Business of the House (Hansard, 6 July 1995)

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 JULY—Opposition day (16th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Social Division and Economic Inefficiency" on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order.
Motion on the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY 11 JULY—Opposition day (17th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the rail network, followed by a debate on out-of-hours patient care. Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
Motion on the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.
WEDNESDAY 12 JULY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House
. Debate on the economy on a Government motion.
THURSDAY 13 JULY—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). Debate on social security expenditure. Followed by a debate on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's operational expenditure and departmental administration and agencies, in so far as they relate to the prevention and control of animal diseases and import health controls on animals. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 14 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 12 July to consider European Community document No. Com (95) 300 relating to the preliminary draft budget of the European Community for 1996.
MONDAY 17 JULY—Proceedings on the Appropriation (No. 1) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendment to the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments which may be received to the Child Support Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Appeal Bill.
Motion on the Local Government Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualification of Members) Regulations.
Motions relating to the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations and the Social Security (Income Support and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
I am not at present able to give details of the business later that week, although I reaffirm that there will be business later that week.

§ Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)
I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Will he confirm that there are still three Opposition days left in the pipeline, even after the two which are to be used next week? That is not counting the half day that I understand is owed to the Opposition deputy Chief Whip.
Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, as a consequence of the changes and events of the past few days, there will be a statement to the House on the Prime Minister's decision to demote science, engineering and technology and abolish the Office of Public Service and Science? What will be the implications for the Select Committee on Science and Technology? Will the Leader of the House also tell us what he proposes to do not only about that Select Committee but about the Select Committee on Employment? In addition, what will happen at Employment questions which are scheduled for next Tuesday?
With regard to business before the recess, will the Leader of the House guarantee that he will find time for a debate and for votes on the issues to be covered in the report due out tomorrow from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life?
Is the Leader of the House aware that there are at least three on-going inquiries into serious allegations of electoral registration fraud—and I am not talking about the Tory leadership question. They are serious matters. Many of us have long been worried about the inadequacies of our system of electoral registration, with many people at each election not being entitled to vote. May we have an early debate on the changes necessary to ensure that those who are entitled to a vote can do so, but also to ensure that those who are not entitled to vote do not do so?
We have just had a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on her proposals, such as she knows them at this stage, for vouchers for nursery education for four-year-olds. The right hon. Lady made a statement full of confusion and lacking in clarity—so much so that she had to promise that details would be available in the autumn. Will the Leader of the House therefore guarantee that there will be a debate on those proposals in the autumn in Government time so that parents can see clearly the con trick that is being proposed and contrast that with Labour's proposals for quality nursery education for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it?
Finally, I draw the attention of the Leader to the House to early-day motion 1223 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
535 [That this House notes the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendation of 1991, as endorsed by the Senior Salaries Review Body in 1995, that the existing accrual rate of fiftieths should be applied to all service for sitting honourable Members in respect of their future pension entitlement; and calls for speedy implementation of the Review Body's recommendation.]
That is an unusual early-day motion in that it has attracted 353 signatures. I hope that the Leader of the House is aware of the widespread concern on both sides of the House and that he personally has some responsibility and some power to make progress on that matter.

