Business of the House

HC Deb 07 March 1996 vol 273 cc455-64 3.31 pm

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)

Will the Leader of the House give us 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 is as follows:

MONDAY 11 MARCH—Estimates Day (2nd allotted day—1st part). There will be a debate on the Spring Supplementary Estimate, Class XIII, Vote 4, Department of Social Security: Administration and Miscellaneous Services. Details will be given in the Official Report.

Motion relating to Welsh Standing Orders.

At 10 o'clock, the House will be asked to agree the spring supplementary estimates and the defence votes A.

TUESDAY 12 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.

Second Reading of the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill.

WEDNESDAY 13 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Second Reading of the London Regional Transport Bill.

THURSDAY 14 MARCH—For three hours, motions on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (Continuance) Order and the Prevention of Terrorism (Exclusion Orders) Regulations.

FRIDAY 15 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 13 March to consider European Community document No. 12377/95 relating to equal opportunities for men and women.

For the next week, I can give the following details—of course, on a more provisional basis:

MONDAY 18 MARCH—Opposition Day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Motion relating to the Education (School Premises) Regulations.

TUESDAY 19 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill.

WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Second Reading of the Reserve Forces Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 21 MARCH—Debate on the forthcoming intergovernmental conference on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 22 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

Monday 11 March: Estimates Day.

Spring Supplementary Estimate, Class XIII, Vote 4, Department of Social Security: Administration and Miscellaneous Services. Relevant reports: the Fifth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1994–95 on The Work of the Department of Social Security and its Agencies (House of Commons Paper No. 382), the Government's reply thereto (Cm 3148) and the Social Security Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm 2813).

Wednesday 13 March:

European Standing Committee B—European Community document: 12377/95, Equal Opportunities for Men and Women. Relevant European Legislation Reports: HC 51-vi (1995–96) and HC 51-ix (1995–96).]

Mrs. Taylor

First, in the light of last night's events, it is entirely proper that the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996 should be brought back for debate as soon as possible, and I am glad that the Leader of the House has facilitated that.

As we now know that the White Paper on the IGC will be published next Tuesday, will the Leader of the House tell us whether there will be a statement to the House that day, and if so, which Minister will make it? And can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the two significant Bills that have not yet come before the House—the Broadcasting Bill and the Family Law Bill—will be debated? When will the Government make it clear whether they intend to reverse their defeats in the House of Lords on the vital issues contained in those two Bills?

In view of the real anger that was felt by Conservative as well as Opposition Members during yesterday's statement on the judgment of the European Court of Justice in relation to the so-called Spanish quota hoppers, and the importance of that judgment to the British fishing industry and the operation of the common fisheries policy, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on an issue that has aroused a great deal of parliamentary as well as public concern?

Following today's publication of the report on the Sea Empress disaster, may we have a debate on whether immediate lessons can be learned from that devastating event, or whether a fuller, independent inquiry is needed, so that there is no question of minimising the impact of one of the worst environmental catastrophes to hit Britain's coastline?

Finally, has the Leader of the House seen the press reports suggesting that the South-East Staffordshire by-election will not be held until 2 May? Given the understanding that writs are moved within three months of a vacancy occurring, will the Leader of the House refute those reports and confirm that, if the three-month limit is to be met, the writ for the by-election must be moved next week?

Mr. Newton

I note the hon. Lady's remarks about the Education (School Premises) Regulations. I do not wish to intrude on last night's operation of the usual channels, and, in any event, the hon. Lady will have noted that we have rescheduled the debate on the regulations.

The hon. Lady asked about the intergovernmental conference and the White Paper. I can confirm that I expect the White Paper to be published next Tuesday, 12 March, and that its publication will be accompanied by a statement, which I believe will be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

I cannot yet give dates for debates on the Broadcasting and Family Law Bills. The Government are, quite properly, considering matters that have been the subject of debate and, indeed, decision in the House of Lords.

As for Factortame and the common fisheries policy, I cannot add to what was said yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My right hon. and learned Friend indicated, however, that the Government would seek to raise those matters, and I mentioned the debate on the forthcoming IGC in my statement.

