Business of the House (Hansard, 23 March 1995)

§ Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)
May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

§ 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 27 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Disability Discrimination Bill.
TUESDAY 28 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Disability Discrimination Bill.
WEDNESDAY 29 MARCH—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (10th allotted day)
There will be debate entitled "The Impact of Education Cuts on Standards and Opportunity" on an Opposition Motion.
Ways and Means Resolution relating to the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
Motion relating to the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations.
THURSDAY 30 MARCH—Motion on the Contracting (Functions in Relation to the Registration of Companies) Order.
Motion on the local Government Finance Special Grant Report (No. 13).
Debate on tourism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 31 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House may also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 29 March as follows: European Standing Committee A, European Community Document 6495/94, relating to Interoperability of High Speed Trains; European Standing Committee B, European Community Document 8076/94 relating to Protection of the Community's Financial Interests.
In the following week, on Monday 3 April and Tuesday 4 April, I anticipate progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill, bringing those to a conclusion on Tuesday 4 April. I cannot yet give details beyond that, but I harbour hopes of organising business in a way which would enable the House to rise for the recess at the close of business on Wednesday 5 April.

§ Mrs. Taylor
I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Will he confirm that the morning sitting on Wednesday 5 April will take the format of the traditional motion for the spring Adjournment, so that hon. Members may raise any appropriate issue without giving notice to 488 the Speaker, and that it will be followed by three half-hour Adjournment debates, for which hon. Members must apply in the usual way?
Can the Leader of the House tell us yet what he intends to do about the recommendations of the first special report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which was first published on 7 March?
In view of the decisions taken today by the magistrates court in Croydon, and of what happened to Mr. Cantona this morning, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we may be able to have a debate in the near future on consistency in sentencing in magistrates courts? It would not involve matters that are sub judice if we discussed consistency.
Can the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect a debate in Government time on the national health service? If we cannot have an immediate debate, will he guarantee that there will be a debate in advance of any further moves to allow certain private companies, some of which contribute to the Conservative party, to take over the running of NHS hospitals?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgent need for a debate and for answers from Ministers on what they intend to do about the electricity industry, and especially about the regulator's ability to protect the interests of consumers? That is necessary not least because of the regulator's proposal, following the windfall profits being made by the regional electricity companies, that consumers should receive some benefit from those profits—a suggestion that has been blocked by some of the fat cats in those companies.
Surely the Government have some responsibility in the matter, because they framed the legislation and they rigged the sale to ensure substantial profits. Will the Leader of the House therefore ensure that Parliament has the chance to be the voice of the consumer?

§ Mr. Newton
I shall take those questions in reverse order. On the electricity issue, I simply say that there is no doubt that consumers have benefited from the downward pressure on prices already created by privatisation, in that industry and in several others.
Of course I take note of the hon. Lady's request concerning the NHS, but I wish that she had acknowledged that the private finance initiative in the NHS and in other spheres was essentially designed to bring additional resources somewhere where we all want to see them generated, whenever and however that can be done.
As for the sentence on Mr. Cantona in Croydon, the hon. Lady will understand that I would not think it appropriate to comment on such a matter from the Dispatch Box, but I shall certainly bring her comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
I am still considering how best to proceed on Members' interests, and I hope to have further discussions through the usual channels. I hope that we shall be able to deal with the issue, if not before the Easter recess—I still would not entirely rule out that possibility—immediately afterwards.
The answer to the hon. Lady's question about the Wednesday morning debates on 5 April is strictly a matter for you, Madam Speaker, but I think that I probably have your tacit authorisation to say that what the hon. Lady 489 said was right. For the first three hours, the format will be essentially the same as for the traditional recess motion, and people can raise what they like without my having to try to answer it all at the end. That will be followed by three half-hour Adjournment debates under the normal ballot arrangements.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
My right hon. Friend will have heard the very reassuring remarks by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with regard to our border controls. Was my right hon. Friend in effect saying that he would guarantee that the United Kingdom would retain its border controls? If not, could we clarify the issue by having a debate next week?