§ Mr. Newton
As I sometimes do, I shall take that rather long list of questions, to a degree at least, in reverse order.
First, with regard to the subject matter of early-day motion 1223, in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has a particular interest as chairman of the parliamentary pension fund, as he knows, I have made it clear that I will seek to bring that matter to the House for debate, although obviously once again this week I cannot give a date in this week's business statement.
With regard to vouchers, I reject the language that the hon. Lady used which I thought was a mixture of over-statement and mis-statement. Naturally enough, if part of the purpose of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is to listen to people's views in working up the details, it is appropriate—I know that this is perhaps an unfamiliar proposition for those on the Opposition Benches—to listen to the views before deciding on the details. Of course I shall consider whether a debate will be appropriate at the appropriate time.
I shall bring the hon. Lady's questions on electoral registration to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. However, I draw attention to the fact that the business that I announced for Monday 17 July included a motion, I accept in relation to local government elections, which referred to the franchise for those elections, so it is just possible that some of those points might be in order there.
With regard to any report from the Select Committee on the Nolan recommendations, I made it clear when the Committee was set up that one of the objectives of seeking a report from it by 7 July was to enable an appropriate debate to take place should that be required in the light of the report.
I come now to the mix of questions that the hon. Lady asked about the recent Government changes both in the machinery and in the personnel. First, our intention is that the Ministers responsible will be at the Dispatch Box to answer all the questions tabled to the Secretary of State for Employment for next Tuesday. As I understand that no questions have been tabled on health and safety matters, Ministers with employment responsibilities from what is now the Department for Education and Employment and Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry will answer questions on other appropriate matters.
We shall of course seek to make full details on some of the other questions that the hon. Lady asked available to the House in a proper fashion at the earliest opportunity. As for her question about Select Committees, she will know that the proper course is for us to consult the Chairman of the Liaison Committee and others 536 concerned before presenting any alterations to the House, in the light of the changes in the machinery of government that were announced yesterday.
The hon. Lady almost underplayed her hand on Opposition days. There are three left, and, as she said, a half day is owed to the Opposition deputy Chief Whip as a result of some delicate usual-channels negotiation earlier in the year. As always, we are mindful of the need to repay our debts to the Opposition deputy Chief Whip.

§ Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton)
Following letters that I wrote earlier today to the Attorney-General, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration and the Audit Commission, will my right hon. Friend, as a matter of urgency, arrange a debate on probity in local government, to allow a full investigation of the concerns rightly raised by the former chief executive of Congleton borough council relating to financial irregularities and procedural abuses and cover-ups on that council? The truth could then be revealed, and the currently serving members and officers of the council who are implicated could either face appropriate criminal charges or be cleared of such charges.

§ Mr. Newton
My hon. Friend will understand that, having not had the benefit of seeing the correspondence, I am cautious about commenting. As for the debate for which she asks, much as I might like to, I do not think that I can undertake to provide time. She may, however, wish to consider the opportunity that will be provided by the three-hour debate before the Adjournment which I expect to take place on Wednesday 19 July.

§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)
May I pursue the question of arrangements for Employment questions on Tuesday 11 July? Do the Government intend to abolish Employment questions after that date, and are there any plans to provide a Dispatch Box questions slot for the Deputy Prime Minister under the new arrangements?
Finally, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have suggested to the Liaison Committee that the Select Committee on Employment should be abolished, and did their consultations lead to the conclusion that a motion must be passed on the Floor of the House before any such action can be taken?

§ Mr. Newton
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's final question is yes, of course. As it happens, I held my present responsibilities when the same question arose in relation to the former Select Committee on Energy soon after the election. I am therefore well aware that, were such a proposal made, it would have to be put to the House.
As for the hon. Gentleman's more general questions about arrangements for parliamentary questions, my present feeling is that the sensible course would be to maintain the current rota until the end of this bit of the term, as it were, and then consider revised arrangements reflecting the new position for the next Session. I include in that whatever might be appropriate arrangements for the First Secretary of State.

§ Sir John Cope (Northavon)
As the time for consultation on the Latham report on construction contracts has now been completed, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether we are likely—preferably next week—to hear something about what the Government will 537 do in response to the Latham recommendations and the consultation that has taken place? Will he also tell my right hon. Friend who is responsible for such matters that many of us hope that the whole Latham package will be introduced, particularly the aspects that the Government and the House must implement?

§ Mr. Newton
I have before me the usual carefully worded formulation, which I shall not read out again. I remind my right hon. Friend, however, that I have repeatedly made what I would describe as sympathetic and friendly noises about the proposals. He can take this as another sympathetic and friendly noise.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
As the Leader of the House said, I chair the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. Further to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) may we at least be assured that the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendations will be debated by the House before the summer recess? He will be aware, as I am, of the enormous pressure on the trustees to secure a debate—pressure that comes from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

§ Mr. Newton
I have told the right hon. Gentleman before, both publicly and privately, that that is my aim, and it remains my aim.

