Business of the House (Hansard, 24 October 1996)

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)
As the House is ware, the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech will be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday 30 October, and you, Madam Speaker, have already indicated the pattern of that debate.
Following the conclusion of the debate on the Address, the business will be as follows:
THURSDAY 31 OCTOBER—Proceedings on the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill.
FRIDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Debate on the improving schools programme on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
In the week commencing 4 November, I envisage that a number of Bills will be set down for Second Reading, which will be published either later today or tomorrow.
There will be Government business on Thursday 7 November.
FRIDAY 8 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
In the week beginning 11 November, I envisage that Government business will be taken on each day and that there will be a number of other Second Readings of Bills to be published either this week or next. I can give one piece of information, which I hope will be helpful to the House, about the Thursday of that week. I propose that on Thursday 14 November there will be a debate on Hong Kong on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The debate will be opened by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

§ Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)
I thank the Leader of the House for that information and for responding to our requests for another debate on Hong Kong.
As hon. Members will be aware, this will be a particularly short Session, and it is even more important than usual that the House has as much notice as possible of forthcoming business. I trust that the Leader of the House will try to keep us informed on that basis and I hope that he can confirm this afternoon that he will shortly be able to tell us the days which will be available for Second Reading of private Members' Bills and, indeed, which days will be constituency Fridays.
It would also help the House if the Leader of the House could give an indication, on an on-going basis, of when the Bills contained in the Queen's Speech are expected to be published, including, of course, the Bill to set up a 122 paedophile register and the Bill to outlaw stalking, both of which the Prime Minister accepted yesterday should be Government Bills.
Following on from that, I should like to raise a question about the procedure that will be adopted on the guns Bill. The Home Secretary has said that he wants that Bill to be enacted as quickly as possible, and I think that that is common to both sides of the House, but can the Leader of the House give some indication of the time scale of that Bill? Given the very deep and serious concern in the country as a whole, will he urge his colleagues to think again about their refusal to allow a free vote on the important issues regarding the control of handguns, about which many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned?
Finally, as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has not asked to come and give a statement to the House about the latest evidence on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and as the lobby of farmers yesterday confirmed our worst fears about the chaos surrounding the Government's management of the BSE crisis, when will the Minister of Agriculture make a statement to Parliament about the crisis, or is he too frightened to appear before the House?

§ Mr. Newton
Perhaps I might take the last point first, because, of course, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture answered a private notice question on these matters in the House on our first day back in the spillover from the previous Session, so I hope that the hon. Lady will not feel it reasonable to press the implicit charge that she makes. I simply do not agree with the implicit charge that she made in the last part of her remarks.
As for research, my understanding is that the research published today confirms—or provides additional evidence—that there may be a link between BSE and the new strain of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Everything that the Government have done since advice was received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee earlier in the year has been based exactly on that proposition. Indeed, it could be said that Government policy has proceeded on that basis for some six years now, because, earlier, action was taken that went beyond what the scientific advice strictly required at the time. I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on what she said.
On a slightly different note, I was grateful to the hon. Lady for her acknowledgement of the advance notice that I gave of a debate on Hong Kong. As she rightly said, the Opposition have been asking for such a debate for some time. I am glad to have been able to respond.
I will, of course, give as much notice as possible of business. Given that none of the Bills has yet been published, the hon. Lady will appreciate the difficulties. However, much of her curiosity will be satisfied in the next 48 hours, and even more in the next nine or 10 days.
I readily undertake to give early information about the dates on which private Members' business will be taken, and the dates on which Government Fridays and. constituency Fridays—non-sitting days—will fall.
We will publish the two Bills to which the hon. Lady referred as soon as possible. They were the subject of exchanges yesterday, and in accordance with the undertakings given, we will ensure that the Opposition are kept informed. However, I am unable to give definite dates now.
123 On the procedures with regard to the firearms legislation, I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. It is our aim to publish the Bill either before the end of this month or shortly afterwards.

§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)
At the start of a new Session, we welcome the fact that the Lord President is still in office. Will he consider the procedural reports that have not been debated, two or three of which would benefit from the views of the whole House being expressed? Will he bear in mind the possibility of finding a half day—if not this week or next week, at least in the near future—in which we could have that debate?

§ Mr. Newton
I greatly value the reports produced by the Procedure Committee, and am always mindful of my right hon. Friend's requests. However, at this particular moment I am dealing with a large number of requests for debates on Second Readings of various Bills. I may have to put those requests ahead of his, but I will bear it in mind.

§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)
May I press the Leader of the House on the issue of a statement about the research on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? In seven months, scientists have produced some important and useful research. Should not that research have been available long ago? They have had seven or eight years to examine those results. Is not it extremely important that one of the responsible Ministers—none of whom will take part in the debate on the Loyal Address—comes before the House, explains the significance of this research for the eradication policy and, in particular, explains why that policy is months behind schedule? The promises that the Prime Minister made after the Florence meeting have all been broken, so why should we believe any new promises?

