Business of the House

HC Deb 11 February 1999 vol 325 cc470-83 12.57 pm

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

Will the Leader of the House tell us the business of the House for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the House of Lords Bill [1st Day]

TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the House of Lords Bill [2nd Day]

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

MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

Motion on the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. (Amnesty Period) Order.

TUESDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.

WEDNESDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the Third Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on Composition, Recruitment and Training of the RUC, followed by a debate on the Sixth Report from the Agriculture Committee on Flood and Coastal Defence. Followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Rating (Valuation) Bill.

The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.

THURSDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

The House will also wish to know that on Monday 15 February there will be a debate on Agenda 2000: Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in European Standing Committee A. [Mr. Rooker].

On Wednesday 24 February there will be a debate on VAT Fraud in Intra-Community Trade, the Independent Fraud Office and the Court of Auditors Annual Report for 1997 in European Standing Committee B.[Ms Hewitt]. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Monday 15th February: European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Committee document: Unnumbered EM, submitted by MAFF on 20 November 1998; Agenda 2000:Refonn of the Common Agricultural Policy. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports:HC 34-ii (1998–99) and HC 34-ix (1998–99).

Wednesday 24 February: European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: OJC 349, Court of Auditors report for 1997;14031/98, Independent Fraud Office:10786/98, VAT Fraud in intra-community trade;Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports:HC 34-vi, HC 34-vii and HC 34-viii (1998–99).]

Sir George Young

The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for the announcement of next week's business, and for an indication of business for the following week. Will she find time for a debate on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on the Sierra Leone fiasco? Not only does the report contain devastating criticism of the Foreign Office, but the Government have made it clear that they dispute the findings. Does that not make it even more imperative to debate the report at an early stage, so that the House can decide for itself whom to believe?

Can we also debate the Defence Select Committee report on the Territorial Army? Will the right hon. Lady halt the growing practice of Ministers rubbishing Select Committee reports in advance? Before the Defence Select Committee report was even published, the Minister for the Armed Forces said that he would reject any criticism. Will the right hon. Lady condemn that contemptuous approach to the House and its Select Committees?

The Greater London Authority Bill is in Committee again next week. I understand that it is being substantially amended, which suggests either a lack of preparation or some change in policy. May we have an assurance that the Committee will have adequate time to consider those substantial amendments before they are debated?

I understand that the Chancellor will shortly be publishing a document about the euro—the outline national changeover plan—an important publication on an important subject. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that the Chancellor will make a statement to the House on that occasion? Will he be able to explain why Mr. Oskar Lafontaine is able to write an article in today's The Daily Telegraph saying that he is in step with the Prime Minister on Europe, although, yesterday, one Minister endorsed criticism of the German presidency for its proposals to tax the British art market?

In respect of the White Paper on the House of Lords, will the right hon. Lady reflect on what she said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and me, and agree that it would be right for the House to debate such an important constitutional reform in Government time?

Finally, can we expect next week a statement on the talks on Kosovo?

Mrs. Beckett

The right hon. Gentleman asked me for an opportunity to debate the Foreign Affairs Committee report. As he said, it has only just appeared, and the House has already had an opportunity to debate the issues fully. The Government will, of course, give careful consideration to both the report and our reaction to it, but I understand that the report does not take us much further than the position that we reached at the end of the Legg inquiry. Nevertheless, I undertake to consider that request.

The right hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary to discuss those matters so that we could decide whom to believe. As I have said, I understand that little new has emerged from the report, other than what was known on the publication of the Legg report. The question of whom to believe therefore does not arise in the way implied by the right hon. Gentleman.

As for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Territorial Army, I did not hear the remarks to which he referred, and I would be very surprised if my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces had rejected the findings of a report. I am sure that he would have said what is the case—that there has been full consultation about the Territorial Army, which will provide the background to the Government's reaction.

I share some of the right hon. Gentleman's concern about over-speedy reaction to Select Committee reports, which should indeed be weighed carefully by all hon. Members. I can only say that, if the Opposition perpetuate the practice—for instance, of the shadow Foreign Secretary—of preceding every Select Committee report with a demand for the immediate resignation of the relevant Minister, it is only natural for Ministers to respond. Perhaps each of us can encourage our colleagues not to judge reports before they are published; but the hysterical reaction of Conservative Front Benchers does nothing to encourage such a measured approach.

