§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:—
MONDAY 18 JULY—Debate on the economy on a Government motion.
Motion on the Railways Pensions (Transfer and Miscellaneous Provisions) order.
At Ten o'clock, the House will be asked to agree the estimates and supplementary estimates for 1994–95.
TUESDAY 19 JULY—Opposition Day (13th allotted day) (2nd part). Until Seven o'clock, there will be a debate on "The Water Industry" on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
Motion on the Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure.
WEDNESDAY 20 JULY—Motion for the Summer Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill.
THURSDAY 21 JULY—Debates on the Adjournment.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Tuesday, 19 July:
European Standing Committee A, European Community Document 7073/94 relating to Development of the Trans-European Transport Network.
European Standing Committee B, European Community Document 5744/94 relating to Voting and Candidacy Rights in Local Elections.
[Tuesday 19 July
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 7073/94, Trans-European Transport Networks: Guidelines; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-xxiii (1993–94)
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 5744/94, Local Government Elections; relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-xvi (1993–94) HC 48-xx ( 1993–94).]
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week back after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1994.
TUESDAY 18 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1994.
WEDNESDAY 19 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
THURSDAY 20 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill—there do appear to be a few.
FRIDAY 21 OCTOBER—Private Members' motions.
§ Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East)I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, and in 1192 particular for telling us the business that we can expect on our return from the summer recess. I also thank him for the Opposition day that he has announced.
The business that he has announced takes us up to the summer recess. This summer's heat makes air pollution, particularly in London, all the more unbearable. I think that hon. Members will be wondering what has happened to the Bill to take forward the environment protection agency promised in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech on 18 November last year. As this Session moves to a close, I ask the Leader of the House: what has happened to the Bill that was promised in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech last year?
In his rush to pack us off for the summer, I hope that the Leader of the House has not overlooked important announcements that might come from his ministerial colleagues, which I am certain that hon. Members would like to hear. May we have an assurance from the Lord President that there will not be a flood of bad news announcements or any important announcements from Government Departments immediately after we have risen for the recess?
Given the substantial pressure, both from the public and in the House, for reform of the Child Support Agency, is it possible for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement on legislative changes and why they cannot take effect before 1996, before we depart for the summer recess?
Finally, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in wishing the Lord President an enjoyable summer recess. I hope that he fares well in the forthcoming reshuffle.
§ Mr. NewtonI forbear from commenting on the hon. Gentleman's last point. I am grateful for his good wishes for the summer recess, which are reciprocated.
I cannot hold out the prospect of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security making a further statement on the Child Support Agency before the break. Only a little over a week ago, we had a debate in which my right hon. Friend made a substantial speech.
As for announcements, there is no plot to hold things back. As one discovers in Government, timing can always slip, but we are planning to make one or two announcements before the recess, in a sensible and orderly way.
The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on air pollution and associated matters at Prime Minister's questions, although I acknowledge that he did not touch on the Bill. I would not wish to hold out any prospect of us trying to pass the paving Bill on the environment protection agency before the summer recess. We are looking carefully at that subject, as we are making such good progress on the main Bill.
§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Select Committee on Procedure is pressing forward with consideration of Prime Minister's questions, about which there has been quite a lot of publicity? I thank my right hon. Friend for the evidence that he sent to us. Will he press other hon. Members on their ideas as, although there has been a great deal of heat, the Committee has received little other evidence of how we can improve the situation?
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Select Committee on Procedure, his points had little to do with next week's business.
§ Mr. NewtonI am not sure now whether I should upset you, Madam Speaker, by saying something or upset my right hon. Friend by saying nothing. I am sure that those present in the Chamber will have noted your remarks, and those of my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)Does the Leader of the House accept that one statement that needs to be made before we rise for the recess is the long-awaited announcement on the future of the Forestry Commission? Does he agree that those who work in forests or are economically dependent on them, and those who enjoy public access to them during the summer holidays, need to know that the commission's future and its work will be secure?
§ Mr. NewtonI shall just say delicately that there is an inter-relationship between that question and my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) about possibilities before the recess.
§ Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton)I believe that a Green Paper has been published this afternoon about the future of the dental service and charging for it. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is great interest and concern about the subject, about which there has long been dispute in our constituencies. We have been waiting for a long time for the Government to make up their mind about the Bloomfield report. Will there be an opportunity to debate that important subject next week?
§ Mr. NewtonThere will a number of opportunities to raise various topics next week, but I cannot promise a dedicated debate. My recollection is that my hon. Friend is an assiduous attender of the recess Adjournment debates, so I think that I can predict one topic that may come up. The document published today is a consultative document and a Green Paper, and the views of hon. Members and others will be welcome.
§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)We have just been discussing the concerns of the service people of today; but what about the boys of the old brigade, their widows and other dependants? The right hon. Gentleman will know from its organisations in Essex that the ex-service community is impatient for full implementation of the resolution approved by the House on 1 July about its problems and needs. May we have an oral statement next week about the steps the Government are taking to give full effect to that important resolution?
§ Mr. NewtonI was present that day and the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that I have had representations from my constituents—I discussed the subject with one of them only last weekend. I do not think that I can promise a statement or add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said at the time.
§ Mr. Jonathan Evans (Brecon and Radnor)Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his statement in relation to forthcoming business in October effectively means that my constituents, who have been waiting for the legislation contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, 1194 will not see it enacted during the summer and will therefore have to suffer the activities of new age travellers, summer raves and juvenile crime—all of which the measure was directed towards? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend, through the usual channels, convey to those in the other place the concern of my constituents about the effect of the amendments passed this week?
§ Mr. NewtonI must confirm that my statement means that I do not anticipate the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill becoming law before the summer recess. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I shall certainly see that a message along the lines that he has set out is sent on his behalf. I would add that it is the usual—although not the invariable—practice for legislation to come into force only some months after it is enacted, to allow time for preparation, so I am not sure that the effect will be quite as dramatic as my hon. Friend suggests.
§ Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)Is the Leader of the House aware that the chief executive of the Royal Free hospital trust in my constituency has stated that, from September this year, patients with GPs in one geographic area of my constituency—Highgate—will no longer be accepted for treatment at that hospital as a result of Government cuts of £30 million in the district health authority's budget? As that action totally refutes the Government's oft-stated claim that the NHS reforms are working, not least in treating more patients, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot find time to debate the issue next week, will he at least find time to ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to deliver a statement?
§ Mr. NewtonThis is probably the second or third time that the hon. Lady has raised that point—I have certainly heard it once before. As I cannot promise a statement, the right course for me to follow is to make sure that her remarks are drawn quickly and specifically to my right hon. Friend's attention.
§ Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and invite my right hon. Friend to consider whether it would be possible to save some of the time being set aside in October for consideration of Lords amendments by expressing to the other place the full force of our constituents' concerns about the mischiefs that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill would remedy? Perhaps their Lordships, who do not always have the chance to consider the full force of our constituents' feelings, should bear in mind the extent of the latter's anxieties and their wish to support the good work being done by the police, whose success in reducing crime can only be enhanced by the necessary provisions of the Bill.
§ Mr. NewtonI have said that I very much understand the concerns of colleagues on both sides of the House who have experience of the problem, and the importance of tackling it. I shall, of course, add my hon. Friend's representations to those made a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans).
§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)The business for next week is obviously affected by the coming three-month recess. Is not a Member without a Parliament rather like a consultant without a hospital, a naval base without ships, or a miner without a pit—redundant?
§ Mr. NewtonI rather think that constituencies—not just Parliament, which is certainly an important part of a Member's work—come into this point as well. The hon. Gentleman has had a running difference of opinion with me and the vast majority of hon. Members about that matter. A balance must be struck between people's ability to spend time in their constituencies and their ability to spend time here. We shall have to agree to differ about the length of the recess.
§ Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)Will my right hon. Friend arrange time for a debate on heart disease in the United Kingdom, given last week's report which shows our relatively poor national performance, particularly the rising prevalence of smoking among women? It would be nice if hon. Members on both sides could use our parliamentary time and our media coverage to send out a positive message to the whole of society.