§ Mr. Newton
I cannot add to what I said to the hon. Lady. I will bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that speedy and agreed measures often lead to ill-considered and bad legislation, which is what happened with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989? Is there a danger that the House, in its sympathy for the parents of Dunblane, will forget the legitimate arguments of the people who practise their skills in gun clubs? Would not it be better to have a careful debate on the Adjournment before we rush into legislation on the control of heavy-calibre pistols?

§ Mr. Newton
There is a general desire for action to be taken as a matter of urgency. That is not being done quite as hastily as my hon. Friend suggests. Lord Cullen made a long and careful study of these matters in the interval since the Dunblane shootings. I have no doubt that in the wake of that report, and in response to concerns in the country, the view of the House will be that it is right to make early progress.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Has the Leader of the House seen a transcript of the remarkable 124 speech on the private finance initiative made by the Chancellor of Exchequer two years ago? The Chancellor apparently wants to restrict the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General to undertake value-for-money investigations of PFI contracts. In so far as the Comptroller and Auditor General is an Officer of the House and the Chancellor is part of the Executive, is it not an abuse of an Officer of the House to make such a statement and should not there be a full statement from the Dispatch Box?

§ Mr. Newton
I have not read the transcript but I have read a copy of the speech that I found in my box a few nights ago. I read it with some care and I do not regard it as saying what the hon. Gentleman says it says.

§ Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford)
Is it possible to arrange for a debate in Government time on the constitutional arrangements by which the country is governed, given that many Conservative Members wish to demonstrate our opposition to any changes affecting the working and composition of the House of Lords, to regional government, to the recreation of the Greater London council and to devolution for Scotland and Wales?

§ Mr. Newton
In the light of the pressures to which I have referred on our business in the next few weeks, I cannot make an immediate promise of such a debate. However, I congratulate my hon. Friend on making in such crisp and hard-hitting form the speech that he would make if there were to be such a debate.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Will the Leader of the House have a word with the appropriate Minister about the reduction in war pensions for those who were in the far east during the second world war? They received pensions arising from their duty at the time and recently some of them and some widows have had their pensions reduced because at the time the service men were smoking. As the Leader of the House used to be in charge of social security and is a heavy smoker, does not he have a little sympathy for those people who, 50 years ago, were not aware, as people are today, of the consequences of smoking? In any case, they were smoking because of the severe stress under which they were placed. May we have a statement on that and can the matter be reviewed?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that for some time I was the Minister responsible for these matters. I know how difficult they can be and he may be assured that I have great sympathy for those whose war pensions for disablement or death arising from service in the forces are in question. However, I have to underline that that is the basis of the policy. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will look carefully at what has been said about this case. It is important to remember that the scheme provides benefits when disablement or death are attributable to service in the armed forces.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
May we have a debate next week on the provision of leisure facilities so that I may put before the House the great difficulties that are faced by many riding schools? I am president of the Association of British Riding Schools, but I am not paid for that. The issue should be brought before the 125 House because many of those admirable institutions are being put out of business, thus denying riding facilities to many poor and ordinary people as well as denying a good and sensible living to those who run them.

§ Mr. Newton
I would not wish to dismiss my hon. Friend's legitimate concerns. However, it sounds like an appropriate subject for my hon. Friend to pursue on a Wednesday morning or in a daily Adjournment debate, and I am sure that he will seek to enlist your sympathy in that respect, Madam Speaker.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
Why have we not had a statement today from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this morning's European Court judgment on the VAT sixth directive? Hon. Members in all parts of the House and people in business have been telling the Government and the Treasury for some time that their proposals on VAT were unfair, unsound and open to legal challenge. As the potential bill for this and similar cases could run to many billions of pounds and make the Chancellor's predecessor's activities on black Wednesday look small in comparison, is it not high time that a Treasury Minister came to the Dispatch Box to tell us the exact consequences and implications of that court judgment?

§ Mr. Newton
Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman appears to be engaging in a certain amount of hyperbole, but, as with many legal judgments, the first thing to do is to study the terms of this one carefully. I am advised, however—and this is where he was exaggerating—that, at the most extreme, the loss would be around £200 million, not the billions to which he refers, and that back tax would be payable only if traders could substantiate claims going back 23 years.

§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made on the amount of expenditure on the national health service? He will be aware that, yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said that the last Labour Administration spent more in real terms on the health service than the current Conservative Government. It turns out that House of Commons Library statistics show that the Conservative Government spend in real terms some 40 per cent. more than the last Labour Administration. This matter needs to be put straight, as I am sure that the leader of the Labour party did not mean to mislead the House.