§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)
May we have a debate next week on Britain's relations with Latin America? As my right hon. Friend will recall, we have had such debates for seven successive years using the mechanism of the Consolidated Fund debates that lasted all night. They were noted with considerable interest by Latin American ambassadors in London, and media and political circles throughout Latin America.
The only avenue available to us now is a one-and-a-half-hour Wednesday morning slot. We attempted that earlier in the year, without success. Can something be done about the mechanics in the future, so that a non-party political subject can be addressed with the seriousness that it requires, and could the Government this year find us one and a half hours in which to address it?

§ Mr. Newton
I cannot make a promise on the latter point. Indeed, I cannot make a promise on your behalf, Madam Speaker, that you will look more favourably on future Wednesday morning applications—although I am sure that you will always listen sympathetically to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)
When can the House expect a statement on the blazing scandal of the abolition of the Department of Employment? The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) may laugh, but it is no joke to millions of unemployed people, and still less of one to those employed by the Department. Surely we must have a statement.
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Greenbury committee is due to report on 17 July? If so, will he assure the House that there will be a debate on the report before the House rises?

§ Mr. Newton
The publication date of the Greenbury report is a matter for the Greenbury committee, not for 538 me; but I have heard suggestions that it will appear in mid-July. Obviously, any question of a debate can be considered only in relation to that.
I reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier suggestions out of hand, although I understand why, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, he feels it necessary to make them. In my view, the recognition that education and training in the current world of employment should be brought together and examined on a basis that stretches right across people's working life constitutes a sensible acceptance of the realities.

§ Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak)
I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that European Standing Committee B will meet next Wednesday to discuss a preliminary draft budget for the European Commission for 1996. Can he confirm that the debate will be open to any hon. Member, rather than being restricted to members of the Committee?

§ Mr. Newton
Yes, of course. Debates in European Standing Committees are accessible to all hon. Members. Indeed, I understand that hon. Members on both sides of the House have suggested that the purposes of scrutiny may be better served by debate in a Committee, where they have an opportunity to question Ministers in detail.

§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)
The Leader of the House should be aware of the deep unease in the science community about the apparent downgrading of science in the recent reshuffle. Will he give the House a commitment that hon. Members will have the same opportunities as they have now to table oral questions to the Cabinet Minister responsible for science, and that there will be a rota similar to the one that we enjoy at present?

§ Mr. Newton
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman—perhaps in a quieter tone, but in rather the same way as I resisted the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)—that I entirely reject the idea that any downgrading is implied by the change that has been made. On the contrary, I think that that change recognises the importance of science, not least to the industrial life and future of the country, by relating it to the Department of Trade and Industry.
I am more than happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's point about questions, or to arrange for it to be considered, in the wider context of my earlier answer.

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)
Will the Leader of the House find time in the spill-over period, because there seem to be plenty of days available then for debate, and it could stretch for several weeks if need be, to have a debate in Government time on the housing market? He will no doubt have noticed the report of the National and Provincial building society, followed by that of the Halifax building society, which showed that, this month, for the fourth month, house values had fallen by 2 per cent. Negative equities are therefore rising. As many people own their houses and many young couples need a home in this land, might it not be a useful use of parliamentary time to discuss that matter in some depth?

§ Mr. Newton
I simply make the point that house-building starts for the whole of last year were 13 per cent. higher than in the previous year. The position is 539 that the affordability of housing is reflected by the fact that house prices are now the lowest in relation to income since 1985.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
On the demise of the Department of Employment, will the Leader of the House confirm that at least a negative statutory instrument must be tabled for a transfer of functions?
On the education statement that we have just heard, despite the notice in the Lobby that says "statement on nursery education", does not that statement, at best, threaten the whole future of nursery education in that there will be three forms of education in relation to finance and structure for three-year-olds, four-year-olds and five-year-olds? Will it not also destabilise training of four years for nursery school teachers and their assistants, and devalue the whole structure that has built up?

