Business of the House (Hansard, 25 November 1993)

§ 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 29 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Sunday Trading Bill.
Motion on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Investment Fund) Order.
TUESDAY 30 NOVEMBER—My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement.
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget Debate.
THURSDAY 2 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget Debate.
FRIDAY 3 DECEMBER—Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
MONDAY 6 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget Debate.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the debate on the Budget will be concluded on Tuesday 7 December. It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 17 December until Tuesday 11 January.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 a.m. to consider European Community documents as follows:
TUESDAY 30 NOVEMBER:
Committee B, document No. 8107/93 relating to the fourth framework programme for research and development.
WEDNESDAY 1 DECEMBER
Committee A, document No. 7825/93 relating to school milk. Committee B, document No. 4569/93 relating to state aid to the coal industry.

§ Mr. Brown
I thank the Leader of the House for that statement.
Is it not unusual to hold a Christmas Adjournment debate on a Friday? Is not that debate limited to three hours? As the Government have named no other business for the Friday in question, does not that give us a finish at 582 12.30 pm for 1 pm, instead of 2.30 pm for 3 pm? Does not that represent an erosion of the time usually given to Back-Bench Members of the House?
Will the Leader of the House tell us something about Opposition Supply days? We would certainly like an Opposition debate before the Christmas Adjournment.
The Leader of the House has told us of the Budget debate next Tuesday, but the House has not yet debated the report by the Select Committee on Procedure dealing with the unified Budget process. I think it would be right to give the House a chance to debate these matters before we are launched into the new procedure.
Finally, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have a word with the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who has announced a new system for the television franchises—taking advantage of the fact that the stock markets were open, but overlooking the fact that, unusually for us in recent times, the House of Commons was also open? The regulations to which he has referred have still not been laid before the House, but we will want an opportunity to debate them.

§ Mr. Newton
I take note of the hon. Gentleman's last point. Those regulations would indeed need to be discussed by the House, and we shall look for an opportunity to allow that to happen.
I note the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the Procedure Committee's report on the unified Budget arrangements, but I am manifestly not in a position to offer such a debate at the moment, given that I am speaking on the Thursday before the Budget, which is to be delivered on Tuesday with the debate on it taking place immediately thereafter. No doubt the House will wish to make some progress with the Sunday Trading Bill on Monday, too.
I recognise the understandable desire of the Opposition for Supply days, although there seem to me to have been fairly substantial opportunities for debates in the past week that were not wildly different from Supply days and there will be substantial further opportunities for almost any argument to be made during the debate on the Budget, which we have extended by a day.
On the subject of the motion for the Christmas Adjournment, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it is unusual to deal with it on a Friday, but I was grateful to note that he did not suggest that it was improper. I think that it is entirely suitable business to be done on a Friday. He is also right in saying, however, that Standing Orders limit the length of the debate, whenever it takes place, to three hours and I see no reason to alter that. If he is suggesting that private Members are losing time, I would point out that Friday is a Government day.

§ Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage)
The Leader of the House must have seen the report of the efficiency unit on proposed changes in the central civil service. A report on that subject is due from the Treasury Select Committee early in the new year. Those are important impending changes in the machinery of the state. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us an assurance that there will be an early debate on these important matters.

§ Mr. Newton
I agree with my hon. Friend that they are important matters. I cannot, I am afraid, promise an early debate, but he may well be able to find an opportunity—for example, in the Adjournment debate to which I have just referred—to make the arguments that he wishes to make.

§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government intend to give the House an opportunity to consider options for Sunday trading reform? Will he therefore say a word or two about how he proposes to do that? Presumably that will not be embraced in the Second Reading, but some space will be allocated for the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House so that all hon. Members can choose between those options.
We have had a very good Procedure Committee report, considering the longer-term aspects of how we might debate the Budget motions. Will the Leader of the House give the House an undertaking to consider carefully what happens this year, with a view to perhaps bringing forward next year the type of reforms that were suggested by the Procedure Committee?