§ Mr. Newton
I thought that I sensed, as my hon. Friend did, that the Prime Minister's remarks were extremely clear. Certainly I do not think that I need to, or can, add to them.

§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)
Is the Leader of the House aware that, in many parts of the House, there is growing concern about the method and timing of the way in which the House considers controversial regulations? I draw his attention in particular to the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, which are due to come into force in a few days' time.
Those regulations will introduce the Meat Hygiene Service, which represents an extremely controversial change from the present arrangements and is causing great concern throughout the country, to the agricultural industry, to the abattoirs themselves and, most noticeably, to those who think that the removal from local democratic control will produce a new and powerful quango.
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 845, and the amendment thereto, which refers to a controversial appointment to the new service?

§ Mr. Newton
I shall leave aside the question of the appointment for the moment. On the wider issues which 490 the hon. Gentleman raised, there is, of course, a prayer down on this matter that will be given consideration through the usual channels.

§ Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)
Is there any possibility in the near future of having a full-scale debate on the rights—and, even more importantly, the duties—of the citizen? Some of us are perplexed about the policies being advocated by the Leader of the Opposition, as the poor fellow can only utter sound bites in the newspapers.

§ Mr. Newton
I am not sure whether "puzzled" is the right word, but I am increasingly struck by the fact that the rather windy words which have been used appear to be nothing more than a cloak for an old-fashioned increase in state intervention into everybody's lives, and that is what people do not want.

§ Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)
Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the sneaky and underhand way in which the Ministry of Defence has announced the closure of RAF Finningley? Will he arrange as a matter of urgency for a debate to be held before the Easter recess on the RAF and the implications of that decision?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot promise such a debate before the Easter recess, but at some stage we will have the annual debate on the RAF, which is one of the service days that has not yet taken place. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I would not for a moment accept his description of any action of any of my right hon. Friends, but nevertheless I shall draw his feelings to their attention.

§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)
Could we have a debate next week on truancy from schools? This morning, the Leader of the Opposition told the public that there were Conservative laws for dealing with truancy, but he did not tell the public why Labour councils have not used them effectively.

§ Mr. Newton
That was a good question, but it was not one for me.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a story by Anthony Bevins which appeared in last Sunday's The Observer and which was headlined "Three-day week for idle MPs"? I for one deeply resent that sort of comment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Could we have a debate on the work load of Members of Parliament, particularly in light of boundary changes which are adding about 30 per cent. to my work load, with no discussion about whether additional resources will be made available to Members to deal with the changes? We do not need lectures from journalists—we need to tell the truth in the House.

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman will have gathered that, unlike some of the questions which he has asked, that one elicited a good deal of sympathy from Members in all parts of the House. It should be underlined that Members of Parliament are now able to give more time to their duties in many other ways, including those duties in their constituencies to which both they and their constituents attach importance.

§ Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North)
In his response to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), 491 my right hon. Friend referred to the special report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. He stated, as he did last week, that the matter should be dealt with by the usual channels, which seem to be extremely slow. Can he assure us that the matter will be brought before the House on a firm resolution which will lead to a solution, and which will allow a Select Committee of the House to continue its work, even after a delay of two months?

§ Mr. Newton
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. One of the things that we are concerned about is that we should, if possible, deal with the matters not simply on an ad hoc basis, but on a basis that gives a secure foundation for the future work of any Select Committee.

§ Ms Ann Coffey (Stockport)
Is the Leader of the House aware of proposals to change the fostering regulations, which are currently being discussed in the Department of Health and will have serious consequences for local authorities and foster parents? Will he assure me that time will be made available for a debate on those changes, and that they will not go through without a debate?

§ Mr. Newton
I cannot give an assurance off the cuff, not least because, in a former ministerial incarnation, I was probably responsible for earlier arrangements on that matter. It is a subject in which I am personally interested, and I shall look carefully at the point that the hon. Lady raised.

§ Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the conference on the nuclear proliferation treaty will begin on 17 April. If we cannot have a debate on nuclear issues before the Easter recess, may we have one as soon as possible after the recess?

§ Mr. Newton
I am afraid that I cannot give that assurance, but I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I shall look at his request.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 757?
[That this House notes that the first international religious conference on the problem of pornography, Protecting our Children's Future, was held in Manila between 17th and 20th January; acknowledges the declaration drawn up by delegates; agrees that pornography has become a major economic force that requires international solutions; believes that the important values of free speech and increased international communication are not compromised by ensuring that children, women and men are protected from sexual exploitation; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring United Kingdom law into line with Sweden, Germany, France, Norway, Australia and the USA so that British citizens who commit child sex offences abroad can be prosecuted under British law and to initiate an international law enforcement initiative to combat the global trade in computer pornography via the Internet.]
Will the Leader of the House have a chat with the Home Secretary to see whether legislation can be introduced to protect young people abroad from marauders who go there from this country? If he cannot introduce legislation before Easter, may I press him to do so shortly after Easter to give hope to others?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that matter was recently raised in another place. He will 492 also be aware that we have recently taken action in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to strengthen further our controls on pornography, but of course I shall draw his point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

§ Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the main railway line which currently carries all channel tunnel expresses runs through my constituency? Does he therefore understand my constituents' concern about the noise and vibrations affecting them and their properties? Will he find an early opportunity for a debate on that subject, and on questions of compensation?

§ Mr. Newton
Once again, I am afraid that I cannot promise an early debate of precisely the kind that my hon. Friend seeks, but he will be aware that progress is being made in the Private Bill Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, which will in due course lead to discussion on the Floor of the House. Although perhaps not in the near term, at some stage that will provide a further opportunity to discuss those matters.

§ Ms Jean Corston (Bristol, East)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on today's press reports that the Department of Social Security is to spend £200 million on a computerised identity database to be run by a private company and to include details of income and work history? That is despite a warning by the Data Protection Registrar last year that voluntary schemes could become compulsory by stealth. If the Home Secretary wants an identity card scheme, should he not come to the House to argue his case, rather than get the Department of Social Security to bring one in by the back door?

§ Mr. Newton
There are three points to make: first, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, as is well known, will produce a Green Paper on those matters; secondly, any action by the DSS is certainly not directed to producing an identity card "by the back door"; thirdly, any action by the DSS is directed towards something which everyone in the House should support, which is the prevention of fraud.

§ Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford)
May we have an urgent debate on the financial state of Lambeth council, given that it has domestic rates arrears of £13 million, community charge arrears of £85 million, and council tax arrears of £29 million? Would not such a debate enable the Opposition to apologise 'to the people of Lambeth for years of Labour misrule?

§ Mr. Newton
Yes, it would provide an opportunity for such an apology. I would therefore very much like to provide it, but am not sure that I can promise to do so.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
The Leader of the House has already had about 10 requests for debates of some kind, most of which he has been unable to accept, yet a few moments ago he said that the House would rise a day early for the Easter holiday. Would it not make more sense to sit on that day, which should be used to discuss the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, 493 North-East (Mr. Barnes), so that, instead of hon. Members going off on their holidays, we could help 6 million disabled people?

§ Mr. Newton
Whether or not the House sat on the Thursday, it would not be a private Members' day. I have said several times that I have no plans for changing the usual arrangements for dealing with private Members' Bills.

§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)
Will the Leader of the House be able to inform the House when the Environment Bill will come before it? Is he aware that many of us look forward to that Bill because of the way in which it affects national parks, and we seriously want that Bill to be enacted, so that there will also be more local representation on national parks?

§ Mr. Newton
First, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an excellent Bill. Secondly, in direct answer to his question, I would expect to take the Second Reading of the Bill shortly after the Easter recess.

