Business of the House (Hansard, 26 May 1999)

§ The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)
With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The main business for Wednesday 9 June will now be as follows: a debate on the White Paper on reforming the House of Lords on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The remaining stages of the Health Bill will now be taken on Monday 14 June, and business for Tuesday 8, Thursday 10 and Friday 11 June will be as previously announced.

§ Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)
The Opposition have no difficulty with the change of business. Indeed, we welcome the debate on the House of Lords, for which we have been calling for some time. When the right hon. Lady announced provisionally that we would consider the Health Bill on the first Wednesday after the recess, I asked if we could have an assurance that the Government amendments would be tabled today, in time for that. Does the change of business mean that we can anticipate a large number of Government amendments to the Bill?

§ Mrs. Beckett
No. The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten that although he has been asking for a debate on the White Paper on Lords reform, that had to be moved as a result of the Opposition's handling of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. He may have forgotten also that, as reported in column 1213 of Hansard on 20 May, he asked me for adequate time for the Government and the Opposition to table amendments to the Health Bill. It is in recognition of the fact that all amendments would have had to be tabled before the recess—by today—if they were to be taken on 9 June that the Government have moved the consideration of the Health Bill. As it transpires, consideration in Committee was due to end only yesterday. The Bill is not likely to be reprinted until today. So, the Government took the view that the arrangement would be unsatisfactory. It is a question not of the number of amendments but of the House having rather more time to consider those that are required.

§ Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)
My right hon. Friend is well known as a fan of Derby County, whose ground—I think—lies in her constituency. She will know that that team has moved up and down divisions over the years. Will she find time for a debate on the rules governing promotion and demotion in the Rugby Football Union—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The statement was very narrow. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully he would have realised that it has changed the business for only one day. On such a narrow statement, his question must be very specific.

§ Mr. MacShane
My right hon. Friend's statement did cover the business for the following week, Madam Speaker. May I ask for a frisson, a fraction, a soupcon of time to consider the problem of rugby union clubs moving between divisions, since many of us feel that there is a closed shop of clubs in the north of England which is 374 determined to allow no team, particularly Rotherham, to move into the first division? Rotherham has climbed through seven divisions in 15 years, yet it has been blocked for the third time—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Member might apply to me for an Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
Because a day's business was changed recently, for reasons that are well known to the House, the Government have rightly provided time for a debate on the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords, which I welcome. Does the Leader of the House accept that the report published on Monday by the Procedure Committee, which I chair, on the procedural consequences of devolution is also very important, and that time should also be found for a very early debate on it?

§ Mrs. Beckett
I am always conscious of the importance of reports of the Procedure Committee, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for the debate that the hon. Gentleman requested.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
My question will appeal to you, Madam Speaker, because it is so specific. On 21 January 1991, the House debated a substantive motion on war in relation to Iraq. The Leader of the House has repeatedly said—doubtless in good faith—that such a debate in a war situation is without precedent. In the light of that precedent, particularly given the Defence Secretary's announcement and, indeed, the Indian view on the situation in Yugoslavia which I had the opportunity to outline this morning, which is rather different from the received wisdom, will she reflect on whether there should be a debate on a substantive motion on the war situation in Yugoslavia?

§ Mrs. Beckett
With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that he has overlooked the very careful wording that I have always sought to use. He has pressed for—quite legitimately, although as he will be aware, I have not been prepared to vary the precedent—a sort of prior authorisation for the use of armed forces. I am aware of the Iraq precedent; in fact, I have mentioned it on at least one of the many occasions on which this point has, in a variety of ways, been raised, and pointed out the special circumstances of it. It was tabled by the then Government, at the request of the then Opposition, because of much press comment that sought to imply that the Opposition were opposed to action in the Gulf. The Opposition wished to demonstrate their support for our armed forces.

§ Mr. John Townend (East Yorkshire)
Now that the right hon. Lady has changed the business, will she please Ruth Pickles, one of my constituents from Upper Cranswick, by providing time for a debate on the strategic exports White Paper?

§ Mrs. Beckett
I am certainly very mindful of interest in the strategic exports White Paper. However I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on it in the very near future.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
Could not the Leader of the House please squeeze in a brief debate 375 in the week following the recess on a subject that should be dear to the Prime Minister, but apparently is not? Will she ensure that the Prime Minister is present for a debate on the difference between pupil:teacher ratios and average secondary and primary class sizes, because it is perfectly obvious from what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he does not have a clue about any of these things and—no doubt inadvertently and through ignorance—grossly misled the House? May we have a brief debate in the presence of the Prime Minister, so that he can learn about these things before he talks rubbish in the House of Commons?

§ Mrs. Beckett
I fear that I cannot undertake to provide what will be a completely unnecessary debate on that subject. From memory—because I do not have the figures with me—the Prime Minister was asked about average class sizes, and the answer that he gave was completely correct. I know that it does not suit Opposition Members.

§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)
As the health debate is not to be held on Wednesday, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Health Secretary to make a statement to the House, so that he may explain why waiting lists for Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS trust have increased, for referrals from GPs to consultants, from more than 1,500 in March 1977 to more than 3,200 in March 1999? People are obliged to wait a considerable time even to see a GP in southern Derbyshire. I am sure that such a statement will interest the right hon. Lady, too.

§ Mrs. Beckett
No. I fear I cannot undertake to press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement about the affairs of one part of the country, important though it may be.

§ Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)
I wonder whether the Leader of the House could make time on Wednesday 9 June to discuss the plight of junior hospital doctors and explain to my constituents why that one category is deemed to be exempt from the safety provisions of the working time directive, which are meant to apply to every other profession.

§ Mrs. Beckett
Considering that the Conservative party opposes the working time directive root and branch, it is 376 extraordinary that the hon. Lady has asked that question. I simply point out to her that the Government are determined to reduce the working hours of junior hospital doctors, have done so and will continue to do so.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)
The right hon. Lady is moving the business for Wednesday 9 June. Will she consider holding a debate on the number and the cost of Scottish Ministers? Has she read the Hansard record of Scottish questions yesterday? If she has, she will have noticed that, in relation to all nine questions reached, Scottish Ministers replying said that, as from 1 July, the matter would be a matter for the devolved Parliament in Scotland, not for them. That being so, what have Scottish Ministers got to do? Should not the House have the opportunity to consider whether the number and the cost of Scottish Ministers should be substantially reduced?

§ Mrs. Beckett
No; I am not prepared to find time for a debate on that subject. I thought that my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday dealt admirably with that point and those Members who made that point.

§ Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)
The Leader of the House has announced that the remaining stages of the Health Bill will now be dealt with on Monday 14 June. Will the Health Bill be allowed more than one day, or will there be one day for Report and Third Reading? Can the right hon. Lady tell me—I have an interest in the subject, as Opposition spokesman on the Access to Justice Bill—what effect that will have on the likely date for Report and Third Reading of the Access to Justice Bill? A rumour was generated in the House yesterday that the Access to Justice Bill Report stage taken would be in the week beginning 14 June. I wonder whether she has any information about that which she would care to share with the House and the wider public.

§ Mrs. Beckett
I fear I am not in a position to help the hon. and learned Gentleman with that information. The expectation is that a day will be provided for the remaining stages of the Health Bill, as was the original arrangement; it is simply that it is a different day. I am afraid that, at the moment, I cannot enlighten the hon. and learned Gentleman about the Access to Justice Bill. If I am able to do so, I will do so.