As for the Greater London Authority Bill, I, like the right hon. Gentleman, dislike the practice that makes extensive amendment necessary during the passage of Bills. That practice grew up under, and was used a good deal by, the last Government. I hope that, following the discussions and proposals of the Modernisation Committee, we shall be able to reduce it gradually, but that will clearly not be possible in the short term. However, I expect that adequate time for consideration of such matters will be available. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have not yet resorted to the last Government's practice of guillotining legislation and then introducing substantial new clauses.

The right hon. Gentleman asked for a statement on the changeover plan. I will bear his remarks in mind. As for the remarks of Minister Lafontaine, he says a number of extremely interesting things, none of which is the direct responsibility of this Government; but we shall bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement when the document is published.

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords. I shall certainly undertake to consider the matter through the usual channels. If we had some indication—which, of course, will not be possible at this stage as we have not quite yet embarked on the Committee stage—of what the Opposition feel will not have been covered in the Committee debates, that would help us in our consideration of his request. It will obviously help us in considering the matter.

I cannot promise a statement on Kosovo next week. It is not clear whether it would be right to make a statement at that point, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is keeping the matter under review. I am sure that, if there is something of substance to announce, he will be anxious to do so.

Ms Jean Corston (Bristol, East)

Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the rights of bereaved parents or relatives either to have knowledge of, or to give consent for, the removal of vital organs from people who die in hospital? That arises from today's news that at least 170 of the babies and children who died in what is now called the Bristol heart operation scandal were buried without their hearts, without the knowledge of parents. As one parent has said today: It is bad enough losing a child. To find out you've not buried them completely is just terrible". One can only imagine parents' grief. The hospital says that it has behaved in accordance with correct procedure. If that is true, can we re-examine the procedure?

Mrs. Beckett

I know that my hon. Friend has been engaged in a long-running campaign on clinical standards and improving health services for her constituents in Bristol. She and our other colleagues in the city are anxious about those matters. It is a difficult and sensitive situation. We can only sympathise with the parents who find themselves yet again at the centre of a media storm that is focusing on what must have been some of the most dreadful events in their lives. I say only that it is my understanding that the Royal College of Pathologists is discussing with the Coroners Society of England and Wales what guidelines should exist in that difficult area, and that Department of Health officials are keeping in touch with developments.

When there has been, for example, a post mortem—understandably, that happened in many of the Bristol cases—it can be standard practice for such organs to be kept, but it is a difficult and delicate matter. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is important that there is openness and proper information—a view that, I think, everyone will share. I assure her that the matter will be looked at, perhaps even by the inquiry that is taking place.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

On behalf of many other parents in other parts of the south-west who have similar concerns to those of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), I endorse the view that the issue of parental permission is very important. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to assure us that it will be attended to.

We endorse the request for a debate in Government time on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report. We do not take the view—nor do any members of the Committee, I understand, from any party—that it simply duplicates the work of the Legg committee. It is important that the House should be given an opportunity to debate its own Select Committee report.

On another important issue for our constituents, did the Leader of the House hear this morning's comment by the spokesman for the train operating companies on the further deterioration in the quality and reliability of train services? He said: The rate of it getting worse is slowing down. Certainly the trains are slowing down, but can she give us an explicit assurance that the Deputy Prime Minister will come to the House and make a statement, preferably in the next two weeks, on his legislative plans for the Strategic Rail Authority, and on what he expects to achieve at the so-called rail summit that he is holding with the various companies later this month?

I am sure that the Leader of the House shares my disappointment that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) did not use the opportunity, as one of the great train robbers himself, to apologise on behalf of the other privateers.

Mrs. Beckett

On the issue of permission, of course, those are issues that will be looked at, but, as the hon. Gentleman may appreciate, no one owns someone else's body and those matters can be difficult. They are delicate and sometimes involve both distress and genuine difficulty in the right decisions being made. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I do not know whether I can give the commitment that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I share the widely held view that there should be proper information on, and understanding of, what is happening and why.

The hon. Gentleman endorsed the call for a debate on the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I take the point that he shares the view that there should be such a debate. I reiterate that the Government will look carefully at the Select Committee report, but I cannot give an undertaking today that there will be a further debate on matters that we have already debated extensively.