§ Mr. NewtonI share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of the problem and the message. Even so, I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate next week—although my hon. Friend might find a crevice in one of the debates that we are holding.
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)When may we debate early-day motion 1482?
[That this House deplores the failure of Railtrack over many weeks to respond to approaches from Gorton residents and from the Right honourable Member for Manchester, Gorton, regarding the need to provide safety fencing adjacent to Abbey Hey Amateur Football Ground and to secure the sub-station at Vine Street; notes that the failure of Railtrack to make any satisfactory response to such approaches, let alone to carry out urgently the required work, could place in jeopardy the lives of children and other local residents; is concerned to note this lack of concern about such safety issues displayed by this new and unaccountable organisation; and calls on Railtrack, instead of sending out wasteful and silly propaganda folders to honourable Members, to take speedy action to deal with what are, literally, vital matters.]
It seeks to ban bull bars, which research has shown have almost certainly led to 34 avoidable deaths—mostly of children—in collisions. Is it not disturbing that the Transport Research Laboratory has said that it cannot carry out any more research on the subject because it does not have a sponsor? Is it not a reflection on what is unprivatisable in our society when an organisation such as the Transport Research Laboratory cannot fund such research, because no one has a vested financial interest in child safety?
§ Mr. NewtonI am afraid that my total recall of nearly 1,500 early-day motions has broken down on this occasion—[Interruption.] There seems to be a view that the hon. Gentleman may have given us the wrong number for the EDM. I shall take refuge in saying that I shall examine his words and consider what action I might take.
§ Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North)Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate next week on the rail dispute, which is continuing to cause concern to my constituents? That would give Conservative Members a chance to criticise a pay demand that is four times the rate of inflation and give Opposition Members, especially those 1196 sponsored by the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, the opportunity to explain why a restructuring package that could deliver 22 per cent. increases in basic pay is not even being discussed.
§ Madam SpeakerI heard all that last week.
§ Mr. NewtonThat is helpful, Madam Speaker, but as my hon. Friend says, he is concerned precisely because the situation this week is the same. There is still a strike in pursuit of an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring. Those pursuing it should reconsider.
Even without a debate, there is, as it happens, an opportunity to consider the matter on Monday, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to be here to answer questions.
§ Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest)May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on early-day motion 1508?
[That this House condemns the Right honourable Member for Copeland for stating during the second reading of the European Union (Accessions) Bill that he had 'shown constant support for the European Union', Official Report, column 700, and that whilst the Labour Party had changed on Europe his position had never changed; and notes that in October 1971 he voted against the principle of Britain's entry to the EEC when 69 of his honourable Friends, including the late John Smith, defied the Labour whip and voted in favour, that in February 1972 he voted against the European Communities Bill and that in April 1986 he voted against the Single European Act, along with the honourable Member for Sedgefield.]
It highlights the extraordinary statement by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), made in the House this week, that he had never changed his mind on Europe. A debate would give us the opportunity to remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman voted against the European Community in 1971 and 1972, and voted against the Single European Act in 1986, yet now wants to persuade the House that European monetary union and the surrender of the British veto in Europe represent a sensible and consistent policy.
§ Mr. NewtonMy total recall system has now recovered, and has put into my mind the fact that, on top of what my hon. Friend says, the right hon. Gentleman presumably stood on the Labour manifesto for the 1983 general election, which stated:
British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain—to be completed within the lifetime of the parliament".
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)May we have an urgent debate on the plight of rail commuters? The situation is not the same as last week's since, thanks to the selfishness of the union, long-suffering commuters will face two days a week of disruption in pursuit of an 11 per cent. no-strings-attached pay claim—this to be financed by commuting constituents whose commuting costs have already risen by 6 per cent. Those constituents have noted the decisive decision to make no comment on the dispute affecting them by the three contenders for the Labour party leadership.
§ Mr. NewtonI hope that the public have duly noted my hon. Friend's last point. I share his view that it is quite unjustified to hold the travelling public to ransom for the sort of increase being demanded.