HC Deb 29 January 1998 vol 305 cc518-26 4.29 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor)

Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

MONDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill (Fourth Day).

TUESDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill (Fifth Day).

WEDNESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).

Remaining stages of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Motion on the English revenue support grant report.

FRIDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.

MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [7th allotted day].

Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on the Child Support Agency on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. The subject for the second half of the day to be announced.

TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Third Day).

Motion relating to the beef bones regulations.

WEDNESDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Until 7 pm, motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports.

Consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.

THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Fourth Day).

FRIDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

Last week, I said that my hon. Friend the Minister for Women had asked for a debate, but that no date had yet been fixed. Her request was echoed by Conservative Members. I am pleased to be able to give early notice to the House that there will be a debate on women, on Friday 27 February.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk)

I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. I say again to her—I say it each week, but it is appreciated—that it is useful for the House to have notice of two weeks' business. I thank her for her response to our request for a debate on women. I also appreciate the fact that a thorough airing of devolution issues relating to Wales and Scotland is possible because of the amount of time allocated to the Bills' Committee stages on the Floor of the House.

I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Lady said, but heard no mention of a debate on the national health service, which I asked about last week. As I said then—I think that she did just acknowledge it—there have been a number of statements and policy developments in the national health service. We have not had a debate on it since July, and the Opposition called that debate. We now await announcements on the future of London hospitals and on a public health Green Paper. I therefore hope that we can have a debate on the national health service quite soon.

I believe that the right hon. Lady's instinct is for openness in the House. Indeed, that attitude illuminates a great deal of the work that is being done by the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. Last week, she assured the House that there have been no changes to the ministerial code of conduct in respect of overseas trips for Ministers. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said the same—although he said it so irritably that the roof of the Chamber fell in overnight.

Given that the code uses the word "spouse" throughout; that, before 1 May, it was spouses who accompanied Ministers; and that Government sources have been quoted widely in the press as saying that Ministers are now free to decide whether their partners count as spouses, it was a bit disingenuous of the right hon. Lady, and perhaps against her instincts, to say last week that the code had not been changed. Would it not have been more open to admit that, while the wording of the code may not have been changed, Government practice has, without the House having been informed? Will she therefore make a statement on the new and changed practice in relation to the code, if only for the benefit of taxpayers, who, after all, are footing the bill? Will she also arrange for the House to be told whether that changed practice is to be extended, for example, to Her Majesty's forces' entitlement to travel, or whether, in their case, travel at public expense is limited—rightly, in my view—to serving personnel, their husbands, wives and children?

Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate on the public sector pay awards, which are being announced this afternoon? If, as has been widely trailed in the press, the pay awards are to be staged—they may not be, of course—will she arrange for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to explain to the House how it was last year that the then shadow Chief Secretary described such staging as a "deception" and an "admission of failure" and to tell us how he proposes to describe the Government's staging of the award this year?

On the subject of public sector pay, will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement on the cost to the taxpayer of the early dismissal of Anne Bullen before her contract had expired, in the continuing saga of the Foreign Secretary's diary arrangements?

Finally, will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Minister of Transport to explain to the House why he is introducing a tax on new cars with effect from 1 April? That tax was not included in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget last July and, inevitably, its details have been announced by press release and not to the House. Although that demonstrates the Government's customary attitude towards the democratic process, it is nevertheless an abuse of the House.

Mrs. Taylor

The right hon. Lady's first point was about the debate on women. I am pleased that we have been able to arrange that. As I said last week, the Minister for Women has requested such a debate and has suggested a date that we have now agreed. It is good that both sides of the House want such a debate.

I am glad that the right hon. Lady welcomes the progress that has been made on both devolution Bills and the airing that they are getting on the Floor of the House. We should also place on record our gratitude to those serving on the Business Committee, who make sure that the Bills are handled in the appropriate way.

The right hon. Lady asked for another debate on the national health service. As I explained last week, we have a packed parliamentary programme—however, we have much to say about the national health service. She mentioned the Green Paper and the fact that there may soon be an announcement on London hospitals. I shall consider the possibility of statements being made to the House on one or both of those issues.

The right hon. Lady then referred back to the point that she made last week and which the Leader of the Opposition—very unwisely, I think—made yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time, in respect of the code of conduct. The issue is not worthy of the right hon. Lady, and I do not feel that anything needs to be said in addition to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. As for the roof of this building, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is claiming credit for that. However, you, Madam Speaker, have assured us that everything is safe.