I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make a statement in the next two weeks on what is happening in the rail service. I am not sure whether it is sensible to ask him to make a statement before the national rail summit on what he hopes to achieve there. He will be anxious to keep the House informed on his plans for the Strategic Rail Authority and on the national rail summit. He shares the concern and anger of many hon. Members about the deterioration of our rail services. He is anxious to address those issues and keep the House informed.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

Since our debate on 10 November last year on the difficulties facing manufacturing industry, my constituency, which is heavily dependent on manufacturing, has suffered a steady haemorrhaging of jobs from manufacturing, including 350 jobs from the Lear corporation and, only yesterday, 450 jobs from Buoyant Upholstery. I know that the Government are trying to do their bit. Interest rates were 7.5 per cent. in June last year and are now down to 5.5 per cent. I am sure that there will be a recovery in the housing market and people will start spending money on what the Americans refer to as "big ticket" items, but, for areas such as north-east Lancashire, which depends heavily on manufacturing, there is a strong case for an early debate on the issue.

Mrs. Beckett

I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing concern about, and support for, manufacturing industry in his constituency and throughout the United Kingdom. He and I, together with some honourable Conservatives, advocated the cause of manufacturing industry when the Conservative party was trying actively to destroy it. I recognise the difficulties. My hon. Friend rightly said that the Government's economic policy is directed at trying to bring about the improvements in trading conditions that will help in the long term. However, he will know, as we all do, that much of the current difficulty results from problems experienced across the world. That is why it is important to ensure the right countervailing action in international circles. The Government are addressing that.

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

I have two questions for the right hon. Lady. The first is entirely non-political and concerns the House. I am sorry that I have not given her notice of it. Will she consider the response by Ministers to written questions for a named day? She will recall the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, which were accepted 10 or 12 years ago, on the Government's practice of postponing answers to written questions for a long time. Will she consider the possibility of a statement on the fact that questions for a named day are falling into the same pattern time and again, with answers such as, " I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible"?

Madam Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is asking the Leader of the House a question on a matter for which she is not responsible at the Dispatch Box today. We are dealing with forthcoming business. She is not answering questions as President of the Council. If the right hon. Gentleman is seeking a statement, that is another matter, but he is getting into deep water. I think that the right hon. Lady has the gist of his question. I hope that his second question is about business.

Sir Peter Emery

I wanted a statement next week on the issue.

Madam Speaker

The right hon. Lady has got the point.

Sir Peter Emery

It is quite obvious. I should not be doing it otherwise.

My second question is on the Foreign Affairs Committee report. May we have a full day's debate? I was most concerned to hear the right hon. Lady say that the report contains "nothing new". None of the Committee members believes that. Indeed, had the right hon. Lady read the report instead of repeating it at second hand, she would not take that view. She said that the report has been debated extensively, but that is not accurate. There has been no debate on the report, which goes much further than foreign affairs and addresses the way in which Parliament holds the Executive to account. That, as much as the report, needs to be debated.

Mrs. Beckett

On the right hon. Gentleman's first question, I cannot promise him a statement next week. Perhaps the issue can be addressed at President of the Council questions. I know that there are genuine difficulties, particularly when hon. Members ask for a substantial amount of information to be provided within a short deadline. However, I shall look into whether there is a particular problem.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me again about the report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We have had a full debate on the issue. The right hon. Gentleman says that there has been no debate on the report and the way in which Parliament can hold the Executive to account. However, an entirely unprecedented amount of information was made available and an unprecedented degree of access was allowed. I do not mean to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but I very much doubt that that would have been allowed when he and his colleagues were at the Foreign Office, so the Government have already addressed the concerns of Parliament.

Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch)

Could we have a second debate on the Jenkins report on electoral reform? When we last debated that report, about 50 Back-Bench Members applied to speak, but only a handful were able to do so. I did not have the opportunity to speak, so, along with many of my hon. Friends, I should like a second opportunity to debate the issue and to condemn the report as an attack on democratic accountability.

Mrs. Beckett

I fear that I cannot undertake to offer my hon. Friend such a debate in the near future, but I have heard and understood his comments. There is a great deal of concern and I know that many hon. Members wish to express their views on the matter. No doubt, they will have such an opportunity at some point.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

I join my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) in requesting a debate on the modernisation of Parliament and the reform of the House of Lords. As is consonant with our procedures, the right hon. Lady well knows that a major White Paper on constitutional reform does not require consultation through the usual channels, but it is a matter of honour for the Government to conduct such a debate. To argue that some of the proposals in the White Paper may be discussed in respect of a public Bill, which is narrowly drawn, on removing the hereditary principle from the House of Lord means that many of the issues in the White Paper could be ruled out of order by the Chair.