A special bulletin containing interim findings relating to the Sea Empress was indeed issued today, but that, of course, is not the report of the full inquiry, which I understand will be published as soon as possible. It may be more appropriate to think in terms of a debate at that later stage.

As I have said on a number of occasions, the by-election is not a matter for me, but I have no doubt that the hon. Lady's words have reached the ears at which they were directed.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

May we have a debate soon on the future of the constitution? My right hon. Friend knows of my interest in constitutional matters, but it has been sharpened lately by events such as yesterday's Labour party U-turn on the question of fundholders. We are rapidly reaching a point at which not a single Opposition policy was not once one of ours. As far as I can see, there is no constitutional precedent for that in this century.

Mr. Newton

My hon. Friend may well be right, but I have no plans at present to schedule a debate on the constitution. Perhaps he can find other ways of ventilating his views.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

May I return to the subject of deregulation of employee protection? If the Government are to make a substantial statement on Monday about changes that will affect small businesses, will the Leader of the House give an absolute assurance that that statement will be made by the President of the Board of Trade, in the House of Commons and nowhere else?

Mr. Newton

I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said several times—quite clearly, I thought—during the exchanges a few moments ago.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)

I preface my question by declaring that I own and drive a Vauxhall motor car, I sell Vauxhall motor cars to hon. Members on both sides of the House and I represent many thousands of Vauxhall workers in and around my constituency.

Could we have a debate next week on the motor trade, so that we can highlight the massive injection of cash—some £700 million—that General Motors is proposing to put into the Luton plant and into Ellesmere Port? Does not that give the lie to the idea that we are not a prospering industry? There are tremendous investment opportunities in this country, which is a rather different picture from that painted by the whingers and whiners on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Newton

While I cannot promise a debate, I can say that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is due to answer questions next Wednesday. I certainly endorse the latter part of my hon. Friend's remarks. That investment is another example of this country's increasing and very notable capacity to attract investment from overseas.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Will the Leader of the House go a little further in relation to the school premises regulations debate on Monday week? It is technically a prayer and, if there are Divisions beforehand, we may not get the full hour and a half. Will he consider moving a motion to allow the full hour and a half that the topic deserves?

Mr. Newton

I thought that what I had announced was a remarkably conciliatory gesture, which I had hoped would be acknowledged by the Opposition Members with whom I have had discussions. The hon. Gentleman should not push his luck.

Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why there is some uncertainty in the public mind about the Government's attitude to things European is that we seem to be so reluctant to have debates on the subject? In particular, is he aware that there is great concern about the way in which the European Court of Human Rights operates, and how the convention operates, and of the strength of feeling that it should not operate at all? At the very least, should we not have a fully fledged debate, in Government time, on the future of the European Court of Human Rights?

Mr. Newton

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that recently—I think, yesterday morning—there has been some debate on that topic, to which I am sure he paid close attention. I currently have no plans for a debate in Government time, but I shall, as always, bear his request in mind.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Arising from the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), why are the Government so reluctant to allow the people in a west midlands constituency to express their views about this Government? Will he tell the responsible Member—the Government Chief Whip—that it is quite disgraceful for people in that constituency to be denied parliamentary representation, simply because the Government are terrified of the by-election, as they know which way it is likely to go?

Mr. Newton

I do not accept in any way the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Beyond that, I cannot add to what I said a few moments ago.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)

Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate so that we can review the understanding between the House and the judiciary, whereby we do not criticise it and, apparently, it does not criticise us? He may have noticed that the understanding has broken down slightly in recent days. Does he agree that it is historically nonsense and constitutionally dangerous for anyone to suggest that elected Members of Parliament should not have the right to decide on sentencing policy and on matters of law and order? If we debated that issue, perhaps we could expose judges to the fresh winds of public opinion.

Mr. Newton

While, of course, the Lord Chief Justice is entitled to his views, so, too, are the police, the public and my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is notable that police superintendents very recently said that they totally support the Home Secretary's proposals.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

May we have a debate on early-day motion 568?

