Business of the House

HC Deb 18 March 1999 vol 327 cc1261-74 12.31 pm

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

Will the Leader of the House give the House the business 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 22 MARCH—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]

Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Government Responsibility for Council Tax Increases" followed by a debate on Europe, America and the World Trade Organisation. Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.

TUESDAY 23 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.

WEDNESDAY 24 MARcH—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Second Reading of the Access to Justice Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 25 MARCH—There will be a debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 26 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

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

MONDAY 29 MARCH—There will be a debate on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

TUESDAY 30 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Employment Relations Bill.

WEDNESDAY 31 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.

Conclusion of remaining stages of the Employment Relations Bill.

The House will also wish to know that on Tuesday 23 March there will be a debate on reform of the structural and cohesion funds in European Standing Committee C and that on Wednesday 24 March there will be a debate on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Tuesday 23 March:

European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: Unnumbered, Reform of the Structural Funds; Unnumbered, Agenda 2000: Cohesion Fund Amendment; 5480/99, European Regional Development Fund. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 34 xii (1998–99); Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxvii (1997–98).

Wednesday 24 March 1999:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 6378/98, Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 34iii (1998–99) Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxvi (1997–98).]

The House will also wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House will rise for the Easter recess at the end of business on Wednesday 31 March until the start of business on Tuesday 13 April.

Sir George Young

The House is grateful for details of next week's business and an indication of business for the following week. We welcome the fact that the right hon. Lady has found time for a debate on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.

Can it be right that at no time in the four weeks following the constitutional crisis that hit the European Union on Monday will the House of Commons debate that subject? Has not the House led the world in showing how the Executive are held to account, in combating fraud in the public sector and in promoting democratic accountability? Should not the voice of this House be heard in the critical weeks that lie ahead, not least on the proposed pay-offs for some members of the Commission and on the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others for validating future nominations?

Should not we also debate the crisis at the nationality and immigration department of the Home Office, where only six per cent. of calls get through and where people begin to start to queue at four in the morning? People end up being trapped in this country for six months or more because the Home Office has their passport. That department also has a backlog of 200,000 case files—occupying some 14 miles of shelving—many of which are inaccessible, because the garage in which they are stored is not considered safe to access.

Key meetings are being held this weekend in Washington and Rambouillet on the future of Northern Ireland and Kosovo. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether we might expect statements on either or both of those meetings at the beginning of next week? Finally, the Leader of the House said on Tuesday that she would provide time for a debate on the White Paper on the reform of the second Chamber, now that the House of Lords Bill has left this House. When will that debate take place?

Mrs. Beckett

First, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this House and this country have taken a strong lead in combating fraud and promoting sound management, including sound financial management. I take his point that, because of the Easter recess, no debate is scheduled to consider the EU crisis. Equally, until the Berlin special summit next week, for example, it will not be clear what shape the relevant discussions will take.

I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about pay-offs, but he will be aware that the contracts which have led to such payments long pre-date this Government. In so far as we have redundancy arrangements in this House for members of the Executive, they do not depend on behaviour.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about validating nominations for EU Commissioners. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, the Conservatives have made their own nomination for the new Commission—accession to which would normally follow the European elections—without seeing the necessity to change the procedures. Indeed, they saw no need to do so when they were in power.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the crisis in the handling of immigration and nationality cases. All Members of Parliament are aware of those concerns and the problems caused. Part of the reason for the crisis is the work that is now having to be undertaken to lay the foundation for a better service—including work on providing new information technology systems. As for the nature and scale of the crisis, all those who were Members of this House eight to 10 ago years will be well aware that whatever the current crisis might be, it pales into insignificance compared with the situation then. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the days when, under the Government of which he was a member, the backlog was six months' worth of post, which was not even opened, never mind dealt with. We need no lessons from the Conservatives on this matter.