Mrs. Beckett

The hon. Gentleman's record of concern for the business of the House is well known and recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but, with great respect, it is a little strong for him to say that debating a White Paper is a matter of honour. We have not followed the usual procedure for White Papers, which are often issued substantially in advance of legislation; in this case, the White Paper has been issued alongside the legislation, but it is a special case. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point that some of the issues raised in the White Paper may not be touched on during the debate. I do not wish to anticipate what will happen in the debate, but, as I hope that he will have observed, I undertook to consider the matter through the usual channels. That is the right way to proceed.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

May we have an early statement on changes to the code of conduct governing the passage of submarines through our traditional fishing grounds? I remind my right hon. Friend that the previous Government introduced the code of practice following the tragic loss of Carradale fishing vessel, the Antares, with its four-man crew, long after hon. Members such as me had called for such a code of conduct. Allegations have been made concerning two incidents late last year involving breaches of the code and I am still awaiting answers to parliamentary questions that I tabled a considerable time ago. I am making a reasonable request for a substantial response to the allegations concerning those two breaches of the code of conduct.

Mrs. Beckett

I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend, who takes a great and determined interest in those matters, has not yet had a response to his questions. I cannot offer him time for a debate or a statement in the near future, but I certainly undertake to take up with the relevant Ministers the issues that he raised, because I know that they share his concern and will be anxious to give a response.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

Can the Leader of the House arrange a statement in the next two weeks on social security payments in different parts of the United Kingdom, especially when we are having more devolution? A lady came to live in my constituency in October, having been on disability living allowance in England. She contacted me yesterday because she has been turned down for the allowance on the ground that she has gone abroad.

Mrs. Beckett

I undertake to make inquiries and draw the case to the attention of the relevant Minister. Without knowing the particular circumstances of the case, I cannot be confident about how it might be handled, but I undertake to ensure that the relevant Department is aware of it.

Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk)

Can my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the progress, or lack of it, in digital television? For more than a decade, my constituents have had to put up with second and third-grade reception of analogue television. They are extremely annoyed that the technical opportunities offered by the roll-out of digital television to give them decent reception have not been seized. People from Norfolk do not want to have to watch regional transmissions from Yorkshire. People in up to 40 or 50 constituencies are forced, if they want to watch digital television, to use Sky, which does not offer ITV channels. The whole issue needs to be properly examined. Will the Government at least make a statement on their policy, so that the broadcasters know where Government want them to go before we legislate?

Mrs. Beckett

I undertake to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the relevant Department. I am well aware, from my own experience, of the difficulties in television reception in many parts of Norfolk and of some of the regional sensitivities that arise. I fear that there may be a little too much optimism about the speed at which digital television will become available, but the Government are certainly considering the issues. A consultation paper was published last year, I believe, and we are considering the responses.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)

Will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a full debate on Gibraltar? While Gibraltar is in crisis and its people are being victimised by Spanish authorities, it must surely be right for Ministers to come to the House voluntarily—not as they have done today—and tell us what they intend to do to protect the democratic rights of British citizens. As we have seen today, a mere protest to the European Commission is simply not enough.

Mrs. Beckett

I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) made a full statement today. I wholly refute the hon. Lady's clear implication that we are in any way failing to stand by the people of Gibraltar. We are taking strong action that we hope and believe will ameliorate the problem and put an end to the difficulties. The Conservative party seems much more inclined to rattle sabres, shout and rant and call for the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. That will not help anybody.

Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South)

In view of the bungling and incompetent way in which the Ministry of Defence handled the consultation process on the future of the Territorial Army, will the Leader of the House accede to the earlier request for a debate on that subject, based on the Defence Committee's report? Like the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I am concerned by the way in which the Minister of State, in a cavalier and discourteous way, has rubbished the report in advance of publication.

In addition, will the Leader of the House put pressure on the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement in the House on the way in which hospital facilities—particularly accident and emergency services—will be provided, in view of the MOD's decision to close the Royal Naval hospital, Haslar?