§ Mr. Newton
I genuinely note the latter point. I think—although I accept that not everyone would necessarily agree—that, although we have added a day to the Budget debate that will be especially directed at public expenditure, which in a way reflects a response to some of the Procedure Committee's points, on the whole it would be wise to consider our experience this year before coming to firm conclusions about every possible type of change that might be required.
It is unequivocally our intention to provide time for part of the Committee stage of the Sunday Trading Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. That will not be on the Monday that I have just announced for Second Reading, but I hope that at an early stage there will be time on the Floor of the House in Committee, during which the options can be considered and, one hopes, one of them decided upon. The hon. Gentleman has, however, been around long enough to know that the precise handling of those matters—for example, the question of the order in which things are done—is ultimately a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, and it would be a rash Leader of the House who would seek to tread on that prerogative.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)
Will the Leader of the House inform the House what progress has been made towards the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have always made it clear that we would not rule that out, but that we feel that it needs to be considered in a wider context. He also knows that the Procedure Committee has been considering, once again, the question of the way in which such a Committee might be composed. Obviously we shall study with care any suggestion that it makes.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
Is the Leader of the House aware that the announcement by the Secretary of State for National Heritage of the removal of restrictions on takeovers for ITV companies will take regional diversity by the throat and squeeze the life out of it? Especially because the Secretary of State has not come to the House to make a statement so that we can question him, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that, when the regulations are laid before the House, we shall not be confined to an hour and a half's debate but will have a whole day in which to debate that issue, which is so vital for the people of the country?

§ Mr. Newton
I accept the hon. Gentleman's wish to ensure that there is proper opportunity for debate when these matters are brought before the House. However, it does not follow that we should make special arrangements relating to the amount of time; we should simply stick to our usual procedures.

§ Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South-West)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the growing public concern about the Child Support Agency. May we expect a Government statement before Christmas about the changes that should be made to that agency?

§ Mr. Newton
I shall draw my hon. Friend's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend referred to the concerns felt about the agency; he must be equally aware that my right hon. Friend is aware of those concerns and is examining them.

§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn)
Will there be an opportunity next week—and, if not, before the Christmas recess—to discuss agriculture? Perhaps a day could be devoted to that, as is usually the case. There is great controversy in Wales about the discrimination in the payment of support for cereal growers, which is substantially less in Wales than in England. We need an opportunity to discuss that and other vital matters.

§ Mr. Newton
I cannot undertake to find time before Christmas for a debate confined to agriculture. However, I foresee one or two opportunities when the hon. Gentleman can make the points that he wishes to make.

§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)
In view of the spate of serious mechanical failures that have brought huge stretches of London's underground to a halt—most notably yesterday—putting at some risk not only the economy of London but, more seriously, the potential safety of passengers, will my right hon. Friend suggest to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that he comes to the House next week to make a statement on how the serviceability and the fabric of London Transport underground can be maintained at current levels of Government investment?

§ Mr. Newton
The whole House will understand why my hon. Friend has raised that point—the considerable inconvenience, to put it no higher, caused to many Londoners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked London Transport for a full report on the incident as a matter of urgency. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Indeed, he will be in the House to answer questions on Monday.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Is the Leader of the House aware that he has turned down 10 separate requests for time to debate various matters? Nevertheless, at the beginning of his statement he said that the House will rise, all being well, on 17 December. Is he aware that that means that this Parliament, in the calendar year 1993, will have sat for no more than seven months? Parliament will not have been in session for five months, which must be the longest period in 20 years during which Parliament has not been at work in a non-election year. All the important matters that have been raised need to be debated. It appears that all this Tory Government are concerned about is getting away from here so as to avoid criticism from the Opposition Benches.

§ Mr. Newton
To borrow the hon. Gentleman's elegant terminology, what this Tory Government are concerned about is, as far as is possible, responding to the understandable wish of hon. Members to have as much advance certainty as possible of the dates of recesses—something for which there have been extensive demands. We also recognise that, for the great majority of hon. Members, a very large part of their work is conducted within their constituencies and needs to be combined with their duties here.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate next week on the first 21 years of the work of the Open university? I declare an interest as I am in my 14th year as a member of its council—unpaid, of course. The work of the university has been admirable in so many ways, in particular among the unemployed and with second-chance education. This House should debate that matter, which would also give us the opportunity to welcome you, Madam Speaker, as chancellor of the university.

§ Madam Speaker
That is an appointment of which I am very proud.

§ Mr. Newton
I am sure that the whole House would wish to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on that honour, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) whose work for the Open university—an institution that I greatly admire—is well known. Since my hon. Friend may not be expecting me to offer immediate time for a debate, he has made his point well in a more brief fashion.

§ Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton)
During the debate on the Budget next week, will the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers take the opportunity to explain to disabled workers who are employed in Remploy establishments across the country and who are lobbying the House today why their 118 per cent. increase in productivity over 10 years should be matched by a 5p per hour rise in pay for those deserving workers?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Remploy aids many thousands of disabled workers with the help of a substantial amount of Government money. Rightly, the Government have taken the view that it is appropriate that the restraint that is being applied to public sector pay generally should also apply to institutions that are funded by Government money.

