put his question—and a long one it was, too.
§ Mr. NewtonIf there is evidence, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, or for that matter my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, if it is for him, will consider it. As for the rest, my right hon. Friend made it clear that the Department's director of statistics has issued a statement, not on Ministers' behalf but on his own, saying that he has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claimant count figures for recent months. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to attack an independent public official in relation to such a statement, let him do so, but we on the Conservative Benches will not join in.
§ Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)I am sure that my right hon. Friend is getting a little tired of colleagues asking for a debate on the Jopling report on the sittings of the House, but can he say whether we might have an early debate on that and whether he has had replies from other parties to the request that they should put forward what they believe should happen after the Jopling report so that we can, as a House of Commons, move forward together in a non-party political way?
§ Mr. NewtonI know that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who is unable to be here today, put some propositions some time ago and is aware 378 of the desire in all parts of the House to make some progress. She has told me that she is aware of that, and I await further developments.
§ Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South)Is the Leader of the House aware that in the past week relatives of those who died in the Waco fire have received notification that the bodies are now ready to be returned to Britain, but they have been informed that they may be asked to raise between £2,000 and £3,000 in order to bring the bodies back to Britain for burial here? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that there must be a number of constituents like my own who are pensioners or widows with no savings for whom that would be an impossible burden? When I contacted the Foreign Office—
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I remind the hon. Gentleman that these are business questions. He does not have to develop his case but must merely ask a question of the Leader of the House and explain in two sentences why he wants a debate next week.
§ Mr. SimpsonCan the Foreign Secretary make a statement about a more appropriate system of supporting families who have the right to bury their deceased in this country?
§ Mr. NewtonI will certainly bring the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
§ Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)I do not wish to ask my usual question about the Shops (Amendment) Bill. Will the Leader of the House consider between now and the time the House returns from the Whitsun recess arranging for a statement to be made on whether the Government intend to go ahead with the Jubilee line? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of hon. Members are still without proper offices, and that the Accommodation and Works Committee spent five years devising a plan for the phase 2 development? It is still awaiting a reply and a decision from the Government regarding the Jubilee line. It is high time that the Government made a decision on that matter, in the way that they did yesterday in respect of the crossrail link.
§ Mr. NewtonA number of the hon. Gentleman's questions were rhetorical because he knows—given that we have attended the same meetings—that I am well aware of the points that he raised. I imagine that he heard the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the Jubilee line extension in Prime Minister's Question Time half an hour ago. Obviously, I am not in a position to add to them.
§ Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the possible consequences of the record level of national debt on the sick and poor of this country? Is he aware that many people listened carefully to the remarks of the Chief Secretary last night, which were on the record—no scaremongering? We should have a full debate to reassure the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that the Chief Secretary's statement is a measure of the Government's mismanagement of the economy by relying too much on receipts from privatisation and neglecting manufacturing industry?
§ Mr. NewtonI certainly do not accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, given that his party persistently demands greater expenditure than any allocated to almost anything at any moment—with the possible exception of defence expenditure. When defence spending is reduced, the hon. Gentleman's party complains about that as well. I do not find the hon. Gentleman's remarks very credible, and I will not add to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few moments ago.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. We must move on.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must strike a balance between business questions and the debate that is to follow. An unprecedented number of right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in that debate. Business questions have run for more than half an hour, and that is quite long enough. If right hon. and hon. Members had been speedier in putting their questions, and if the responses had been brisker, I would have been able to call more Members. We must learn lessons from that.