Business of the House

HC Deb 28 October 1999 vol 336 cc1093-104 12.30 pm

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

Will the Leader of the House give us 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 1 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [Lords].

Motion to approve the Administration Committee's second report on record copies of Acts.

TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day Second Part]; there will be a debate entitled "Planning, Greenfields and Brownfields: The Two Britains" on an Opposition motion.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.

WEDNESDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.

THURSDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Progress on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill.

FRIDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Debate on family friendly employment policies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Sir George Young

The House is grateful for next week's business. We note that the Leader of the House is unable to shed any light on business for the week after next, although the options must be narrowing. Nor can she give us the date of Prorogation.

There is a meeting of Finance Ministers to discuss the withholding tax. Will the Chancellor be coming to the House next week to make a statement assuring us that he will exercise his veto on that proposal?

On Northern Ireland, as Senator Mitchell has said that he plans to return on Sunday, might we have a statement from the Secretary of State on the outcome of the review talks?

The right hon. Lady will know that there is substantial pressure on the Government to complete their programme, with four major Bills still to come back to the House—the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, the Immigration and Asylum Bill, the Greater London Authority Bill and the House of Lords Bill. Two of those Bills are ready and two are not. The Bill that was ready first is not to be debated at all next week, whereas a Bill that has not completed its passage is down for debate. Is that not a perverse way to manage the business of the House?

The right hon. Lady announced as the business for Thursday consideration of Lords amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill. As 750 amendments have already been agreed to, with 35 still to be debated and more to be tabled, how long does she think the House will need to do the Bill justice? When it left us, it had 330 clauses and it now has 413, as well as five new schedules, including a new clause on the part-privatisation of the tube. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and other contenders for Mayor of London will want ample opportunity to debate that and all the other amendments. We certainly will and we need adequate time.

Finally, last week I asked the right hon. Lady to find time for debates on important issues, not least the royal commission on long-term care, and my right hon. and hon. Friends made other suggestions, as did Labour Members. No one asked for a debate on whether the public records should be printed on vellum or paper, but that is the debate that she is visiting on us on Monday. With all the pressures on Government business, the Government amendments to important Bills, and a guillotine on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, is that really the best use of this Chamber's time?

Mrs. Beckett

If the Chancellor believes that there is something that he needs to report to the House on the withholding tax, he will no doubt seek an opportunity to make a statement. But since the Government have said repeatedly and on every occasion when it has been discussed that we shall certainly veto any settlement that we regard as not being in Britain's interests, it is not clear to me that there is anything new to say.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Northern Ireland and the fact that Senator Mitchell has said that he may return on Sunday. Obviously, I know no more than he about where matters stand or what, if anything, is likely to be able to be reported to the House, but of course I give the undertaking that we will do everything we can to keep the House informed, as we always have, on this difficult and delicate issue.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to some of the legislation in the pipeline and said that were large numbers of amendments. I accept that but, sadly, it is not unprecedented in any way, shape or form. It is not a precedent that I care for and the Government are working hard gradually to overturn it. Unfortunately, there is nothing whatever unprecedented about large numbers of amendments being made at a late stage in the House of Lords and returning to this House towards the end of a Session.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the debate on long-term care. He knows that I have repeatedly told him that the Government will hold such a debate in the House, but when we are ready and able to do so. On the Administration Committee motion, he may not have called for such a debate, but the matter was objected to and so a decision is required.

Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)

Can my right hon. Friend please find time for a debate on education spending, from the primary sector through to the secondary? The allegation is that, although we inherited a system in which young people were much worse off, we have improved it. We need to put that on the record.

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend is entirely right. A range of improvements have been made and he will know that we inherited a system in which, under the spending plans of the previous Government, there would have been a fall in real-terms spending of £38 per pupil. Thanks to the decisions made by the Government, there has been a real-terms spending increase of £73 per pupil. In his area, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), recently opened one of the new initiatives—a homework club at the Norwich City ground. That is another of the developments that are bringing so much benefit to our education system. My hon. Friend is right to raise those matters, but I cannot undertake to find time for an extra debate, especially as we have just had Education and Employment questions.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I share the concern of the Conservative spokesman about the idiosyncratic sense of priorities for Monday when we clearly have important business to debate. In particular, will the right hon. Lady give us an absolute assurance that there will not be an allocation of time motion for the Greater London Authority Bill on Thursday? Given the many amendments that have been tabled so late, it would be outrageous if there were any attempt to push it through without proper regard to the concern in all parts of the House about important issues.