[That this House notes with grave concern that the principle of free health care on demand is being severely undermined by the lengthy periods which people have to wait for NHS treatment, compared to the speed with which private treatment can be arranged and that this places unfair pressures on many people who can ill-afford such fast-track treatment; believes that this is illustrated by the case of 11 year-old Daniel Eden of Wingerworth, whose severe headaches and sinuses kept him away from school for a considerable period, at a crucial stage in his academic development, and whose parents faced an invidious choice in either waiting many months for treatment, while their son suffered and remained away from school, or paying to have almost immediate private treatment; strongly condemns the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health whose response to representations from the honourable Member for North East Derbyshire was that Daniel's parents, rather than the health authorities, should have used avenues to chase up more rapid health treatment; and further condemns the anodyne statement from the Minister that it is for the individual to decide whether or not to seek private health care, as revealing that he is completely out of touch with the real world in which the prospect of months of delay forces many people, who have funded the NHS through their taxes, to pay twice for treatment.]

Why is it that consultants offer private treatment to many people who are seeking treatment in national health service hospitals, and that people are often pushed into accepting it, to deal with the medical crisis in their family? Why should people be expected to pay twice for services—through national insurance contributions and then privately?

Mr. Newton

The hon. Gentleman will know that access to NHS treatment is determined by clinical priority. His remarks do not allow for the fact that NHS patients requiring emergency or urgent admission are given the highest priority.

Sir Anthony Grant (South-West Cambridgeshire)

Will there be an opportunity in the not too distant future to debate in general the relationship between direct labour organisations and local authorities, and in particular the auditor's report on Lib-Lab Cambridgeshire county council, which, as has been pointed out, has lost nearly £2 million in that connection, which could well have been used for schools, libraries or fire services, or even been given back to the hard-pressed council tax payer?

Mr. Newton

That sounds like another very good idea, but I cannot promise such a debate in Government time; perhaps my hon. Friend might seek to catch your eye, as it were, Madam Speaker, on a Wednesday morning.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

May we please have an early debate on the steps that the Government should be taking following the horrendous terrorist attacks in Israel in the past two weeks, and in particular on the allegations that this country is used as a haven by terrorists from other lands? I raised that matter with the Home Secretary and was pleased that he said that he is determined that this country should not be used as a base for promoting terrorism overseas in any way, but he has refused an inquiry. There should certainly be a swift inquiry; it is not good enough to rely on the Lloyd inquiry, which is not even due to complete its work until the autumn.

Mr. Newton

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the positive spirit in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary replied to him. It is certainly the case that the British Government will not hesitate to take action against individuals involved in terrorism where any evidence of their involvement emerges, and whatever their immigration status. The hon. and learned Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. and learned Friend and the entire Government take the matter very seriously.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

May we have a debate next week on the growing practice among Ministers of leaving long delays in answering straightforward and uncomplicated priority written questions? To cite just one example, I sought to ask a question a fortnight ago on whether the Government had any plans to change the arrangements for party political broadcasts. I understand that there may be an interest one way or the other, but I see no reason for not giving a straightforward answer to such a simple question.

Mr. Newton

I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

As the Prime Minister has not had time to make a statement today on his far east trip, will the Leader of the House ensure that he does so, because the House would like to hear what the Prime Minister did on that visit and ask questions about it?

Mr. Newton

My right hon. Friend did indeed refer to one aspect of what he said and did on that trip with, I thought, general approval from the House. I can assume only that the hon. Gentleman was not listening or has not been reading the newspapers recently.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)

May we have a debate next week on trade and industry, which would not only allow us to highlight the Government's excellent policies in that respect, but answer a very intriguing question—whether the Opposition have a shadow trade and industry spokesperson? It may not have escaped people's notice that during the recent debate on the Scott report, which was so excellently led by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the Labour party had to bring on a substitute.

Mr. Newton

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will read my hon. Friend's remarks. Clearly, arrangements as to who speaks on Opposition Benches are not a matter for me.