We are doing our best to keep the House informed of the outcome of the meeting in Rambouillet and of the discussions on Northern Ireland. It is not clear what the outcome will be, but I will bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement. I cannot tell him, at this moment, whether I expect there to be the need for one at the beginning of next week.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have undertaken to find time for a debate on the White Paper on House of Lords reform. It will not be held in the near future, but certainly it will happen before the summer.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

May we have a debate on the role of the independent Members of Parliament throughout this century? Our parliamentary system has benefited from, and will continue to be based on, party political systems, but is it not right to look at what has happened in the past—and in recent years, as we now have a solitary independent Member of Parliament? Although we normally disapprove of politicians breaking their election promises, the role that has been played by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)—which has been unique and valuable in many respects, including his contributions on landmines, the honours system and warfare—has been so important that the honourable thing for him to do would be to break that election promise, seek election in Tatton next time and seek also the multiplication of his kind in this House.

Madam Speaker

Did the hon. Gentleman give notice to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)?

Mr. Flynn

I did not, but

Madam Speaker

If he had, the hon. Member for Tatton would probably have been too embarrassed to turn up.

Mrs. Beckett

It is rare that any hon. Member needs to be given notice of being paid great compliments. Of course, I take my hon. Friend's point. The role played by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has attracted praise. I would normally hesitate to be drawn into commenting on the affairs of another political party, and I feel even greater caution when it is a political party of one.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

Following the question from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on the developing situations in Kosovo and Northern Ireland and the European crisis, does the Leader of the House agree that if, particularly following the Berlin summit, it proves necessary to have a debate before Easter, the House could continue to sit on Maundy Thursday? We would all prefer to avoid that, but I hope that she agrees that it would be wrong for us to adjourn for our recess without debating those important matters.

We also hope for a statement before the recess on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the milk industry. The dairy sector is already in dire trouble, and the continuing indecision about the report and the failure to publish it so that it can be debated is causing huge concern. Will the Leader of the House communicate to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that milk producers are not in a monopolistic position, although milk buyers are in an oligopolistic position, and ask him to make a statement?

The Leader of the House may have noted that some questions were asked yesterday of the Minister for the Cabinet Office about the labelling of genetically modified food. He was not able to make a statement to the House, but I understand that a statement was made to a press conference this morning. Will she acknowledge that the issue is far too important for such treatment? There is wide public concern, and the House should be the first to hear of the Government's proposals.

Mrs. Beckett

If events occur in Kosovo, Northern Ireland or the European Union of such magnitude or clarity that it is necessary or possible to make a statement on them, the Government will of course bear that in mind. I said in my announcement that the House would rise subject to progress on business. I am not sure that all the hon. Gentleman's colleagues would share his enthusiasm for sitting on Maundy Thursday.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

They are all off on holiday.

Mrs. Beckett

I was not going to say that.

Of course I understand the concerns about the MMC report on milk. I cannot undertake for a statement to be made next week. The hon. Gentleman will know that these are difficult matters in which Ministers play a quasi-judicial role, so the report can be published only when all the right steps have been taken.

My understanding is that it is Agriculture Ministers, not Cabinet Office Ministers, who laid the regulations about labelling this morning and who may perhaps have held a press conference.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Following the request of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for a statement or debate about the Euro-crisis, has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility that the so-called crisis did not result in people like me shedding any tears? The truth is that I could almost revel in it. I could see the very core of the Common Market beginning to break up. Why do we need a Commission at all? Let us save a lot of money and not replace the 20 Commissioners. We have the Council of Ministers and the so-called Parliament. What else do we need? We must think the unthinkable at times like this and get rid of them. As for all the redundancy pay, the Tories have a cheek to talk about that, because nearly a dozen Tory Ministers got the sack, including Hamilton, and they all ran away with the redundancy money.

Mrs. Beckett

I am confident that my hon. Friend is seeking either a statement or a debate on those matters. He makes, as he will appreciate, a bold and sweeping suggestion and I doubt whether the Government will be able to come to such conclusions, certainly within the time scale of the business statement.

Mr. Humfrey Mahas (Woking)

My constituent, Paul Connolly, was a civilian employed in direct support of United Kingdom forces in the Gulf war and has since suffered serious ill health. He is one of thousands of veterans who have suffered and not been compensated. Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement or debate on the issue of Gulf war veterans, their illnesses and when they might be compensated?