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week to consider the water charges regime in the south-west? Does he agree that a debate would provide an excellent opportunity for the Government to bring the House up to date with the worthwhile initiatives that have been taken in Europe and that it will enable the people of the west country to understand that those efforts have been criticised rather than supported by the Liberal Members in the area who say that they are also concerned?

§ Mr. Newton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of the way in which my hon. Friends have sought to raise in European discussions the issues arising from the urban waste water treatment directive, which have been substantial and will continue to be so in the south-west. I can assure him that those efforts will 586 continue. It would not be beyond my expectation or comprehension if Liberals in the south-west were in effect pursuing one policy in what they said here and another elsewhere.

§ Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)
Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to promises that the Government have made that next Monday's Second Reading of the Sunday Trading Bill will be a free vote for all Members? Will he also use his influence and ask his Cabinet colleagues to stop undue pressure on workers, especially those employed by Woolworths, who are being compelled to sign contracts before the Sunday Trading Bill is even discussed? I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that there should be more time made available for discussions, especially of the Sunday Trading Bill, rather than curbing debates to one day for Second Reading.

§ Mr. Newton
The Government's position has consistently been that the appropriate course was to ensure a free vote on the options—on one of which the hon. Gentleman is a considerable protagonist—of the various ways of carrying out reform. The Government are firmly of the view that it is necessary to make some changes to the existing Sunday trading legislation, which everybody acknowledges is unsatisfactory and why the Bill has been brought before the House.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the proposition that my hon. Friends have included in the Bill, related to the right of whether people work on Sundays.

§ Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on Government policy for encouraging the large-scale voluntary transfer of council housing to housing associations by district councils? Does he agree that such a debate would provide a valuable opportunity to highlight the advantages of such a policy to existing tenants and to the homeless in areas such as Wychavon district—whose application for such a transfer is currently before the Department of the Environment—to increase resources for repair and maintenance of the existing housing stock, to guarantee levels of rent and to provide 1,000 new houses for social housing in Wychavon?

§ Mr. Newton
It occurs to me that, given that we are approaching a unified Budget in which it will be in order to raise issues relating to public expenditure as well as other matters, my hon. Friend may find an opportunity in the next week or so to inject that point. If by some chance he does not find such an opportunity, he will have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment here next Wednesday.

§ Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
Does the Leader of the House appreciate that his answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on nursery education a few moments ago was profoundly unsatisfactory? Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available for an early debate so that the confusion about the Government's policy on nursery education can be clarified once and for all? Will he confirm that the pledge that all three-year-olds should have the opportunity for nursery education was first uttered by Baroness Thatcher when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science 21 years ago?

§ Mr. Newton
I cannot add to what I said to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) in the earlier exchanges this afternoon; nor can I promise an early debate.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)
As a large part of the purpose of politics is to reduce avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap, and to promote well-being, and as the family has a large part in that, will my right hon. Friend consider giving the House the opportunity of having a debate in the near future on the family perspective and the family life cycle in social and economic policy?

§ Mr. Newton
My hon. Friend, whom I know well in relation to these matters, has been pursuing his philosophy about them for as many years as I can remember; I very much respect him for that. I cannot promise a specific debate between now and Christmas.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
Will the Leader of the House think again about his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies)? Has the right hon. Gentleman had any contact today with any of the employees from Remploy, who have come here from all over this country to protest about the 5p an hour increase in pay? Is it not intolerable that some of the lowest of the low-paid workers in this country, who also face cuts in their standard of living from the imposition of VAT on gas and electricity, and other new imposts, should find themselves, at a time when they have increased productivity, losing compared with many other people? Will he arrange for a ministerial statement next week in considered reply to the complaints that have been made in this House today by employees of Remploy?

§ Mr. Newton
The right hon. Gentleman knows, perhaps better than anyone else in the House, that because of my having been Minister with responsibility for disabled people, I know a good deal about Remploy and have a very great regard for what it has done. Indeed, I have sought to encourage that in various ways over the years. Nevertheless, I think that my point in response to the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) was reasonable. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Departments concerned will undoubtedly consider the representations made, and I am sure that they will reply to them appropriately.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
In view of the immense hardship and suffering endured especially by pensioners during the very cold weather, and recognising that most of them will not receive a single penny, is it not very important that the Cabinet tells the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no justification in putting into the Budget next week the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel? Is it not the case that, if there was a free vote in the House, any move to introduce VAT on gas and electricity would be defeated? We should bear in mind that the nightmare that so many pensioners now suffer will become that much worse if the Chancellor's plans go ahead.