Mr. Hugh Bayley (York)

Has the Leader of the House seen the report prepared by the Health and Safety Executive, which shows that a massive investment is needed in Railtrack to meet basic safety standards? The report follows revelations last year in the Hesketh report, that three quarters of the £170 million programme of investment in signalling has been shelved by Railtrack or delayed. Will the Leader of the House assure us that there will be a full debate in the House on Railtrack, in which hon. Members can freely air the investment liabilities before the Government publish the prospectus for the flotation of Railtrack, so that potential investors know what they are buying into?

Mr. Newton

There have already been quite a lot of opportunities, over a long period, to debate those matters. Therefore, I do not plan to make further provision for such a debate in Government time in the near future. On the investment position, one of the aims of the proposals is to improve effective investment in the industry, and there is every sign that that will happen.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on early-day motion 564 next week?

[That this House deplores the pressure upon Ealing Council by a Labour councillor to house labour voters in a property to which they have no entitlement; further deplores that councillor's written statement that the same Labour Council should be building up Labour Party support in his ward by manipulation of the housing waiting list; supports the fury of people on Ealing Council's housing waiting list who regard this cheating as depriving them of the council home they need; and further regrets that Ealing Council have lost the file relevant to the case in advance of an official enquiry in this scandal.]

Such a debate would enable me to bring before the House the complaints of a large number of my constituents who are on the housing list. They object to a Labour councillor putting pressure on Ealing council to put Labour voters into council properties at their expense. I refer also to an untrue statement by a Labour Member, who said that the leader of Ealing Labour council took immediate action once the matter was drawn to his attention. That incident occurred last May and was brought to public notice only two weeks ago by the Conservative members of Ealing council. No action had been taken by the Labour council in all those months, and my constituents are furious.

Mr. Newton

I understand that there is an independent inquiry into those matters, and I am sure that the people of Ealing will be extremely interested in its findings.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 554?

[That this House notes the current financial difficulties of the Conservative Party; notes the extraordinary efforts being made by the Conservative Party Board of Treasurers and others to raise sufficient moneys to adequately fund the next general election campaign; notes the reluctance of both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to reveal the identity of previous current and potential donors whom the Prime Minister will be meeting in Hong Kong; questions whether issues of party funding should be raised during the course of a publicly funded visit; notes the appointment of Mr. Leonard Steinberg last year as a member of the Conservative Board of Treasurers and the fact that following publication of the Green Paper on casinos, bingo clubs and advertising of commercial gambling the price of shares in Stanley Leisure plc rose from 372 pence on Monday 26th February to 435 pence at close of trading on Thursday 29th February; notes that Leonard Steinberg's holding in Stanley Leisure rose by £7.8 million pounds in four days and asks Mr. Steinberg to make a public statement giving an assurance that no part of his windfall gain will find its way into the coffers of the Conservative Party; reaffirms the need for an enquiry into the need for transparency over party funding; and calls for an enquiry by the Stock Exchange Market Regulation Department into the 9 per cent. increase in the share price during the five week period immediately prior to the announcement of the Green Paper.]

The motion shows how Mr. Leonard Steinberg of the Conservative Board of Treasurers managed to make £7.8 million in four short days after the publication of a Green Paper. In the light of that, should we not debate party political funding? Could the reason why the Prime Minister has not come to the House to talk about Hong Kong be that he is frightened that he will be asked questions about whether he met Conservative party contributors who might contribute towards the next general election?

Mr. Newton

I am glad to see a smile on the hon. Gentleman's face at the end of his question, to which the answer is no.

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the comments made today by Opposition Members about small businesses? Will he consider a debate on those issues, particularly the Scottish aspects, including the tartan tax and the threat of lifting rate capping on non-domestic rated properties?

Mr. Newton

My hon. Friend is right, as is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to suggest that the policies advocated from almost every quarter on the Opposition Benches would be extremely damaging to small businesses. The Government's policies are designed to help such businesses, and I shall bear in mind the request for such a debate.

Mr. Peter Hain (Neath)

Will there be time for a debate on Post Office finances next week? A parliamentary answer to me on 25 January revealed that the Duchess of York had been illicitly using freepost for more than three years. Surely the curtain of secrecy should be lifted on the way in which postal users subsidise the royal family's use of the post. Is it not wrong that pensioners and other people on low incomes pay for up to 50 rich royals to freeload in that way? Are there any proposals for the Duchess of York to pay back her illicit use of those freebie opportunities?

