Business of the House

HC Deb 18 April 1996 vol 275 cc843-50 3.31 pm

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 22 APRIL—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill.

TUESDAY 23 APRIL—Conclusion of consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill.

WEDNESDAY 24 APRIL—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the National Heritage Committee report on the British Film Industry, followed by a debate on the reports from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Social Security Committee on the Child Support Agency. Followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

In the afternoon, consideration in Committee of the Family Law Bill [Lords]. Followed by remaining stages of the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill.

THURSDAY 25 APRIL—Consideration of any Lords Amendments that may be received to the Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill.

Followed by remaining stages of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.

FRIDAY 26 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.

On a more provisional basis, the business planned for the following week will be as follows:

MONDAY 29 APRIL—Progress on remaining stages of the Housing Bill.

TUESDAY 30 APRIL—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Housing Bill.

Motions relating to the Education (Grants for Nursery Education) (England) Regulations and the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training: Nursery Education) (England) Regulations.

WEDNESDAY 1 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motion on the Elections (Northern Ireland) Order. Followed by a motion on the Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order.

Followed by remaining stages of the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

THURSDAY 2 MAY—eading of the Arbitration Bill [Lords].

FRIDAY 3 MAY—The House will not be sitting.

The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.

On this occasion, I can even go so far as to give the House some helpful information about the following week. Monday 6 May is a bank holiday and the House will not be sitting.

I am trying to make my announcements on European Standing Committees a little more user-friendly. The House will wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 24 April to consider European Community documents as follows:

European Standing Committee A: There will be a debate on agricultural strategy for the European Union and the associated countries of central and eastern Europe.

European Standing Committee B: There will be a debate on five documents relating to economic and monetary union.

Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that it is proposed that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 1 May to debate natural mineral waters.

[Wednesday 24 April:

European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 12503/95, Agricultural Strategy: EU and the Associated Countries. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-vi (1995–96).

European Standing Committee B—European Community Documents: (a) 11987/95, Progress towards Convergence; (b) 10380/95, Employment in Europe; (c) 11417/95, Effect of Currency Fluctuations on the Internal Market; (d) 11478/95, Social Security and Related Expenditure; (e) 12633/95, Exchange Rate Relations in Stage Three of Economic and Monetary Union. Relevant European Legislation Reports: HC 51-v (1995–96) and HC 51-x (1995–96).

Wednesday I May:

European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 12712/95, Natural Mineral Waters. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 51-viii (1995–96) and HC 51-xiv (1995–96).]

Mrs. Taylor

May I thank the Leader of the House for that information and in particular for the notice of the provisional business for the week after next? Will he build on that good will by giving as early an indication as possible to the House of the likely date of this year's summer economic debate? That would be of interest to all hon. Members. May I also ask him to ensure that the House is kept fully informed of any developments on bovine spongiform encephalopathy? He knows that there are still unresolved issues following Tuesday's statement. It is important that hon. Members should be able to continue to express their views and concern on that vital issue.

We now know that next Wednesday, European Standing Committee B will consider certain EC documents. The Leader of the House will be aware that I have raised with him the concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House and by the Select Committee on European Legislation, that those matters should be debated on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee. As the issues involved include the impact of currency fluctuations on the internal market, progress towards convergence and exchange rate relations in stage 3 of economic and monetary union, may I ask him, even at this late stage, to reconsider his decision that those issues should be dealt with in Committee? If he will not change his mind on that, will he remind hon. Members that any Member can attend and participate in that Committee's discussions?

Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on the future of the electricity industry? It is vital that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report currently sitting on the desk of the President of the Board of Trade is published and debated as soon as possible. All Members need access to that report, and it is important that the House should make an early decision on the best way forward for the electricity industry.