§ Mr. Newton
As the hon. Gentleman has obviously noticed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here in person to hear his recommendation for the Budget and he will no doubt reflect on it. For my part, as a former Social Security Minister, I observe merely that the cold weather system to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been significantly improved in 588 recent times. Triggers that have already taken place this winter will result in almost 180,000 payments worth more than £1 million.

§ Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
Has the Leader of the House noticed that the Public Accounts Committee report on the West Midlands regional health authority recommends that officials should be reminded of the need for honesty, openness and fair dealing? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to follow the example set by the Secretary of State for Wales in dealing with the report on the Welsh Development Agency and to make a statement to the House about what she will do about the Committee's recommendation?

§ Mr. Newton
I have made some comments about the action that has already been taken in respect of the issues that the Public Accounts Committee looked at in relation to the West Midlands health authority. I will of course draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford)
Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) about housing associations, will my right hon. Friend talk to our hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment about the possibility of a debate on housing associations in general? Many hon. Members whose constituencies are in London are concerned about the burgeoning power of housing associations. If we had such a debate, we would be able to tease out many of those problems.

§ Mr. Newton
I have already drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester the fact that the Secretary of State will be here next Wednesday, and that there may be an opportunity then to make that point. As for a specific debate, I cannot undertake to have one before Christmas, but I note my hon. Friend's request.

§ Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)
As has been said, is it not a disgrace that people who are disabled and working for Remploy achieved a 118 per cent. increase In productivity but took home only £120 a week? Is not that evidence that we should consider introducing a minimum wage for such people in this country?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman knows our view very well—it is a view that is widely shared—that the introduction of a national minimum wage would do nothing more than reduce employment. That would not be to anyone's advantage. As to Remploy, I have adverted to it twice already. It is an important organisation and provides opportunities for many thousands of disabled people that they would not otherwise have. I think that it is right that it should operate within the framework of the public sector.

§ Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)
Does the Leader of the House share my concern that Standing Committee A on European directives, which should have met yesterday morning, was cancelled at short notice? Had it sat, the Committee would have discussed the directive that will reduce the subsidy on the milk that goes to children in our schools. Such a reduction would deny many of our children school milk or a large burden would fall on the local authorities. As Europe is impinging more and 589 more on the lives of our people, will the Leader of the House arrange an early convening of the Committee before the end of this Session?

§ Mr. Newton
I will look into that request.

§ Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside)
Can I persuade the right hon. Gentleman to find time to discuss the termination of the iron and steel employees' readaptation benefit scheme, ISERBS? The scheme was terminated in a reprehensible way by his right hon. Friend, on a Friday afternoon in a written answer. There are still tens of thousands of steelworkers in employment in Britain, but the European steel industry is in crisis and it is likely that some British steelworkers will lose their jobs next year. If they do, that great scheme will no longer be available to them. Does the Leader of the House accept that what has happened is scandalous?

§ Mr. Newton
I certainly do not accept that what my right hon. Friend has done is scandalous, but I will bring to his attention the fact that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is, together with the request that he has made.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
Why does this House meet so little nowadays? We have just had 14 weeks off in a 17-week period, and there will be another three and a half weeks when the House will not meet. It is no use the Leader of the House saying that hon. Members work in their constituencies. Everyone knows that the hon. Members who work in their constituencies are the hon. Members who work on behalf of their constituents in the House. Since the Prime Minister took office, the House has sat for only 60 per cent. of week-day time. It has almost packed up. At a time when there are many attacks on our democracy, such as the attack on the franchise, should not the House meet more frequently so that the subjects raised today can be discussed?

§ Mr. Newton
Of course I accept that hon. Members work here on behalf of their constituencies. The fact is that they work in two places, both here and in those constituencies. It is appropriate to strike a reasonable balance between the opportunities to work in both places, and I think that the Government have done that.
May I return briefly to the question asked by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty)? I have been advised that the debate on school milk is expected to take place next week.

§ Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)
Against all convention, the Secretary of State for Health has refused to meet hon. Members representing Liverpool constituencies to discuss the proposed closure of the accident and emergency unit at Broadgreen hospital. On 8 November, Alder Hey children's hospital in Liverpool had to make an urgent appeal on Granada Television for staff to return to help in the intensive care unit that night. The Government's policy has brought about a scandalous position in the national health service in Liverpool. Should not the Secretary of State for Health make a statement to the House next week—or is she frit?