§ Mr. Newton
Of course there will be diversity and choice; that is part of the intention of the exercise. What is clear and was clear at Prime Minister's questions is that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats do not like diversity and choice and we are in the business of providing it.

§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement to be made, if not tomorrow, certainly next week, in connection with the reports in The Guardian today in advance of the "True Stories: Deadly Experiments" programme, which is to be shown this evening on Channel 4 and which relates to possibility that women, especially pregnant women, were used as guinea pigs with radiation during the 1950s and 1960s? In view of the distress that that has caused, not least in my region, where 91 women were apparently involved, it is important that the Government make clear exactly what happened, and allay other fears that people may have as a result that programme.

§ Mr. Newton
Depending on what actually appears in the programme tonight, I am sure that my right hon. Friend with relevant responsibilities would want to consider carefully any such suggestion.

§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
When does the Leader of the House intend to move the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, which was on the Order Paper yesterday and was not moved? Why was courtesy not extended to myself, who had tabled amendments to the Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who was sitting on the Opposition Front Bench? We were not told that it was not going to be moved. I understand that the Opposition Whips were also not so advised. A simple courtesy should have been extended to us to inform us that that was the intention last night. In any event, when will the right hon. Gentleman get around to arranging for hon. Members to discuss that important, albeit complicated measure?

§ Mr. Newton
It is well known that the usual channels always move in mysterious ways, and I will see if I can elucidate that mystery.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
First, will the Deputy Prime Minister and the First Secretary of State be speaking on behalf of the Government in any of next week's debates? Secondly, will he be deputising for the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions when the 540 Prime Minister is absent? Lastly, will arrangements be made urgently to outline the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibilities so that we can address parliamentary questions to him?

§ Mr. Newton
On the three questions, I do not immediately see any debate that I have announced that would be likely to involve the participation of the First Secretary. Secondly, I would naturally anticipate that the First Secretary, as Deputy Prime Minister, would deputise for the Prime Minister. Thirdly, the First Secretary's responsibilities were outlined in a note on the press release yesterday.

§ Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
In view of the statement by the drinking water inspectorate that the households of some 10 million people receive drinking water with lead levels that could cause brain damage to two-year-olds, which shows that nothing has really changed under this Government, will the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Secretary of State at least to make a statement as soon as possible on that alarming report?

§ Mr. Newton
I will certainly bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

§ Mr. Edward O'Hara (Knowsley, South)
May I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) for an urgent debate on the crisis in the housing market? I do not recognise the buoyant picture presented by the Leader of the House. According to the Department of Employment's own latest quarterly statistics, there is a 14 per cent. decline in private starts, a 31 per cent. decline in housing association starts in the past six months, a 15 per cent. fall in new applications, and a corresponding decline in the building merchants supplies trade. It is a picture of no change in housing depression under this Government, no chance for people in negative equity, no chance for people who want a house to rent, and no chance for people involved in the construction and building merchants industries. Cannot the House at least be given a chance to discuss urgently that crisis in the housing market?

§ Mr. Newton
I cannot add to what I said earlier, but I would draw attention to the fact that what the hon. Gentleman is saying, even though I do not accept the implication of his comments, would appear to be in order during the debate on the economy next week. That is, however, a matter for the occupant of the Chair.

§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)
May we have a debate to discuss the corruption of our democratic system? In one country in these isles, the Conservative party can gain only 4 per cent. of the councillors in the last local government election, and only 4 per cent. of the vote in the Islwyn by-election, yet it rules Wales—the other 96 per cent. Why have the Government the cheek to appoint another Secretary of State for Wales, another Governor-General, who is alien to the people of Wales, who owes Wales no loyalty, and who has little understanding and little knowledge of that country? Is that not a slur on the few Tory Members representing Wales, who have been overlooked for the past eight years? Is not the appointment of the new Governor-General a calculated and contemptuous insult to the people of Wales?