In respect of the public sector pay awards, the right hon. Lady is correct that the announcement is being made, as is usual practice, by way of a parliamentary answer this afternoon. There has been no reversal of previous policy. Last year, we opposed local bargaining, which was bureaucratic and administratively extremely difficult, and caused much resentment in the national health service.

In respect of the dismissal of the diary secretary of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, there is a debate on that next week, but of course the lady concerned was on a fixed contract, having been appointed from outside the civil service by a previous occupant of that office.

I can add nothing about tax changes. The right hon. Lady and her colleagues will have to wait for the Budget.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Speaker

There are at least two hon. Members who came into the Chamber at the end of the Leader of the House's statement. They will not be called to put questions because they did not hear the entire business statement

Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland)

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is rightly seeking to modernise the welfare state, to deal with the dependency culture and to encourage citizens to be more self-reliant. Could we have a statement next week on the issues arising from the case of my constituent who was self-reliant, took out an insurance policy and then found that the income that he derived from it was deducted from his jobseeker's allowance? He is left with only £3 a week to live on. There are 7 million people with similar insurance. Some £1.2 billion of insurance income is involved. Local authorities might have to reclaim more than £1 billion from claimants of housing benefit because of the new situation?

Mrs. Taylor

I recall that case from a few weeks ago. As I remember, there had not been a change in the rules. The interaction of all those matters can be taken into account in the welfare reform debate. There will be a Green Paper setting out the principles underlying the direction of welfare reform. My right hon. Friend and others will have an opportunity to contribute their ideas then.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I welcome the Liberal Democrat Supply day, for which we are grateful, and the opportunity to debate our motion on the beef on the bone ban—an opportunity that is warmly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the motion will receive all-party support.

As the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) has just said, there is widespread concern about the operation of the jobseeker's allowance. There is a specific problem coming down the track. Early-day motion 689 has all-party support.

[That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1998, (S.1., 1998, No. 71), dated 15th January 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be annulled.]

I notice that the leader of the Conservative party and members of other parties have added their names to the motion. I hope that we shall have an early opportunity to debate that important issue.

The Leader of the House was in her place last night to hear the statement on the channel tunnel rail link and the points that were made after it. I am sure that she will acknowledge the importance of the issue. The Deputy Prime Minister said several times that he had come early to the House—we all welcomed that—with only a bald interim statement. Several hon. Members on both sides raised some very important issues, but we did not have the benefit of a detailed assessment of the situation.

Will the Leader of the House assure us that, during the 30-day consultation period with London and Continental Railways, we shall have an opportunity to understand the issues and the criteria that the Deputy Prime Minister will use to assess the options? The matter has great implications for other private and public institutions. We do not want a witch hunt back to 1990, to see what Lord Parkinson did or did not do, but it is important, given the huge sums involved, that the House should have an opportunity to understand the options for progress.

Mrs. Taylor

I am glad that we were able to provide the Opposition day that the Liberal Democrats wanted. I look forward to hearing the second topic for debate, which I shall announce next week.

The beef on the bone regulations are up for discussion. I know about the rivalry to get a name on such a prayer.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to find time for a debate on the statutory instrument on the jobseeker's allowance. As he knows, any such requests are discussed through the usual channels in the normal way.

The House appreciated my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister coming here as soon as possible after the news about the channel tunnel rail link was confirmed at 8 pm last night. Hon. Members on both sides were pleased that the fullest information available was given directly to the House. My right hon. Friend said that he would try to keep the House informed as much as possible, although there could be delicate and difficult negotiations in the next 30 days. It may not always be appropriate for all the information to be in the public domain. Given my right hon. Friend's start in informing the House last night, we can be confident about his intentions to keep the House informed.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Having sat through every Welsh and Scottish devolution debate, may I be forgiven for asking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a question of which I gave her office notice? Could not three hours be found for a debate that goes further than a private notice question—I thank Madam Speaker for Monday's question—on the desperate situation that might result in this country going to war in the Gulf? Could certain issues be made clear arising from Madeleine Albright's visit? In particular, what are the precise objectives of bombing biochemical and biological installations—assuming that they exist—in the light of my question, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence promised to reply shortly, on the specific issue of bombs landing on anthrax or botulinus installations? What would be the effects of released spores? Those problems ought to be discussed before we get into a mire that could cause endless difficulty in the middle east, where we seem to have no Arab support.