§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)
Was not the law made an ass of yesterday in Newport, East, the neighbouring constituency to mine, when the remarkable decision was taken to halt a trial on the sole grounds that the jurors did not understand the details of that financial case? Is that not an open invitation to fraudsters to commit crimes, as long as they are sufficiently complicated not to be understood by the juries? Do we not need an urgent debate to institute courts that have specialist jurors who will understand financial complexities of that type?

§ Mr. Newton
Madam Speaker, unless you are going to seek to prevent me from answering, I shall say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has asked the Director of Public Prosecutions for a full and urgent report on what the hon. Gentleman describes. I might add, however, that, although the jury has been discharged and two defendants have been acquitted, proceedings in relation to five other defendants have not been concluded.

§ Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye)
May I ask my right hon. Friend for an early debate on child care, so that we can discover how the Opposition reconcile their proposition that child benefit should be taxed at 40 per cent. with the fact that they are simultaneously encouraging the belief that there will be tax relief for nannies?

§ Mr. Newton
I receive an amazing number of requests to try to explain the contortions, the convolutions and the inexplicable nature of some policy pronouncements by the Labour party. I am afraid that that task is beyond me, but I hope that my hon. Friend's question elicits an answer from those who repeatedly think up those policies.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
May we have an early debate on immigration and asylum policy in a United Kingdom and European Union context, which would give Ministers an opportunity to explain why Mr. Zia Rahman Farouki, who preaches hatred of Shi'ite Muslims, has been allowed to visit this country, when constituents are denied visits by relatives and friends on frequent occasions? It would also provide an opportunity for the Home Secretary to confirm or deny that he plans 494 a new immigration Bill, which many of us fear will be used as a race card before the local elections and forthcoming general election.

§ Mr. Newton
I am not in a position to comment about the particular case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

§ Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate about facilities at the House at weekends? Is my right hon. Friend aware that last weekend, for example, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who speaks for the Labour party on energy, had to go to Twickenham to discuss energy policy with British Gas and that, of course, he therefore had to endure the sort of executive perks and privileges that Opposition Members have denounced, and that he also had to go as a guest of Mr. Cedric Brown, whom hon. Members have also denounced?
Will my right hon. Friend spare the hon. Member for Clackmannan and other Opposition Members similar ordeals in future, and make facilities available for them here?

§ Mr. Newton
I think that the appropriate answer in House of Commons terms is to say that I shall bring that request to the attention of the Administration Committee, or something of that type, but I strongly suspect that, however many facilities were available, the one most likely to use them would be the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who appears never to want to go anywhere else.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
Last week, the Leader of the House said that he would reflect on issues arising out of my question to the Prime Minister in relation to Lockerbie. Before the recess, could there be any facility for the Crown Office, on which more and more responsibility is being placed by the Foreign Office and Downing street, at least to make some kind of a statement in a democratic forum?

§ Mr. Newton
I shall seek to come back to the hon. Gentleman about what I said last week, and I regret that I have not yet been able to do so. I certainly cannot give him the undertaking that he seeks now.

§ Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the relative powers and responsibilities of central and local government? Does he agree that such a debate would enable us to expose the simple truth that the Labour party's proposals for regional assemblies would rob local authorities of their power? Such a debate would also enable me to express the abhorrence of the people of Worcestershire of the prospect of being ruled by Birmingham.

§ Mr. Newton
My hon. Friend expresses, more eloquently than I did, a point that I made from the Dispatch Box last week. I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks, and should it be possible to provide time for such a debate, I shall be glad to do so.

§ Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge)
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to reports in today's newspapers that the Government are considering relaxing the rules on the number of roadside information signs, in view of the fears expressed by the Automobile 495 Association, environmental groups and others about the safety of drivers who are confused by the number of signs? Could he ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House at an early date?

§ Mr. Newton
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to be here to answer questions on one of the days embraced by the business statement—Monday 3 April. That may provide an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to give a statement. It should be said, in fairness, that motorists sometimes encounter difficulties because of the absence of signs to help them to get where they want to go.

§ Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam)
Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on grant-maintained schools? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) yesterday addressed a conference of the grant-maintained heads of England and Wales, and threw them into total confusion? They have no idea what the Labour party stands for. More than that, he said that he would remove their independence, by using the expression "enhanced accountability." That can only mean a return to town hall tyranny and control.

§ Mr. Newton
I certainly have the clear impression that the hon. Member for Brightside further increased the number of bodies who are in a state of confusion about Labour party policy—that appears to include the Labour party itself.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
As the Disability Discrimination Bill comes back before us next Monday and Tuesday, would the Leader of the House look at what is happening to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, a competing Bill which is being held up by a series of filibusters in Standing Committee C so that it cannot make progress? Hon. Members should have a chance to decide between the principles contained in the two Bills. It is the duty of the Leader of the House to ensure that that happens. Could the Bill be dealt with in a Committee of the whole House if room cannot be found for it in Standing Committee C?

§ Mr. Newton
I cannot add to what I have said on numerous occasions in the past few weeks about my plans for the handling of private Members' Bills. We should proceed normally. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of proceedings in the relevant Standing Committee, which is dealing with a number of other important private Members' Bills.

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
The Leader of the House will recall that two weeks ago I asked for an early debate on the Meat Hygiene Service, since when my right hon. Friend has acknowledged that the official Opposition have tabled a prayer against the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. My right hon. Friend has also acknowledged the existence of early-day motion 845, which has been signed by more than 50 hon. Members.
[That this House believes that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, at present laid before the House, are primarily intended to empower the Meat Hygiene Service to take over from local authorities the responsibility for meat inspection and the supervision of hygiene in slaughterhouses; takes note that through the ability of the Meat Hygiene Service to set the level of fees, a risk free business is proposed to be established with a 496 turnover of 140 million extracted from the meat industry and wonders about the interests involved; questions also whether the regulations are seen as a convenient device for enforcing rationalisation in the industry which would not be to the long term benefit either of the consumer or of standards of hygiene in the industry; strongly objects to their being laid before the House, despite a lengthy period of gestation, with such short notice before the intended start of operations by the Meat Hygiene Service, which it regards as a contempt of the House; can see no service advantage in the proposed system over the service currently provided by the local authorities; and therefore demands that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, be not enacted but that local authorities should retain their powers and responsibilities through the application of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.]
Does not my right hon. Friend realise what serious problems are building up in the abattoir sector? Bishop's Castle abattoir in my constituency has been notified this week that the charge that it will have to pay for veterinary inspections is £60 per hour when most other abattoirs have been advised that their charge per hour will be £33.71. That is a serious problem, which the House should debate.
The Leader of the House is well aware of my view that the statutory instrument was brought to the House far too late—barely three weeks before coming into force—while the Government have, for three years, known what they want to do. That shows a contempt of the House, and it should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

§ Mr. Newton
I make two points. First, I cannot add to what I said earlier about the prayer that has been tabled concerning some of the regulations. Secondly, I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is looking very carefully at such representations as my hon. Friend has made.

§ Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South)
Will the Leader of the House arrange time for a debate next week, or as soon as possible thereafter, to discuss the new Cabinet Committee which has been formed to co-ordinate and present Government policy? I believe that it is probably more to do with co-ordinating and presenting Tory party policy in order to improve its standing at the next election, and there may be a conflict of interest in respect of the civil servants who have been appointed to serve that Committee.
In order to ensure that the integrity of the civil service is not compromised and that taxpayers' money is not used for political purposes, will the Leader of the House arrange to have a debate on the subject as a matter of urgency?

§ Mr. Newton
I am not sure whether it constitutes an interest, but, as it has been stated publicly that I am a member of the Committee, I mention it again now.
I make two other points. First, such a committee would not have been established if the Cabinet Secretary had thought that it was outside the rules in any way. Secondly, as we have Cabinet Committees to examine Government policies in a variety of areas, it seems entirely reasonable to have a Cabinet Committee which is concerned with Government policy as a whole.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
I ask my right hon. Friend to allow time for a debate next week on empty rhetoric, so that I may be able to put a comparison before 497 the House. The Labour-controlled Ealing borough council has failed to evict noisy neighbours, but the Leader of the Opposition suggested yesterday that the Labour party favours the eviction of noisy neighbours. Should not the attention of the House be drawn to the Labour party's failure to practise what it preaches?