Mrs. Beckett

I fear that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman time in the near future for a debate on the serious problems suffered by his constituent, about which I am sorry to hear, as I know the House will be. However, the hon. Gentleman may find other opportunities to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate and he may also catch your eye, Madam Speaker. during the defence debate that I have announced.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

My right hon. Friend will know that the Channel 4 broadcaster, Sheena McDonald, was knocked over by a speeding police car in Islington last month and suffered serious injuries. I have since unearthed figures that show that, last year, 2,123 people were knocked down by speeding police cars answering 999 calls or other emergencies. Hundreds of people were seriously injured and 15 died last year, and those figures are not out of the ordinary. We see such carnage every year. Is there not a case for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House about what advice and guidance he has issued to chief constables about how police cars are driven in such circumstances?

Mrs. Beckett

All hon. Members will share the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed, both about the tragic accident involving Sheena McDonald and about the other people who suffered injury or were killed. At the moment, I cannot call to mind the statistics for the percentage of accidents reflected by the figures that my hon. Friend has given, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, my hon. Friend will probably find that those are operational matters for chief constables, rather than directly for Ministers.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)

Before the last Liberal leaves for his Easter holidays, may I press the Leader of the House to explain clearly why the House should not have its say on matters connected with the European Commission and recent events before the die is firmly cast with reference to its future? The Leader of the House will recall a debate in which we discussed the democratic deficit and questions of accountability in the work of the Commission and the European Union. Would not it be a good idea to have a debate before Easter so that we could make our contribution to the deliberations on the future of the Commission?

Mrs. Beckett

Of course no one is saying that there will be no debate: none of us knows how quickly those matters will be resolved. I am confident that hon. Members will take all the opportunities available to them, in the pre-recess debates, for example, and at Prime Minister's Question Time, to continue to raise those issues.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

Caretakers are not normally well paid, and nor do they receive massive pay-offs when they resign. It seems to be different in the case of European Union Commissioners. Should we not have a debate soon on the fraud report? Should we not influence what our representatives do at the Berlin special summit, and should we not have a separate debate after the summit?

Mrs. Beckett

I shall bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind. As I said to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) a moment ago, hon. Members who catch the Speaker's eye in our pre-recess debates will be able to raise many issues, of which that may be one. The original report from the Court of Auditors on EU fraud was debated in a European Standing Committee, as recommended by the Select Committee on European Scrutiny. The underlying concerns raised by hon. Members have therefore been under review, and that will continue to be the case.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

May I reiterate requests for an early debate on Northern Ireland? Kosovo is an international issue, but Northern Ireland is a matter internal to the United Kingdom. In a week in which violence has escalated and in which there have been two brutal murders, we should not set Northern Ireland aside.

Will the Leader of the House investigate whether the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs might look into breaches of justice and human rights infringements in the United States of America, whose Foreign Relations Committee seeks to hold a hearing on the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

Mrs. Beckett

It is not for me to tell the Foreign Affairs Committee what it should debate, but I am sure that the Committee will note the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on Northern Ireland, saying rightly that we should not set that subject aside. Of course the Government will not set aside Northern Ireland, but I doubt whether events are moving at such a pace that we will be able to debate the matter before the Easter recess. I shall of course bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Albeit I have been lucky in gaining an Adjournment debate on the bombing of the Al Shifa plant on Wednesday, and although there is a defence debate on Thursday, should not the House receive a statement from either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary on the political objectives—not the defence aspects—of the bombing? In particular, should not we have such a statement before anyone embarks on the counter-productive folly of bombing the Slays, thus creating a situation in Kosovo and with the Russians that would have endless consequences? In particular, may we have a statement on the Russian attitude to what has happened?

Mrs. Beckett

With respect, the Government are not responsible for the attitude of the Russian Government. Certainly, I take my hon. Friend's point that he is anxious to pursue issues on the objectives of bombing. I must disagree with his suggestion that political objectives are not a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Of course they are; the Secretary of State holds those responsibilities in common with other members of the Government, and they are very much part of his remit.

I must also take issue with my hon. Friend's suggestion that he has been lucky to gain an Adjournment debate on the matter. Assiduous is the word that I would use.

Mr. Forth

The Leader of the House will of course have read The Sun this morning, and she will therefore know that members of the outraged road haulage industry will hold a major demonstration on Monday about the costs that the Government have put on the industry. She will not know, however, that my constituent, Mr. Houghton, rang me this morning to make the same point personally. He fears for his livelihood, and for the livelihoods of his colleagues in the industry, as a direct result of what the Government are doing. Will the Leader of the House confirm that newspaper stories about a possible change of mind are true? May we have an early debate or a statement next week to coincide with the demonstration and to reassure the industry that the Government have got their policy wrong and will change it?