Mrs. Taylor

When my hon. Friend raised the issue last week, I said that we would keep the House informed whenever possible of any developments. We hope that diplomatic efforts will succeed. The Ministry of Defence has carried out theoretical modelling based on the worst case scenario of bombing installations containing anthrax, assessing the risk to military operations that might result from the destruction of enemy biological production and storage facilities. I repeat that we desperately hope for diplomatic progress. I know that my hon. Friend has different views on the importance of the issue, but I hope that he accepts that the Government will try to keep the House informed on that difficult subject.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

Could we have a debate on the Government's commitment to the principles of the social chapter? Could it be focused on their long-standing wish to protect people with short-term contracts, particularly women? Will the Leader of the House promise that the debate will be replied to by the Foreign Secretary?

Mrs. Taylor

I see no need for such a debate.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

I welcome the plan for a debate on women. Perhaps it will concentrate on the real needs of women, not on cheap jibes about a tiny number of women who have been in the papers lately. I have a serious point. I am disappointed that the debate is to take place on a Friday. That does not seem to be a good choice. Is there a good reason why the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) chose a Friday and why the Government agreed? A normal business day would have been better for a discussion on the wide range of issues affecting women in Britain.

Mrs. Taylor

I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the debate in principle. I am not surprised, given the interest that she has shown in women's issues for many years. I am sure that she will talk about the real needs of women if she is able to catch your eye in that debate, Madam Speaker. I am sure that, like me, she looks forward to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) being in his seat and perhaps participating.

The Friday in question is designated for Government business. As a Scottish Member, my hon. Friend will understand that there are constraints on time because of the need to debate the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)

Particularly in the light of the Prime Minister's sanctimonious words in answers to questions yesterday and on other occasions about the importance of issues relating to women in the workplace, will the Leader of the House consider not only a debate to address the specific issue mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but a statement from herself or one of her right hon. Friends, releasing Anne Bullen from the ban on her speaking, so that she is able to respond to the campaign of vilification that is being waged against her by the Foreign Secretary, his henchmen and Labour spin doctors?

Mrs. Taylor

I do not think that that comment is even worthy of an answer. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of next week's Adjournment debate.

Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

May I also ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations? In doing so, I draw her attention to early-day motion 709.

[That this House notes that the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations, which increase waiting days from three to seven, was proposed and announced by the previous Tory Government in November 1996; observes that the Social Security Advisory Committee has said the proposal 'would add unacceptably to the hardship experienced by unemployed people and their families' and that 'people will be less likely to take the risk of starting casual work or work of short duration' and has advised the Government not to proceed with it; regrets that the Labour Government is nevertheless proceeding with these Tory regulations in order to save £65 million but also notes that the Tory front bench has changed its position and is now opposing its own proposal; and therefore calls on the Government to withdraw these Tory regulations which even the Tories have now deserted.]

Many Labour Members are perplexed by why the Government are introducing the measure, which the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended against and which seems to be in direct conflict with the initiatives that the Government are rightly taking to encourage unemployed people to find work.

Mrs. Taylor

I think that I made it clear earlier that, when it comes to debating any such issues, there is a great deal of pressure on the House's time. We have discussions and consultations and, of course, I take them all into account. I cannot promise my hon. Friend the debate that she wants.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)

Two weeks ago at business questions, I asked the Leader of the House to look into a situation in which the Foreign Secretary had knowingly or otherwise given an inaccurate response to a question that I had asked him in the Chamber. I took the precaution of tabling a written question. The answer confirmed, in the words of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), that I did not receive an accurate response. About three hours ago, I received a letter from the Leader of the House, which simply says that she is satisfied that the Minister of State's answer accurately set out the position. That was not my point. My concern was that the Foreign Secretary had inaccurately answered my question, not whether his Minister of State has answered it.

I understand that, in 1956, Harold Macmillan described the life of a Foreign Secretary as for ever poised between a cliche and an indiscretion. It is clear that the Foreign Secretary has lost that poise. From his behaviour, it seems that he has also lost all respect for the House of Commons. Will the Leader of the House look again at the facts and ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to put the record straight?

Mrs. Taylor

I have nothing to add to what I said to the hon. Gentleman in my letter.

Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton)

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the tragedy that struck in my constituency on 15 December, when three elderly constituents died in a fire in a private care home. Can we have a debate on fire precautions in private care homes? Such accommodation is not subject to fire inspections because of its size. I consider the event in my constituency a marker for what could happen in many other constituencies. The rules should be changed, and a debate would help us to achieve the changes for which people are asking.

Mrs. Taylor

I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern at the tragedy in his constituency. I cannot promise him a debate on fire precautions in the way that he suggests, but perhaps he would consider applying to you, Madam Speaker, for an Adjournment debate. For my part, I shall certainly bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

In view of the widespread interest in foreign affairs, will the Leader of the House grant us an early debate on the subject to allow the Foreign Secretary an opportunity to explain his relations with the Minister responsible for foreign affairs in Cuba? The matter relates to early-day motion 671.