Will the right hon. Lady return to how the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is to be handled on Wednesday? Can she give us an explicit assurance that there will not be an artificial cut-off time of 10 o'clock, midnight or whatever and that there will be a real attempt to understand that Members in all parts of the House want to debate important issues of principle properly? It would be outrageous if debates were cut short.

In her capacity of Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, is the right hon. Lady satisfied at the way in which those Bills have been crashed in during the last few days of this Session? Can we not try to find a better way to deal with them in future?

Mrs. Beckett

The House debating a variety of other matters and then turning to pressing legislation as it comes from the House of Lords has always been a feature of this time of year. I agree that there may be better ways of organising things and it is part of the work of the Modernisation Committee—and, indeed, of the Government—to try to move in that direction, but these things cannot be done overnight.

The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance about an allocation of time motion for the Greater London Authority Bill and mentioned the one on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. I tell him quite straightforwardly that the Government would prefer, on all those matters, for there to be no need for such a motion. He will recall that the Modernisation Committee recommended, to all parties in the House, that programme motions and programme motion agreements provided the best way of ensuring that we achieve proper discussion of all factors that are raised in a Bill and that need to be debated without anything being overlooked. That is how the Government always prefer to operate. It is for the usual channels to discuss how far it is possible in regard to these issues, and the same applies to the allocation of time motion relating to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is not the best way to run things. We will continue to try to improve the manner in which legislation is handled, so that the present system is not a feature of the future. However, he will know as well as any other Member that it has been a repeated feature of the handling of business here for all the 20-something years during which I have been—fleetingly—a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

The Leader of the House will know of the case of my constituent Anita Froggatt, who had a breast removed in error at Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital owing to a mix-up of slides. The former Secretary of State for Health expressed extreme concern. Would it now be appropriate for the new Secretary of State to make a statement? A report was published on Wednesday, but it is inadequate in that it merely calls for the retraining of the doctor concerned in dealing with slides, and recommends that no further checks should be carried out on any of the slides with which that doctor dealt previously. A statement would allow us to discover the Government's opinion of the report.

Mrs. Beckett

I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that he has pursued this matter for some time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is obviously aware of the report, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that he has not had much time in which to consider it. I cannot undertake to find time for a special statement now, but I will draw my hon. Friend's concern to my right hon. Friend's attention in case he can add anything to what is already on the record.

Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

Can we have a wider debate on local authorities than that envisaged for next week? Does the Leader of the House realise that in the west midlands, Labour-controlled Coventry council is maintaining a ban on British beef in schools and old people's homes? If a debate is not possible, will the right hon. Lady at least urge the council to change its policy immediately?

Mrs. Beckett

I was not aware of the issue. I will simply say that, however much any of us may regret the aftermath and the knock-on consequences of the British beef crisis, I fear that blame does not rest with this side of the House.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)

I am sure that the Leader of the House has been following events in Kosovo since the KFOR occupation, and will therefore know that more than 100 Serbs and people from other minorities have been murdered or injured by the Kosovo Liberation Army and 100,000 have been ethnically cleansed. Yesterday, as a column of Serbs attempted to leave Kosovo—supposedly protected by NATO troops—they were set upon by Albanians who tried to burn them alive in their vehicles. At least five are missing. Given that we went to war with Yugoslavia to prevent such practices, will the Leader of the House ask the Government urgently for a debate on this serious situation?

Mrs. Beckett

As my hon. Friend will know, the Government share her concern. An explicit part of the remit of those who now seek to keep the peace in Kosovo was that there should be a fair and even-handed approach, and that we should try to preserve the safety and the human rights of all concerned. She will also know that that is not always an easy task. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special statement in the near future, but she may find an opportunity to raise the matter next week during Foreign Office questions.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

Why is there to be a statement on the millennium bug today? The House rose early on Monday and yesterday. We are experiencing the biggest crisis in British agriculture since the 1930s, and we need every minute to discuss it today. Why could the millennium bug statement not have been made earlier?