Finally, on another extremely important matter, will the Leader of the House ensure that there will be time in the near future for Ministers to come to the House and make it clear what action has been taken since last year's water supply crisis to protect the interests of families and industry throughout the country, especially in Yorkshire? We should be given a proper assessment by Ministers of what has been done since last summer and Ministers should be prepared to intervene as soon as action might be necessary to conserve water for this year. The Government cannot abdicate their responsibility for the health and economic implications of severe water shortages. We should debate the matter and there should be action by Ministers before another crisis occurs.

Mr. Newton

I note with appreciation the hon. Lady's introductory remarks and, as always, I shall seek to give the House the earliest possible indication of the summer economic debate.

On BSE, I think that everything that has happened in the past two or three weeks shows my willingness, and, indeed, that of my right hon. Friends, to keep the House closely informed of developments. Of course, we shall maintain that posture.

On the debate in European Standing Committee B, I doubt that the hon. Lady harboured hopes that I would change my mind at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. I cleave to the view that, in general, the very fact that Ministers can be closely questioned gives those debates some advantages over a conventional debate on the Floor of the House. I underline her reminder that another advantage of the format is that, although they would not be able to vote if there were a vote, any hon. Member can attend and speak at such meetings.

I have no plans for a debate in Government time on the electricity industry. The hon. Lady will be aware that consideration of MMC reports is undertaken by the President of the Board of Trade, who acts in what virtually amounts to a semi-judicial capacity. The time to contemplate such a debate, if there were such a time, would be when a conclusion had been reached on those reports.

I imagine that the hon. Lady's request for Ministers to make clear the current state of the water supply industry is influenced in part by her understandable and legitimate constituency considerations. I shall bring her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, I note, will be in the House to answer questions on Tuesday 30 April.

Sir Jim Spicer (West Dorset)

My right hon. Friend will have heard the reports of the speech made last night by the Commissioner responsible for farming, which make it clear that the meeting on 29 April will not result in the lifting of the ban on British beef. Against the background of the crisis that that fact poses for our farming community, does my right hon. Friend think that it might be possible for us to find time for a debate not on BSE but on British beef and its future? Given that we still import 30 per cent. of our beef from overseas and the European Community, is it not time that we told the public how they can help us to cut that import figure from 30 per cent. to nil and to increase the consumption of British beef to 100 per cent.?

Mr. Newton

I certainly think that many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members would welcome the debate that my hon. Friend has proposed, even though I cannot say snap immediately to his proposal. I, too, would welcome any opportunity to remind people that scientists say that British beef is safe; the World Health Organisation says that British beef is safe; the Agriculture Commissioner says that British beef is safe; and in my view, British beef is safe. I am continuing to eat it.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

I join other hon. Members in thanking the Leader of the House for the maximum advance notice of forthcoming business.

We have heard today's formal announcement that a total of two days will be given for proceedings in the House on the Bill on the Northern Ireland elections at the end of May. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, that is the second piece of legislation that he has had to bring before us in recent weeks that has been subject to an extremely tight timetable and has been rushed through, by any definition. May I ask him to give us an undertaking, if not today, at a later date, that if we are ever asked by his or any other Government to pass emergency legislation, the old precedent will apply, whereby it will stand on the statute book for one year only and can have a longer duration only if it is properly debated without a guillotine in due time?

Secondly, there is obvious interest in the House about the future structure of local government, with different views on both sides about mayors for councils and the structure of local government. After the local elections this year, may we have a debate about local government and its future, so that the range of options for the best running of it can be aired without the influence of the party Whips?

Mr. Newton

I shall bear both points in mind, as is entirely right and proper. In respect of any Bill, whether emergency or otherwise, one can consider points such as that raised by the hon. Gentleman only in relation to the nature of such legislation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement of the debates next week, on the Adjournment of the House, on the film industry and the Child Support Agency, although both those subjects merit a full day's debate rather than a half-day one? May I also support the call from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House, for an early date for the summer economic debate, not least so that we can hear from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) her views on increased taxation, because many of us on the Conservative Benches believe that increased taxation is prejudicial to a healthy and growing economy?