[That this House warmly welcomes the visit of His Holiness the Pope to Cuba; and believes that his spiritual leadership and courageous personal example will be an inspiration to the people of Cuba now as they were to people behind the Iron Curtain during the dark days of the Cold War who similarly suffered too long under state-sponsored atheism and authoritarian Marxist government.]

The early-day motion was tabled following the visit of His Holiness the Pope to the island and refers to the issues and hopes that the visit raised.

Mrs. Taylor

We cannot have a specific debate on that in the near future, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to Ministers' attention.

Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley)

Given that the Government's policy to reduce value added tax on fuel is bringing many benefits to everyone across the country—to businesses, charities and pensioners—including 17,000 pensioners in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on such benefits, and particularly the gains of reducing VAT on home insulation?

Mrs. Taylor

My hon. Friend raises an important topic, and one that is of benefit to many pensioners in his constituency and in mine, nearby. The fact that we kept our election pledge on VAT on fuel and reversed the Conservative party's trend of increasing it has been of great assistance to many, as are the payments to pensioners that are being made at present.

Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West)

Yesterday, during the Scotland Bill's first day in Committee, many amendments were not discussed. I know that that often happens, but the Scotland Bill is a constitutional Bill of great importance. Is it possible, either through the Business Committee that is considering the matter, or in other ways, for people with more knowledge and skill than I have in such matters to devise a method whereby all amendments are properly considered—either through better timetabling or use of time in the House, or even by having a separate Committee to mop up the amendments that are not discussed? It is very unsatisfactory that some amendments to a major constitutional Bill are never considered.

Mrs. Taylor

I think that the Business Committee has done quite a good job. In fact, most hon. Members have been very happy with the progress that has been made. It is always difficult to satisfy every hon. Member's desire to participate on every occasion, but we have been working quite well so far.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have a debate on short-term contracts and so on, we should first get it clear in our mind that the Leader of the Opposition is at the head of the list, and that the debate is called "Waiting for Portillo"? Next, the debate should be broad enough to ensure that we deal with Tory explanations for sacking Clive Ponting—that civil servant of yesteryear—and Sarah Tisdall. Let the Tories explain that. They should also explain why they sacked thousands of customs officers—civil servants—which resulted in havoc at all Britain's ports. If we are to have such a debate, let it be broad enough to relate to all those sackings, including, some time ago, that of the secretary agent in the Richmond offices of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs. Taylor

Fortunately, I have no responsibility for the agent at the Leader of the Opposition's offices. From what my hon. Friend says, he would need more than one day for the debate that he envisages. I am glad that he has raised some of those important points, including the one about customs officers and the fact that we have reversed the cuts on which the Conservative party embarked. It is gratifying to notice some very good drug hauls recently, which are partly as a result of having in place extremely diligent customs officers. I do not think that I can find time to debate all the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)

Can the right hon. Lady arrange an early debate on the flow of information to Members of Parliament? She kindly answered a question in the House a few days ago about the time that it takes to obtain answers from Ministers to hon. Members' letters. She may have seen on the Order Paper that, yesterday, I tabled questions to 19 different Departments asking about their record on replying. She will also see two questions about the contract of employment of Mrs. Bullen.

As the Opposition—and, I suspect, Labour Members too—are having great difficulty in getting answers in a timely manner, will the right hon. Lady ensure that that happens? If we do not have a debate, will she at least use her best offices to ensure that she looks after the rights of the House ahead of the embarrassment of the Government?

Mrs. Taylor

The Government have a responsibility to answer questions in as short a time scale as possible, but hon. Members also have a responsibility to bear in mind the cost of answering parliamentary questions, and they should table responsible questions.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

May I refer the right hon. Lady to the final part of her answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)? Nobody could possibly expect her to know about everything that emanates from the Government, but may I draw her attention to the fact that on 15 January the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a press release saying that there would be a new tax on motoring—in effect, a car ownership tax—from 1 April, set at "about £25"?

That tax was not mentioned in the Chancellor's Budget statement in July, and the next Budget statement is not expected for some weeks. Will the right hon. Lady please give clarification, and an opportunity to debate the matter?

Mrs. Taylor

The hon. Gentleman says that the press release gave some idea of the nature of the tax, not that it was a precise proposal. Indeed, he used the word "about" in his description of it. I shall look into the matter, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that Transport questions are scheduled for next Tuesday, and it may be possible to raise it then. I shall make further inquiries about the precise wording of the press release that he asked me about.