§ Mr. Newton
The point was very well made in an intervention yesterday afternoon and it was not answered. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's further point will in due course elicit a response from the Leader of the Opposition.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
In the first tranche of Second Reading Bills, will there be one dealing with the decommissioning of weapons, or is the delay since March due to the fact that perhaps both the Irish Government and Her Majesty's Government are not convinced that there will be a genuine ceasefire and do not wish to waste the House's time?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman knows that the reasons for giving careful consideration to these matters are not quite as he seeks to suggest. I cannot say that I 126 expect the decommissioning Bill to be among the first tranche, but he will know that reference was made to it in the Gracious Speech.

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
When can the House have an opportunity to debate the increased social damage that the intended bi-weekly Camelot lotteries will cause to poorer members throughout every community in the country, in every constituency in the country?

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman will know that this follows a judgment, by the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery, under his responsibilities, that granting this application is consistent with the duties placed on him under the legislation, but both he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will monitor carefully the effect of the introduction of a midweek lottery and they will take into account the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)
Can my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to discuss sport, particularly the Prime Minister's excellent proposal in relation to the British academy of sport. to give hon. Members the opportunity to talk about the excellent facilities that might be available in their constituencies? I am especially interested in pressing the case of Portland as the best place for a British academy of sport.

§ Mr. Newton
I take note, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, of the pressure of the constituency interest, which I well understand. On the main thrust of the question, it is an attractive subject for a debate and I will bear it in mind.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about firearms legislation? Is he aware that the reputation not just of the Government or the Opposition, but of Parliament is at stake? Following the Dunblane massacre, people in Britain were concerned about handguns and they are not giving in—and I hope that we will not—to the gun lobby. It seems inconceivable that Parliament will not have a free vote. Surely on such an issue there is every possible case for such a vote. As the Government have already climbed down on two matters yesterday, why do they not climb down on this issue and allow Members to have a free vote on whether we want a full ban on handguns?

§ Mr. Newton
I indicated to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I hope courteously, that I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, and I am not going to do so in response to the hon. Gentleman either.

§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)
Does the Leader of the House share my astonishment at the Home Secretary's view that the quickest way to get legislation on to the statute book is by means of the private Member's Bill procedure? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on parliamentary procedure and confirm that the majority of the Bills introduced by the 20 hon. Members who are lucky enough to be successful in the ballot never reach the statute book? Even the Bills that do reach the 127 statute book take several months to do so. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern at the Home Secretary's ignorance of basic parliamentary facts?

§ Mr. Newton
On the contrary, I have been given some reason for concern in the last 30 seconds about the hon. Gentleman's understanding of parliamentary procedure and what occurs with private Members' Bills.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)
When President Clinton was in Ireland, masses of people turned out in Belfast and Dublin wearing white ribbons to support the cause of peace. Today is Ceasefire Now Day in Ireland, as can be seen from early-day motion 42.
[That this House notes that the Solidarity to Organise Peace (STOP) group is organising a Ceasefire Now Day on Thursday 24th October throughout the Irish Republic and for which they are asking for one minute's silence in memory of Warrant Officer James Bradwell, who was murdered at the Thiepval barracks in Lisburn; notes that on this day STOP will urge the Provisional IRA to call an immediate ceasefire, as desired by 71 per cent. of their own voters according to a poll in the Irish News, and will encourage the loyalist paramilitaries to maintain their own two year old ceasefire; and encourages all those who sympathise with this initiative to wear white ribbons in solidarity.]
As a result, people in Ireland are repeating the exercise to which I referred. The demand for peace has not gone away. Is there some means by which the House can show its sympathy with that cause, such as a minute's silence for the warrant officer who was killed at Lisburn, and with the demands that the IRA should enter into a ceasefire—even if it only takes the form of the right hon. Gentleman's reply?

§ Mr. Newton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, and I am happy to respond. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to raise those matters and make his points. I would like, as would everybody else in the House, to support the efforts of groups—wherever they may be—working for a peaceful and lasting settlement in Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South)
I suggest that the Secretary of State for Health addresses the House along the lines of his speech to the Association of Directors of Social Services last week, when he suggested that the future role of social services departments should be limited to purchasing. That comment seems ill-timed in view of the national report on child abuse, which obviously envisages social services departments continuing their current major role in dealing with child abuse.

§ Mr. Newton
From my knowledge of such matters, for which I have also had responsibility as a Minister, I believe 128 that the hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair. None of the reports that I read of my right hon. Friend's remarks suggested anything other than a determination to ensure proper registration and inspection schemes for homes of whatever kind. The issue is how that is best achieved.

§ Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)
As the national lottery was mentioned a few moments ago, does my right hon. Friend consider that the time is right for a further general debate on that subject this winter—particularly in view of the national lottery's tremendous success in raising sums of money for the arts, the national heritage, sport and charities, which is a brilliant national achievement?