Mr. Newton

The second part of my hon. Friend's question was characteristically helpful, and I shall bear it in mind. On the first part of his question, no doubt the Chairman of the Liaison Committee—with whom those matters are normally discussed and on whose recommendations we normally proceed—will have considered what it is appropriate to suggest. I am glad that we have been able to provide time for debates on those two important matters.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

May we please have an early debate on the alarming rise of arson attacks in the county of Leicestershire, which are up from 273 in 1988 to 1,385 in 1995? As five arson attacks have been made against schools in my constituency in the past three months—the latest of which caused grave damage to Beaumont Leys school—will the Leader of the House plead with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to find a way in which schools can be helped to take security measures without cutting into their budgets, which are already far too short?

Mr. Newton

The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised that matter and others like it on a number of occasions. He will know that it is a matter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment takes seriously. I shall bring to her attention the fact that he has raised the issue yet again, in an entirely responsible and balanced way. However, I hope that when he refers to crime in Leicestershire, he will acknowledge that recorded crime in the area fell by some 6 per cent. last year, including some important falls in quite significant crimes.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate next week on the decision of two London local authorities—both of which are Labour controlled, and including Ealing council—to take travel passes away from disabled people, including deaf people and severely disabled people, to save a few thousand pounds, despite the fact that they have been given millions of pounds for their standard spending assessments by the Government? Bearing in mind the great suffering of the people involved and their huge distress, could we have a debate next week to expose those councils and seek to have their miserable behaviour reversed?

Mr. Newton

I cannot promise a debate but, as ever, I point my hon. Friend in the direction of Wednesday mornings. I share his regret about the reports that he made, as I am a former Minister for the Disabled.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

We have had several statements on BSE and we have been promised more. The other place has also debated BSE. Should we not have a debate about BSE before Whitsun? If there is a problem about the wide-ranging nature of the debate, could we not have debates on specific areas? For example, could we debate live tests on animals that would allow us a way out of the problem?

Mr. Newton

The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of live tests has been put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a number of occasions. He has explained the scientific and practical difficulty that no such test currently exists nor is in sight. However, I shall bring the point to his attention again. We have already had one debate on BSE, which I arranged at an early stage—and I acknowledge that it was for only three hours. I think that there may well be a case for a further debate at some stage, and I shall very much bear that in mind.

Mr. Nicholas Baker (North Dorset)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that following the excellent package on BSE that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on Tuesday and the welcome news that the Euro ban is to be challenged, there is a case for a debate on this matter, on the particular issue of how to restore confidence in British beef and the eating thereof? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate could demonstrate the concerns that members of the public have about the damage caused to our beef industry by hysteria and by the selfish attitude shown by our European neighbours and their Governments? We ought to have a debate to encourage consumers and to promote the eating of British beef—which can be done with pride and not with apology.

Mr. Newton

I have already commented on that matter. I take note of what my hon. Friend said. We shall press our points very hard within the European Union. On the question of confidence, I hope that my hon. Friend will take some encouragement from the fact that the latest reports suggest that beef consumption is at roughly 85 per cent. of pre-crisis levels and that cattle throughput in markets is nearing 60 per cent. of pre-crisis levels. While that is a long way short of what we would like, it is quite good progress.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the statement made by European Commissioner Fischler that he has no objection, in principle, to ending the ban on beef exports from specialist areas such as Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is he aware that there is legal precedent for that and that the only stumbling block is the failure of the British Government to press the case? I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an urgent statement or debate, either on the Floor of the House or in the Grand Committee, bearing it in mind that no Scottish Office Minister has made himself answerable on that important issue.

Mr. Newton

On the latter point, Scottish Office Ministers, including very much my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, have been active in developing the measures that have been announced. My right hon. Friend is available to answer questions during the period covered by my statement. As for the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman places on the remarks said to have been made by Commissioner Fischler, I have not seen a complete report of those remarks. I am aware, however, that many people would not share the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman has sought to place upon them.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)

May I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an urgent and early debate on early-day motion 728?