§ Mr. Newton
I am rapidly running out of things to say in response to my hon. Friend's frequent references to Ealing borough council, whose iniquities are rehearsed weekly on the Floor of the House. The only thing that I would say to him is that a committee concerned with empty rhetoric is not one of which I would care to be a member.

§ Mr. David Hanson (Delyn)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate early next week on the question of bonuses to national health service managers and nurses' pay? Is he aware that figures released today by the Institute of Health Services Management show that bonuses of up to £10,500 have been paid to NHS managers? The bonuses have been described as "illogical", at a time when nurses' pay is under discussion and is being frozen by the Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that next week would present an ideal opportunity to debate both issues in the House?

§ Mr. Newton
In my usual reasonable way, I will certainly consider that request for a debate, provided that the debate also embraces the huge increase in the amount of treatment being provided through the NHS, and the efficiency with which resources are being used in patient care as a result of improvements in management.

§ Mr. John Whittingdale (Colchester, South and Maldon)
Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate a subject to which I know that he attaches great importance: the provision of school transport in Essex? Does he agree that the proposal by Liberal and Labour members of Essex county council to withdraw free school transport to grammar schools is mean-minded, petty and vindictive?

§ Mr. Newton
I am certainly well aware of the concern about that proposal, which, as my hon. Friend will understand, is shared by my constituents. Even so, I am not sure whether I can provide time for a debate on the issue. However, I hope that those in Essex will study my hon. Friend's words with care.

§ Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood)
Can there be an early debate about banking, so that hon. Members have an opportunity to discuss the continued closure of small branches, such as Edwinstowe and Rainworth in Nottingham, while the National Westminster bank, for example, records profits of £1.4 billion?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the banks are private sector institutions which are responsible for decisions of that kind. I have no doubt that his remarks will be examined carefully by those concerned with the affairs of those institutions in his area.

§ Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay)
Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House next week to make a statement about the Kingskerswell bypass? Is he aware that the future prosperity of my constituency depends on that work being undertaken at the earliest possible moment?
498 I have so far tabled no fewer than three parliamentary questions in an attempt to establish when work is due to commence, and I have been told for the past six months that work is imminent. However, no work has commenced, and the orders have not yet been made. Will my right hon. Friend request the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain when work can commence on the Kingskerswell bypass?

§ Mr. Newton
As it happens, I have already arranged for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to answer questions on Monday 3 April. I would judge from the question that he has just asked that my hon. Friend may seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.

§ Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)
Will the Leader of the House give his attention to early-day motion 738, calling for the early ratification of the chemical weapons convention?
[That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the central part it played towards the negotiation of the Chemical Weapons Convention which bans the acquisition, development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, and which Her Majesty's Government signed in January 1993; fully supports the United Kingdom's commitment, first made at the G7 Summit in 1991, to become an original State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention; notes that the Convention cannot enter into force until 180 days after 65 states have ratified and deposited their instruments of ratification with the Secretary-General of the UN; notes that as of the end of January 22 of the 159 signatory states had already deposited their instruments of ratification; views with concern that the United Kingdom has yet to ratify the Convention; notes further that Her Majesty's Government cannot ratify the Convention until enabling legislation has been brought forward by the Department of Trade and Industry and passed by Parliament; is concerned that the Department of Trade and Industry has no plans to do so in the current parliamentary session; understands that there is widespread support for the Convention amongst the main political parties at Westminster; welcomes the publication by the Department of Trade and Industry of a consultation document for the chemical industry regarding the implementation of the Convention in the United Kingdom; and urges the Department of Trade and Industry to bring forward the necessary legislation as a matter of urgency to demonstrate that chemical weapons arms control remains a high priority for the United Kingdom and to ensure that the United Kingdom does indeed become an original State Party to the Convention.]
Will he have a word with the President of the Board of Trade and insist that the Government bring forward that legislation in the near future, particularly in the light of the terrible events in Japan this week?