Mrs. Beckett

I fear that I cannot promise an early debate, all the more because there will be every opportunity to discuss the matter during debates on the Finance Bill, which will come before the House soon. We all look forward with interest to hearing the case of those who have expressed concern. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that one must compare like with like: other costs for road hauliers are substantially lower here than in some of the countries with which the hauliers are making comparisons about fuel costs. I remind him that the highest increase in fuel duty during the past 10 years—13 per cent.—occurred in 1995 when the Conservative Government, of whom he was a member, were in power.

Mr. Syd Rapson (Portsmouth, North)

As my right hon. Friend has been unfairly blamed for all the problems with the millennium bug, does she accept the blame for the baby boom that will result from last night's over-indulgence in conception activity, no doubt because of the magnificent football match in which Manchester United stuffed the opposition?

Mrs. Beckett

I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on any of those issues during the next couple of weeks, or indeed in the near future. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and hasten to assure him that I do not take responsibility for any problems that result from the millennium bug; I take responsibility for the action that the Government are taking to minimise those problems, and am happy to do so. I certainly take no responsibility at all for the other issues that he raises.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

Yesterday, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Prime Minister said that appointments are of course always subject to parliamentary scrutiny".—[Official Report, 17 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1116.] My right hon. Friend was referring to the necessity of United Kingdom appointments to the European Commission being approved in advance by the House—and rightly so, in view of early-day motion 437, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which states: [That in the opinion of this House the names of British commissioners to serve in the European Union should be approved by the House of Commons before appointment.] If the Prime Minister's words are to have any meaning, and as the British taxpayer funds, to some degree, the salaries and the pay-offs of the European Commissioners, will the right hon. Lady find it in her heart to heed the genuine feeling expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to hold a debate on a matter whose gravity deserves the immediate attention of this Parliament? If her relationship with the Liberal. Democrats has any validity, could they not give up their Supply day on Monday for such a debate?

Mrs. Beckett

First, the hon. Gentleman refers to the pay-offs that might be due to retiring members of the European Commission. I remind him that, as I said earlier, the contracts under which any such moneys are due were not negotiated under the stewardship of the Labour Government. Secondly, he mentions the genuine feeling on both sides of the House; I appreciate and accept that some Members might have such feelings, but would point out to him that, as Conservative Members have felt the necessity to scrutinise those matters only in the past 10 days, the genuineness of their concern is called into question.

Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposals to privatise all or part of National Air Traffic Services have caused considerable concern to residents living near our major airports, to Members of Parliament who represent those constituencies and, most importantly, to the air traffic controllers, whose safety record is second to none? Has she been briefed on yesterday's successful lobby by the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists against those proposals? Does she agree that a full parliamentary debate is needed on that important safety issue once the current consultation period is over?

Mrs. Beckett

I am aware of the great concern felt about those matters and of the consultation exercise. At present, I cannot undertake to find time for a debate when that exercise has been completed, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to its importance and the Government will take its results on board.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)

May we have an emergency debate on the crisis facing small abattoirs? Right hon. and hon. Members with abattoirs in their constituencies will be aware that, as a result of the impost of astronomical increases in meat inspection charges, prospectively from 1 April this year, many small abattoirs will be driven out of business. I use those words advisedly. Those abattoirs will not go out of business as a result of market forces or because they are not competitive; they will be driven out of business by the Government impost of those astronomically high charges. Once they close, they will never reopen and that will spell the end of the craft sector of the meat industry for all time.

Mrs. Beckett

I fear that I cannot offer to find time for an emergency debate on that matter. However, the hon. Gentleman might seek to raise the subject in the pre-recess debates.

Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove)

May I press the right hon. Lady on the complacent answer that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) regarding the road haulage industry? The Government normally pay a great deal of attention to what appears on the front page of The Sun, and we now know that there will be a white van jam in London on Monday morning. I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the leader in this morning's edition of that paper, which says: Stop drivers being robbed at the petrol pump". The Government's diesel price increases are astronomical, and it behoves the British public to remember that, every time they fill up their cars, £8.50 of every £10 they spend on petrol goes in tax.