Mr. Newton

I have no plans for such a debate.

Mr. David Congdon (Croydon, North-East)

While I recognise that the debate on the IGC White Paper, which my right hon. Friend announced earlier, provides an opportunity to debate a whole range of issues concerning Europe, given the growing tendency of the European Court to pass judgments that laws passed democratically by the House are illegal, will he consider finding time for a debate on the sovereignty of the House, because it is of fundamental and constitutional significance?

Mr. Newton

That question is a curious echo of the one asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in relation to a debate on the constitution. At the moment, I shall rest on the debate that I have already announced in respect of the IGC.

Mr. Greg Pope (Hyndburn)

The Leader of the House may be aware of early-day motion 559, regarding redundancies among lecturing staff at Accrington and Rossendale further education college.

[That this House notes with extreme concern the number of lecturers being made redundant at Accrington and Rossendale FE College and the consequent disruption of students' courses and loss of educational amenity; further notes that this disgraceful state of affairs is being repeated at further education colleges in other parts of the country; believes that the root cause of this scandal is the funding mechanism put in place by the Further Education Funding Council at the behest of the Government following the incorporation of the colleges; and calls on the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to intervene immediately to ensure proper funding of existing further education courses, an end to redundancies amongst academic staff and the restoration of public confidence in the further education sector.]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in expressing concern about those redundancies and the consequent disruption to students' courses. He must be aware that that position is being repeated in FE colleges throughout the country. Will he therefore find time for a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House, to discuss the funding mechanism for further education colleges?

Mr. Newton

There are some attractions in such a debate, because I judge that the Government's policies towards further education have been a very considerable success—that is certainly the view of the colleges with which I have a connection. Beyond that, I would say simply that it is for colleges to manage staffing levels in accordance with their needs and student numbers, and that Government funding for further education continues to increase.

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)

As a statutory instrument has been laid concerning the storage of frozen human embryos, the effect of which will be to increase the maximum time that those embryos can be stored from five years, will my right hon. Friend please find time for a debate on that subject, from which fundamental, and contentious issues arise? Although many hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree with the extension of the time, they would want to discuss the moral issues that arise.

Mr. Newton

I note the point that my hon. Friend makes, which might also be made by one or two—perhaps more—of my hon. Friends and perhaps other hon. Members. I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

If the Prime Minister is not going to make a statement about his trip to Hong Kong and about how much money he gathered in for the Tory party when he met business people there, will he ensure that figures showing the amounts are placed in the Library, so that everyone can see exactly how much was obtained for the Tory party for the next general election?

Will the Leader of the House take up the point that I raised on Monday 4 March with Madam Speaker, when I called for a debate on the future of the monarchy and Madam Speaker kindly suggested that it would be up to the Leader of the House to move the appropriate motion? Will he move that motion?

Mr. Newton

I think that I indicated last week, and I am happy to indicate again, that I have no plans to do so.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on early-day motion 584?

[That this House condemns the Iranian government's continued persecution of adherents to the Baha'i faith, a persecution which has resulted in 201 deaths and 15 disappearances since 1979, the current imprisonment of five Baha'is held because of their religious beliefs, the continued confiscation of Baha'i personal and community property, the dismissal of Baha'is from employment on purely religious grounds, the denial of higher education to Baha'i youth and the general denial of civil rights to adherents of that faith; and calls on the United Kingdom Government, the European Union and the United Nations to pursue all available means to effect a change in the Iranian government's treatment of members of the Baha'i religion.]

Does my right hon. Friend believe that it is wrong that, at this stage in our civilisation, individuals in Iran should be persecuted because of their religious faith? It is intolerable to all decent-minded people that Iran should be living in the middle ages rather than the 20th century.

Mr. Newton

Of course, I endorse my hon. Friend's general point about persecution of people for their religious views, and we do indeed deplore the continued persecution of the Baha'is in Iran. We and our European partners will continue to express our deep concern about that to the Iranian Government and in the United Nations at every suitable opportunity.