Mrs. Beckett

Let me begin where the hon. Gentleman ended. He will know that, although the decision to close Haslar has been taken, it has long been made clear that that will be done only when suitable alternative arrangements are in place. He also referred to the future of the TA. As he said, the Defence Select Committee report has been published this morning, so there has been no time for anyone to study it. I have taken on board the request that has been made for a debate, but I fear that I cannot find time for one in the near future.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

Could the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the relationship between the Executive and Select Committees? I am a member of the Defence Select Committee, which sat for a number of hours taking evidence, and also paid visits, to produce a report on the Territorial Army, which is being launched now by the Chairman of the Committee. Does she understand that it was outrageous for the Minister for the Armed Forces to say on "Today" this morning that the Government will reject any criticisms in the report? That, allied to the handling by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of the report on Sierra Leone, shows that something is seriously wrong with the Executive's attitude to Committees of this House.

Mrs. Beckett

I utterly reject what the hon. Gentleman says. It is extremely important that there is a good and constructive relationship—which will sometimes be one of different and strongly expressed views—between Select Committees and the Government of the day. That is why the structure of Select Committees is as it is. They contain Members of all parties and reflect the composition of the House. That relationship is crucial to holding the Executive to account.

Difficulties are created if the Opposition use Select Committees simply as a ramp against the Government, and I have observed Opposition spokesmen using Select Committee reports in that way. It is better for Select Committees and the Government to have mutual respect for each other's roles. Often, that will lead to differing points of view. There is nothing wrong with that—indeed, it would be quite wrong if Select Committees always approved of what the Government did. These matters need delicate handling by both sides.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

That last reply by the Leader of the House was absolutely astonishing, Madam Speaker. I was going to ask for a debate on fuel duties, but I am so amazed by that response that I shall not. As Members of the legislature, we are here to hold the Executive to account—that is what we are sent here for. Select Committee reports are all-party reports. How can the Leader of the House refuse a debate on the ground that it would be held for party-political advantage? Will she reconsider that now?

Mrs. Beckett

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to what his hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said. The hon. Gentleman asked me to arrange a debate not on the issue of an all-party report, but on the relationship between Select Committees and the Executive, on the spurious grounds—something that the Conservatives are continually alleging, on extremely flimsy evidence—that, in some way, the Government are in a different position in terms of being held to account by the Committees of the House. That is not the case, and it is not a matter that is worth spending the time of the House debating. That was the debate that I declined to have. I recognise that the Defence Select Committee report is serious. It will be looked at seriously by the Government, and we will produce our response in due course. However, a debate on the general relationship between Select Committees and the Executive is not merited at this time.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

Particularly in the light of what the Leader of the House has said in response to the last two questions, will she seriously and urgently review the whole matter of the Sierra Leone report? That report touches on the relationships that exist between the legislature and the Executive, between Select Committees and the House, and between Ministers and civil servants. Given the gravity of its findings, is it not highly urgent that this House should examine, first, what one of its own Committees has said and, secondly, what that reveals about relationships between Ministers and civil servants? Those are important and urgent matters, and they do not deserve to be treated in the way that the Leader of the House appears to have treated them so far.

Mrs. Beckett

With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I have said about the Foreign Affairs Committee report only that, at first reading, it seems to us to cover similar ground as the report by the Legg inquiry. However, the Government will produce a full response to both Select Committee reports in due course. That is the proper way to behave and the Government will behave properly.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement on the Government's handling of the meningitis outbreaks? What are the Government's strategies, in both the short term and long term, to deal with the outbreaks, which have happened in south Wales, Scotland, the north-west of England, Southampton and elsewhere? We need to know what the short-term strategy is to ensure that organisations such as the Meningitis Research Foundation and the National Meningitis Trust get the proper resources so that they can fulfil their task of giving advice, guidance and counselling in areas where the outbreaks occur. There is also a need for long-term research to determine why outbreaks of meningitis in this country are at a 50-year high, and why the rate of incidence is three times as high as in the United States of America.

Mrs. Beckett

As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, a special investigation, chaired by the relevant medical authorities, is under way. He asked for a debate about the strategy for tackling the outbreaks, but I am sorry to say that the evidence appears to show that the problem does not lend itself to a strategy.

Mr. Evans

I wanted to know about both the short term and the long term.

Mrs. Beckett

I understand that, and those matters are being examined. The situation seems to change dramatically, and the cause of the disease is not well understood. That makes the problem particularly difficult, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government—and the whole House—entirely share the concern that he has expressed.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Can we have a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss the Government's incompetence over the introduction of the working time regulations? As a result of those regulations, boys and girls who deliver newspapers will be eligible in law for up to four weeks' paid leave—which one assumes was not the Government's intention. Is the right hon. Lady aware that the National Federation of Retail Newsagents fears that delivery will end as a consequence, and that up to 10,000 jobs will be lost?