§ Mr. Newton
I am very conscious of the significance of the legislation, and it is something that I am certainly examining with care, wearing yet another of my hats as Chairman of the relevant Cabinet Committee on legislation.

§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)
Will my right hon. Friend enable the Government to demonstrate their interest in the welfare of a premier British industry—civil air transport—by granting an early debate in Government time on the subject, in view of the European 499 Union's strong desire to arrogate to itself member nations' rights to negotiate civil air transport agreements and its failure to control subsidies to state carriers such as Iberia?

§ Mr. Newton
I cannot promise an early debate on precisely those matters, but my hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport attaches importance to all the points that he has raised, and I shall bring his further comments to his attention.

§ Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)
The Minister will be aware of the decision by the Secretary of State for Transport to refer the case of the Derbyshire to Lord Donaldson for investigation. Despite the fact that I asked the Minister numerous questions, he failed to answer my last question and preferred to plant a question on the Conservative Benches so that he could reply to it. That did not really affect me, as I am concerned not simply about the Derbyshire, but about safety at sea.
The Derbyshire certainly demonstrates the need for the House to debate safety at sea. There is no doubt in my mind that the matter requires urgent debate, bearing in mind the tragedies that have occurred over the past decade. Will the Leader of the House impress on the Secretary of State for Transport that, in addition to what he has done—which is most welcome—he should prepare for a debate in the House on this important issue?

§ Mr. Newton
I shall certainly bring those remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who will answer questions in about 10 days' time. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work in these matters. I expect that we all share his welcome for the inquiry, which is now established and for which he pressed for so long.

§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)
May I support the call from the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on the powers of sentencing given to magistrates? We could consider the Green Paper published last week by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the powers which magistrates have, many of which were imposed by the Opposition in government; but, above all, we could consider sentences handed out by magistrates courts for acts of violence inside football grounds. Does he agree that the general public will applaud the decision in Croydon today?

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The matter is sub judice, and an appeal is pending, so perhaps the hon. Member will not persist in the line he is taking. Will the Leader of the House answer the first part of the question?

§ Mr. Newton
Only briefly, in the light of what you have said, Madam Speaker. The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and I cannot add to what I said to her.

§ Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North)
May I remind the Leader of the House that, at this time of year, funding, particularly in public sector budgets, is being squeezed? I have an internal memorandum from South Kent Hospitals NHS trust, which states: Please note that the above practices"—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I really cannot allow Members to read out long extracts at business questions. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Leader of the House what he is after, so that we might know whether we can have it next week?

§ Mr. Hughes
Clearly, those people are having their treatment delayed for purely financial reasons. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and justify having people's treatment delayed on financial grounds?

§ Mr. Newton
I can certainly arrange for the hon. Gentleman's remarks to be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Beyond that, if, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is quoting from what would conventionally be described as a leaked document, I shall certainly not comment on it off the cuff.

§ Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of what happened yesterday in European Standing Committee B on immigration and border controls? Attendance at that Committee was so strong that many Conservative Members could not obtain seats? Will he think carefully about, and possibly consider having a debate on, whether more matters that go to European Standing Committee B could be brought back to the Floor of the House, so that hon. Members could have a greater chance to express their views on serious subjects that need to be discussed at great depth? I urge my right hon. Friend to have a debate on that at the earliest opportunity.

§ Mr. Newton
I am aware of what happened yesterday in European Standing Committee B, but the European Standing Committees were set up in precisely the way that they have been, which is different from many others, in order to provide an opportunity for the Minister to be questioned as well as to have a debate, and for all Members who wish to attend to attend, even though only those who were appointed to the Committee can vote. Those arrangements seemed to work rather well yesterday.

§ Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)
As a diligent member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I reinforce the plea for an early debate on its first special report. In the meantime, I put it to the Lord President that many of us on that Committee are severely exasperated by the delay, but are even more exasperated by the leaks that seem to emanate from the Committee through the Tory Whips Office. May we have that debate as early as possible?

§ Mr. Newton
I do not accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I certainly understand the desire to make progress on the matter, which has also been quite reasonably raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and I have said that I shall be seeking to do that.

§ Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate as soon as possible, and preferably before Easter, on the standard of geriatric care in University hospital, Wales, where, a few days ago, a patient, a constituent of mine, Mr. George Ewart, was killed after receiving a massive overdose of morphine by an inexperienced nurse who was taking 501 instruction on the method of delivering the dose via a telephone call from an experienced nurse who was too busy to help? There has been a history of complaints about geriatric care at that hospital, and I would appreciate an early debate on the matter if the time could be found.

§ Mr. Newton
I am aware of that case, and I am sure that all of us would want to express our regret about it. It is, I understand, the subject of an internal investigation by South Glamorgan health authority, which is continuing, and it has also been reported to the coroner, who in turn has reported to the police. The Health and Safety Executive has also been informed. In the light of all that, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not think it appropriate to comment, and that at this moment it would not be appropriate to commit ourselves to a debate.

§ Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South)
May we have an early debate on the privatisation by stealth of national health services? The article in The Independent today makes it clear that the Government's plans to extend the terms of the private finance initiative are not to bring in new finance but to compel NHS trusts to put health care services out to tender for strange combinations of builders and private health providers. Before the House is required to accept that the future of the NHS is to be put into the hands of the likes of McAlpine Health Care Ltd., should we not have the right to debate whether we wish to see an NHS in the future provided on the lump?

§ Mr. Newton
I understand that the report in The Independent is extremely selective in its quotations from the new guidance. It should be made clear that there is no requirement under the private finance initiative for any clinical services to be included in a facilities management package. Trusts should explore options of the private sector undertaking the design, building, finance and operation of the non-clinical services. In such schemes, the NHS would manage and provide all the health care services.

§ Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South)
Is the Leader of the House aware of the Home Secretary's plans to discuss with the House his proposals for the probation service? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether any debate has been arranged, or whether there is any 502 mechanism for us to give approval to the idea of drastically changing the training of probation officers, and perhaps replacing the present staff with recruits from the Army?

§ Mr. Newton
I have no plans at present for a debate, but that is not to rule it out, and, of course, I will look at what the hon. Gentleman has said.

§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
Will the Leader of the House reflect on the fact that some 13.5 million people live in the south-east of England, outside of Greater London, and that the House regularly has debates on Wales, Scotland and Greater London? Is there not a case for us to have an annual debate in which we can examine the stewardship of the interests of those 13.5 million people under the Conservative Government, in which I can criticise the Government on behalf of Labour voters, and the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames) can try to defend the appalling state of the south-east of England under the Government, with all the unemployment, the negative equity and the high cost of travelling to work in London?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman shares with me the honour of representing some of the larger number to which he referred in our different parts of Essex. I do not recognise the description he gives, and in all honesty I do not think that I will undertake annual regional debates of the kind that he appears to be suggesting.

§ Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)
Will the Leader of the House do his best to ensure the publication of the Government report on the implications of the House of Lords ruling on the 1992 Pepper v. Hart case, in which, as he will no doubt recall, the Law Lords ruled that the courts could take into account ministerial statements when interpreting an Act of Parliament, rather than, as has always been the case in the past, just the words on the face of the Bill or the Act?
If the Government and their code of practice on open government are to be taken seriously, should not the working party report be open to all Members of the House to see? It is a change of enormous significance to the procedure of the House, our legislation and the way in which it is interpreted. It seems quite wrong that the Government should suppress a very important report and the debate that the House should have on it.

§ Mr. Newton
I am obviously aware of the Pepper v. Hart judgment, which was indeed, as the hon. Gentleman says, of some significance. The proper course is for me to undertake to reflect on the matter.