§ Mr. Newton
I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House without reservation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not frit. I shall draw her attention to the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He will know, 590 however, that there has been a substantial increase in the number of places in paediatric intensive care—if that is what he was referring to—and that considerable efforts are being made to improve and extend the training of those who work in those places.

§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)
May we have a debate next week on the financial consequences of schools becoming grant-maintained? The increased amounts being spent by those schools are no longer available to the education authorities, which must either win contracts to provide services or slim down their bureaucracies accordingly.
Such a debate would enable us to point out that Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled Kent county council has done nothing either to win contracts from the grant-maintained schools or to slim down their bureaucracy. The natural consequence is that council tax payers are hit, or that economies are made—for instance, cuts in real education services in the remaining county schools.

§ Mr. Newton
I am well aware that many education authorities have responded very sensibly to the changes in the operation of education systems, in exactly the way that my hon. Friend clearly thinks right. That has been very productive. I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend's view that Kent has not responded appropriately, and I acknowledge the manner in which he has raised the matter.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
May I repeat the earlier request for a debate on the operation of the Child Support Agency? A debate would enable us to explain that, when we write on behalf of constituents who are worried sick about excessive claims, and excessive charges for making those claims, we receive bland, platitudinous letters telling us, for example, that there is to be a standard assessment. It is the standard assessment about which we are complaining.
We know that court orders are being overridden—ridden over roughshod, indeed. That is no response at all. There is an urgent need to modify the Child Support Act, and to clarify the agency's role, so that justice can be exercised. The targeting of people who are paying maintenance, and who have made sacrifices, should stop; the agency's real purpose—chasing fathers who are not making responsible payments—should start, because it has not started yet.

§ Mr. Newton
I do not accept the latter part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Let me repeat what I said earlier: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is aware of the concerns that have been expressed, and he is examining them carefully.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
In reply to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about yesterday's catastrophic breakdown in London underground services, the Leader of the House said that Transport questions would take place on Monday. Question 9 will be our first opportunity to raise the matter, and we may not reach it.

§ Madam Speaker
We will if I have anything to do with it.

§ Mr. Banks
We look to you, Madam Speaker; but there is sometimes a problem with the replies, not to mention the questions that precede them. We have Government 591 statements on all sorts of arcane, bizarre and Byzantine issues, yet after something as bad as what happened yesterday, with 20,000 people stuck in tunnels and millions of people delayed or prevented from getting to work at enormous cost to London's economy, there is total silence from Ministers. Will the Leader of the House prevail upon the Minister for Transport in London, who has a busy, not to say an exhausting schedule, we understand, to come to the House tomorrow and make a statement?

§ Mr. Newton
I cannot add to what I said earlier, except that I have confidence in the ability of your vigorous chairing of our proceedings, Madam Speaker, to ensure that Question No. 9 is reached. I probably have sufficient confidence in the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity to suspect that he may find a way of getting the point in before Question No. 9.

§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)
As Government policy has failed to discourage young people from taking up smoking, and as there is proof that advertising encourages young people to smoke, may we have a debate on early-day motion 1 so that we may consider prohibitions on the promotion, sale and advertising of tobacco?
[That this House calls for a ban on tobacco advertising.]
Will the Leader of the House give a guarantee that there will be a free vote when that debate takes place?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman, who takes a keen interest in these matters, will be well aware that the Department's discussion document on the effects of tobacco advertising was published in October 1992 and comments were invited on it which are now being considered. He also knows that the Government have continued to oppose the draft EC directive ban on tobacco advertising on the ground that such action is not necessary for the completion of the single market.

§ Mr. Nigel Jones (Cheltenham)
Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to look at early-day motion 44 dealing with software failures at the Sizewell B nuclear power station?
[That this House congratulates Computer Weekly on its concerted campaign to expose the serious deficiencies in the safety software at the Sizewell B nuclear reactor in Suffolk and on its recent decision to bring to the public notice a hitherto unpublished report by the Health and Safety Commission Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations which highlighted the lack of any evidence about the reliability of the primary protection computer software; and calls upon the Government to consider such reports when drawing up the terms and conditions for the long-awaited review of the nuclear industry.]
Will he find time for an early debate on nuclear power and the future of the industry?

§ Mr. Newton
I am not in a position to comment on the campaign that I understand is being run by Computer Weekly. As regards the 1994 review of nuclear power, the Government are considering options for the scope and form of that review.