Mrs. Beckett

The hon. Lady accuses me of complacency, but there was nothing complacent about my reply to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I simply pointed out that far higher increases in duty were imposed by the Government of which he was a member and of which the hon. Lady was a supporter.

I understand the concerns that have been expressed. As I said earlier, it is important for people to take account of other lower costs in the road haulage industry. The Budget that continued the use of the fuel escalator—which was introduced by the Conservatives—also froze vehicle excise duty for 98 per cent. of lorries and reduced the road tax for low-emission lorries. I remind the hon. Lady of the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he introduced the fuel escalator. He said: Any critic of the Government's"— that is, the Conservative Government's— tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report. 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]

Mr. Phil Hope (Corby)

My right hon. Friend will be aware that today sees the launch of the gift aid 2000 scheme by the Chancellor and Eddie Izzard—of whom only the latter is a cross-dresser. Millennium gift aid encourages people to give donations to support education and anti-poverty projects in the world's 80 poorest countries. For every £100 donation, the Government will give £30 in tax relief to the charities and voluntary organisations that do that excellent work. Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate that scheme in the House of Commons? Perhaps that debate could take place in the context of discussing other Budget proposals such as the review of charity taxation, which is under consultation. That will develop a range of new proposals which will support charities, individuals and business donations to charities, and which the voluntary sector will appreciate very much.

Mrs. Beckett

I thank my hon. Friend, who has always taken a great interest in the voluntary sector and in the work of charities, for that information. Like all hon. Members, we welcome the steps that the Chancellor felt able to take in the Budget to support and bolster the work of such organisations. I fear that I cannot offer to find time for a special, separate debate on that issue, but I feel confident that the matter can be explored during debate on the Finance Bill.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

The Leader of the House has resisted calls by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) for a debate on the haulage industry. Will she make time to debate specifically the effect on unemployment in rural constituencies of the swingeing increases in diesel duty? The Leader of the House will know that many haulage companies are based in rural constituencies, where they are significant employers. I refer her to the excellent article by Tim Spanton that appears in today's edition of The Sun. It is a piece of investigative journalism for which the House should be very grateful. Will the right hon. Lady take note of that article and make time for a debate on the employment effects of the swingeing increases in petrol and diesel prices?

Mrs. Beckett

I always take note of what is said in newspapers such as The Sun. Indeed, I noted the great welcome The Sun gave to the Budget, which it said would advantage every group in Britain. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said to both the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). First, it is important to compare like with like and to consider the haulage industry's overall costs, not just fuel costs. Secondly, the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a supporter, first introduced the fuel duty escalator. Thirdly, this is not the largest rise that has ever been imposed—that was imposed by his Government in 1995.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on the substance of early-day motion 436? [That this House notes with concern the Prime Minister's Answer of 10th March, Official Report, column 358, that there is a 'net tax cut of £4.5 billion' for the coming year, because the total tax increase in the coming year is £7.1 billion; further notes that the Prime Minister's claim not to have raised taxes but to have cut them has been described by the eminent economist Anatole Kaletsky as `simply false'; recalls the Prime Minister's previous assertion that any Minister giving false information to the House would speedily correct the mistake; and calls on the Prime Minister immediately to correct his false assertion and apologise to the House.] That motion has been signed by 59 right hon. and hon. Members and relates to the Prime Minister's suggestion that there has been a net tax cut of £4.5 billion for the year ahead, whereas there will be a total tax increase of £7.1 billion in the coming year. Does the right hon. Lady agree that such a debate would give the Prime Minister or his spokesman ample opportunity to explain why, if their figures are right and ours are wrong, the eminent economist Anatole Kaletsky has described the Prime Minister's figures as simply false?

Mrs. Beckett

First, the hon. Gentleman asked me for a special debate, and I say to him, as I have said to others, that those matters can be aired in the debates on the Finance Bill. Anatole Kaletsky is certainly distinguished, but he is not necessarily therefore always right. I prefer to rest on the judgment of organisations such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In response to his assertion about the correctness of his figures over those given by the Prime Minister, I simply say to him that it was never possible in the past to trust figures given by his party, and it is not possible now.