§ Mr. Newton
No.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
As we have had success already with early-day motion 1223, will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 1233?
[That this House warmly welcomes the publication, by the University of Sheffield and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough, of a new study, Confronting Industrial Demise: the Employment and Unemployment Experiences of Miners and their Families in South Yorkshire and North East Derbyshire; recognises that the survey's context is the dramatic and unprecedented dismantling of a major industry with severe implications for employment and communities in already economically deprived areas; welcomes the key conclusion of this authoritative survey that the key to successful re-employment is education; urges serious consideration of its policy recommendations for responding to major redundancies and mass unemployment, including the granting of equal status to education and training, the transformation of the current training for work scheme into an education and training for work scheme, with the same benefits, that the provision by the Further Education Funding Council of financial support for the unwaged and their dependants should also be provided by the Higher Education Funding Council, the establishment of a national fund for small grants for learning materials in support of an education and training for work scheme, collaboration between labour market adjustment services in order to improve delivery and reduce wasteful duplication and the decentralisation of these services to community level in order to focus on and be within the reach of the most acutely affected families; and welcomes the launch of this important document on 14th June in the Palace of Westminster.]
That is about confronting industrial demise and deals with a study undertaken by Sheffield university in association with Rotherham metropolitan council on what happened to miners when they were made redundant. It discovers that there is a link between education and re-employment. It might therefore be useful for us to discuss a matter that actually covers the responsibility of the new Department for Education and Employment. That report might be one of the few matters where those interests link so directly.

§ Mr. Newton
The report will be read with care. I am grateful, which is relatively unusual for me in relation to the hon. Gentleman, because his point, as he implied, underpins my argument about the importance of the links between education and employment, especially in respect of training, which does not appear to have penetrated to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West, who is sitting behind him. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might turn around and have a word with him.

§ Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the unanimous report published this week by the Select Committee on Social Security condemning as massively unfair the compensation recovery unit and calling for a root and branch examination of its procedures. As that has impacted on more than one occasion on my constituents, who have endured, in many instances, lengthy legal struggles before they were awarded damages for injury 542 and illness, only to be bemused at the compensation recovery unit dividing those benefits in many instances by more than half, would it be possible to have a debate? My constituents' concern is that, in this matter, the Government seem to be acting for the benefit of not the electorate, but the insurance companies.

§ Mr. Newton
I should perhaps make it clear that I do not think that anyone would seriously argue that the state should duplicate compensation awards and the Select Committee made it clear that it does not support that view. Beyond that, the Select Committee has raised some points which need consideration, and they will be given that consideration.

§ Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)
May I press the Leader of the House a little further about the Office of Public Service and Science? Will he consider urgently providing time for a debate, particularly so that we can examine the future of the foresight programme and the "forward look" exercise? Those are important exercises that have been well received on both sides of the House and by the science community. The science community will demand an early explanation about what is going on. It is no good leaving this until after the summer recess.

§ Mr. Newton
I will not add to what I said earlier. Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry are due to answer questions next Wednesday.

§ Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking)
In view of the alarming reports from the British Medical Association conference in Harrogate about what has happened to community care two years after its implementation, with its survey showing that three quarters of those doctors asked said that conditions for their patients had worsened and with four out of five doctors saying that bed blocking was a factor in that, will the Leader of the House make Government time available for an urgent debate on that worrying matter?

§ Mr. Newton
With the recess not far down the track, I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate. I will draw the hon. Lady's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

§ Mr. Janner
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for any Government to abolish a Department of State without giving the House an opportunity to discuss the matter, without the courtesy of a statement from the relevant Minister and with the Leader of the House treating our request for a statement with such contempt? Surely the House should consider this matter. It is for the Government to bring the matter before the House. It is a question of the order of the House, not merely a matter of Government business.

§ Madam Speaker
It is perfectly in order for the Government to make departmental and ministerial changes. The Leader of the House has answered in detail today the questions about such changes not only from the hon. and learned Gentleman but from the shadow Leader of the House as well as from other Back Benchers. We shall have to leave it at what the Leader of the House has said, which will be in Hansard tomorrow. I shall take no further points of order. We shall get on with our business.