Finally, the right hon. Lady is a highly experienced parliamentarian: will she concede that the regulations were introduced, without prior parliamentary scrutiny, under the auspices of the lost and not lamented right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? He gave minimum notice but caused maximum hassle for business. Had the regulations' introduction not been so clumsy, would not this unholy mess have been avoided?

Mrs. Beckett

That would all be very interesting, but my understanding is that the working time regulations do not apply to paper boys and paper girls.

Mr. Bercow

That is wrong.

Mrs. Beckett

I am simply saying that that is my understanding. I know that the matter has appeared in the press today, but I am sure that all hon. Members will accept that that is not a guide. If the regulations do not apply, the question of incompetence does not arise. The matter is being considered most carefully, but my understanding is that there has been a misunderstanding.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

The Leader of the House said that there will be debates the week after next on agriculture and Northern Ireland. The right hon. Lady is a distinguished and courteous parliamentarian: will she have a word with the Ministers winding up those debates to ensure that they adopt a self-denying ordinance and do not launch pre-emptive strikes—friendly fire on members of Select Committees—before those committees publish reports? That is what the Minister for the Armed Forces did today. According to Teletext, the Minister would reject any criticism of the Government by the Committee. Surely the normal convention is that Ministers say on the day of publication that proposals will be carefully considered. Our request is reasonable. Surely the Government do not want to be accused of packing Committees with pager poodles, but want independently minded Committees.

Mrs. Beckett

It is self-evident that the Committees are not packed with poodles. My understanding is that the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces were directed at suggestions that there had been inadequate consultation. That is a different matter from the main substance of the report.

I entirely share the view of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that it is right and proper that Select Committee reports should be given the weight that they deserve. They should be properly handled in the House, and it would be wise if hon. Members on both sides, in all circumstances, bore strongly in mind the convention that Select Committee reports should not be leaked or commented on in advance by anyone.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

Given today's shocking news that hospital waiting lists rose in December by a further 12,000, will the right hon. Lady allow time for an early debate on that subject? She will recall, as many people do, that the Government made an early pledge on waiting lists. I carry a copy of their pledge card as a constant spur to my evangelisation of the case against the Government, and to remind me of how many promises they are breaking. A debate would allow the Government not only to acknowledge that an early pledge has turned into a broken promise—that much is clear—but to apologise for it to the House and to the people.

Mrs. Beckett

The hon. Gentleman's remarks are entirely ill-placed. It is neither shocking nor surprising that there was, most unfortunately, a slight increase in the waiting lists in December. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has pointed out, if we had continued to issue the figures on the basis used by the previous Government, the slight increase would have been concealed because the figures on the quarter went down. The Government are entirely on course to deliver on our pledge. I am confident—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his party will welcome this—that delivering on the pledge will be made all the easier by the response to the nurses' hotline asking people to come back to the health service. That hotline has already received 22,500 calls.

Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney)

The Leader of the House will be aware of affection for RAF Brize Norton, and of the important role that it plays in the life of the nation. She may also be aware that Ministry of Defence officials have given a briefing discussing its possible closure. However, she may not know that the Ministry of Defence was asked this morning to confirm or deny those reports, and officials said that they were not in a position to do so as discussion was taking place on whether RAF Brize Norton might close in future.

Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on the future of RAF Brize Norton, and on the future of military airfields in the south of England? That debate could bring an end to the uncertainty created by Ministry of Defence officials.

Mrs. Beckett

I was not aware of the report, and I am afraid that I cannot assist the hon. Gentleman by finding time urgently for a debate. I recognise that the matter is of great concern to his constituents, and to others in the south of England. Ministry of Defence Questions will be taken on Monday 22 February. If the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, he may be able to find some way of raising the matter then.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)

Has the Leader of the House taken a call since yesterday from the Prime Minister's office suggesting that a debate on the fisheries problem would be welcome and that the Prime Minister would like to participate in it because of his concern about the conservation issues that I have raised in well-researched and very penetrating questions? If the Prime Minister has not rung her, would she call his office to suggest tactfully that a debate would be well received?

Mrs. Beckett

I have spoken to the Prime Minister since yesterday, but I fear that the most pressing matter on his mind was not the call for an early debate on fisheries. However, I am confident that—as he said yesterday—my right hon. Friend is sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.