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next Monday or Tuesday on the EU Commission's resignation and the special summit in Berlin? The Prime Minister has been aware for more than two months of the date of publication of the inquiry into fraud and nepotism in the Commission, and the date of the special summit was known for a similarly long time. There is, therefore, no excuse for the Government not having provided time for a debate. Will the right hon. Lady remind the House on how many occasions in the past we have had an opportunity to debate the issues relating to a summit of the European Council of Ministers in advance of the meeting, rather than afterwards?

Mrs. Beckett

Of course, there are arrangements for discussing issues relating to the European summit which broadly circle the pre-arranged regular meetings of the European Council. No such special arrangements have ever been made for informal or special Councils. Those matters can and will be aired in debate. The hon. Gentleman asserted that the Government should have found time for a debate on those matters early next week, but he wants to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry that was set up following the initiative of my colleagues in the European Parliament. The Government are not prepared to do so and we await the outcome of that inquiry.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

Tomorrow, the business of the House will be a debate on implementing some of the recommendations of the Neill committee, particularly those relating to referendums. That has cross-party support and is firmly supported by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), of whom we heard a eulogy earlier. Will the Leader of the House pledge that her Government will enact all the recommendations of the fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life? Will she further pledge that her Government,—particularly the Home Secretary, who is sitting next to her—will do nothing to block the enactment of the Neill committee's recommendations?

Mrs. Beckett

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware, as a result of a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when the Neill report was published, that the Government are studying that report very carefully. I cannot give him the undertaking that he demands that there will be complete acceptance of all the recommendations. We are carefully examining those fundamental proposals.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Further to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and in the light of the pitifully inadequate response by Ministers to the Budget debate, can we have an early debate, in Government time, on the Government's stealth taxes? Given that the Labour manifesto, of which I think I need to remind the right hon. Lady, says: How and what governments tax sends clear signals about the economic activities they believe should be encouraged or discouraged, and the values they wish to entrench in society", does she accept that it is incumbent on Ministers to explain, as they failed to do during the Budget debate, why people who have mortgages, who are married, who put petrol in their cars, who have pensions, who acquire savings, who buy property and who run businesses should all face a draconian increase in taxation under this Government?

Mrs. Beckett

That was a lengthy if not a very pertinent question. I am sure that all such matters can be raised in Finance Bill debates.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

On 11 November, I secured an Adjournment debate on the crisis in the road haulage industry. The video of that debate is being shown all around the country at hauliers' meetings. The lamentable ignorance of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and her failure to reply to the points made are much commented on. Three colleagues have brought up the subject this morning. Sadly, the Leader of the House has not taken on board the seriousness of the damage that will be inflicted not just on the strategic industry, which is in danger of losing 26,000 jobs, but on the whole economy. An uncompetitive haulage industry would damage every business in the land. We would be looking at another 26,000 job losses—more than would be lost in the west midlands were Longbridge to close. This is an urgent issue of national importance which affects every constituency. Could we please find time for a debate?

Mrs. Beckett

I say again to the hon. Gentleman, who accuses me of not taking on board the seriousness of the issue, that it is not for me to answer on this subject. I am here to discuss which debates we will have in the House. He asked for time for a debate and there will be all the time in the world during proceedings on the Finance Bill—he will be able to stay up until the small hours of the morning—to discuss the road haulage industry. He will then be able to circulate the video of those debates, which I am sure will gain even greater applause.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

I appreciate that, when the right hon. Lady was planning the business of the House, she was not aware of the crisis about to erupt in the European Union. She has heard Members from all parts of the House express a desire for a debate on that matter. The business for next Tuesday and Wednesday is important—of course it is—but not as crucial or urgent as the Prime Minister hearing hon. Members' views, as he ought, before he goes to the Berlin summit. Will she rearrange Tuesday's or Wednesday's business so that the House has the opportunity to debate on the Adjournment the issues that will be discussed in Berlin? They are vital and relevant to every hon. Member and all our constituents. May we please have that debate?

Mrs. Beckett

I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says, but cannot undertake to rearrange next week's business. Indeed, I suspect that there will not be much to do in such a debate, other than bemoan the events that have brought us to this pass. He can do that without a debate next week.