[That this House notes the honesty and integrity of the honourable Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, in stating her view as an honourable Labour Member that people earning more than £34,000 should pay more tax; agrees with her contempt for the ruthless arrogance of the staff of the Leader of the Opposition; and finds this latest episode shows Labour has not changed, in contrast to its marketing managers.]

Such a debate would enable me to praise the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) for observing that many people would pay higher taxes under a Labour Government. If such a debate were to take place, the hon. Lady might not be silenced by the Leader of the Opposition, but I doubt it.

Mr. Newton

I shall bear my hon. Friend's request very much in mind. I, too, welcome the candour of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), who has at least been willing to acknowledge things that we all know, but which no one else has been prepared to say.

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow)

The Leader of the House will have heard the question put to the Deputy Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), about the incident today in southern Lebanon. May I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention early-day motion 731?

[That this House deplores the air strikes by Israel against civil Lebanese targets, including Beirut, and the collective threat forcing 400,000 Lebanese civilians to flee from their homes, and while in no manner giving any support to armed action by Hizbollah, notes the illegality of Israel's occupation of South Lebanon in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 425; welcomes initiatives to bring about a cessation of Israeli military action; and urges the United Kingdom Government to act in co-operation with France and other willing European countries to broker a ceasefire and to explore the widest range of options which could lead to a just and lasting settlement on the basis of UN resolutions.]

The motion draws attention to Israeli action in Lebanon and expresses the concerns of many Members on both sides of the House about what is happening and the approach of the Israelis to the problems in the Lebanon. If we do not have a debate, let us at the very least have a ministerial statement at the earliest opportunity, so that there is a chance for Members to speak directly and to question a Minister on policy on an important matter.

Mr. Newton

I heard the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). I heard also the reply of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, which I thought entirely appropriate and balanced. I do not think that I would wish to add to it.

Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside)

Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the observations of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)? It is particularly important that we have a debate so that people such as myself can draw attention to the fact that the National Farmers Union of Scotland and other organisations have made it clear at public meetings that I have attended that they think that we must find a United Kingdom answer, and that anything that is done to divide us is likely to damage our long-term prospects in the negotiations with the rest of our partners in the Union.

Mr. Newton

I simply say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what I thought to be sensible remarks.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

May we have a debate on the constitution, so that I can find a better answer to a question asked of me by a 10-year-old constituent of mine on television? He aspires to a certain job, but I had to tell him that he would never achieve his ambition because he is British. He could realise his ambition if he were American or a citizen of many other countries. Would it not be useful if we had a debate on the constitution, so that we could discover why the job of Head of State is confined to members of one undistinguished family?

Mr. Newton

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to follow him down that path. I have no plans for such a debate.

Mr. Mike O'Brien (North Warwickshire)

May we have an urgent debate on the relationship between the Home Secretary and chief constables, following great concern caused to several Warwickshire Members about what appear to be allegations against the chief constable of the county by the Home Secretary during an interview last Friday, when he suggested that the view of the chief constable and the police authority, that there was a financial crisis in the Warwickshire constabulary, was a myth and that someone was making up figures?

Mr. Newton

I have no direct account of my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks. I would not for a moment go along with the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman appears to be putting on them. It seems entirely appropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend, in that or any other context, to remind people of the increased resources for the police that have been steadily made available by the Government.

Mr. Peter Hain (Neath)

Will there be an opportunity for a debate next week on the appalling level of racial violence in south Wales? According to Home Office figures, the number of reported racial incidents has increased by 29 per cent., which is more than three times the average across England and Wales in police authority regions and is extremely serious. What action do the Government intend to take on that?

Mr. Newton

In a way, that links with the previous question. The Government have made clear their commitment to increasing the resources and to various changes in policy and legislation designed to strengthen what is shorthanded as law and order. That would very much include our wish to see a reduction, indeed a removal, of incidents of racial harassment. The hon. Gentleman may wish to bring his concerns further to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who is here to answer questions on Monday week.