Mrs. Beckett

There is nothing sinister about the decision to have the millennium bug statement today. It has long been scheduled. I cannot recall whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I last made a statement about this, but part of the undertaking given by the Government was that there would be a statement. It comes immediately after the publication of the findings of the national infrastructure forum, and a number of other events directly related to the millennium bug. The House rising early yesterday and on Monday is a matter for the whole House. If hon. Members do not wish to add their voices to debates, there is nothing that the Government can do to make them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

If the House is rising early, is it not true that the Opposition cannot be doing their job? When Labour was in opposition, the father of this lad here, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), and I would keep that lot up all night. It did not take very many of us to do that.

My right hon. Friend will recall that the Government allocated £2.5 billion for the sufferers of white finger and of bronchitis and other chest problems. Is she aware that paying out the compensation has been a very laborious process? It is taking a long time and needs to be speeded up. Can we have a statement from the appropriate Minister, and ensure that we get all those miners dealt with before the end of the year? Many of them are 70 or 80 years old and may not be around to pick up the compensation.

Will my right hon. Friend also have a word with the lawyers who have been given some of that £2.5 billion by the Government, and who are calling on those miners and miners' widows for an extra 5 or 10 per cent., although they have already been paid?

Mrs. Beckett

On my hon. Friend's first point, there was much in what he said, although I am not necessarily all that grateful to him for pointing it out to the Opposition. I have long thought that it would be good for them if we gave them tutorials, but I have resisted the temptation.

On the serious matter of those who have suffered because of their service in the mining industry, I know that £35 million of the money has already been released. Nevertheless, the Government and I share my hon. Friend's view that we should do more to try to speed up release of the allocated funds. From my own experience in the matter, I think that he was entirely right to identify the fact that, to some extent, the problems have been related to the legal handling of the case. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, who is responsible for those matters, is taking action to try to speed up payments, in exactly the way that my hon. Friend wishes.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire)

Is the choice of paper, parchment or vellum in modernising Britain really the Government's priority for Monday? Given the crisis in farming—with two chicken abattoirs going bankrupt in the past 10 days, but hundreds of tonnes of chicken breast being imported to the United Kingdom from Thailand—is it really impossible to move the millennium bug statement to the empty day on Monday so that we might have a full debate on agriculture today?

Mrs. Beckett

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated in his final remarks that he is aware that there is a debate on agriculture today; one might otherwise not have thought so. Today's agriculture debate has been initiated by the Government, and there will be plenty of time—should hon. Members choose to use it—to debate farming issues. We have had many opportunities to debate those issues in the House this week, and we shall continue to have such opportunities.

Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney)

Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate on the Government's recently announced plans to make NHS dentistry available to all who want it? Does she agree that that would provide a fine opportunity to reveal whether the Conservative party would delay, reverse or even destroy such an initiative with their recently announced policy of creeping privatisation of the NHS?

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify the public concern about the availability of dental treatment, and particularly of NHS dental treatment. Dental treatment was one of the best examples of creeping privatisation under the previous Government. In many parts of the country, it has become hard for people to gain access to NHS care. I agree that it is very important to restore such access. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on it in the near future.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

The right hon. Lady knows that I am always keen to assist her if she is in a spot of difficulty. May I therefore suggest that, to pad out Monday's business—which is currently composed of inconsequential and uncontroversial matters—she might find time for the appropriate Law Officers to make a statement to the House on why Dr. Anthony Glees, a distinguished researcher at Brunel university, has not been contacted by the Security Service, the police or the Crown Prosecution Service about the contents of the Stasi files that he found? They exposed in great detail the activities of Dr. Robin Pearson, Ms Fiona Houlding and others. The same material in America and Germany has been the basis of successful prosecutions, in one case sending someone to prison for a total of 18 years.

Mrs. Beckett

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter, quite properly, in the House already. It seems to me that there is no need for a further statement on it. However, if he still wishes to raise it again, I remind him that he can do so at Home Office questions on Monday.

Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling)

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future of the branch network of Britain's clearing banks? She may be aware that, in my constituency, Barclays bank is to shut its crucial Gedling branch. Local people have not been consulted, and the closure is being presented as a fait accompli.

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is a matter of great concern when people lose access to personal banking services. Many feel that such losses are not compensated for adequately by some of the developments in telebanking. Although I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter, my hon. Friend may find other opportunities to raise it—perhaps at the forthcoming Treasury questions.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)

This time last week, the Leader of the House announced that European Standing Committee C was to debate two European directives, on copyright and on e-commerce. Those directives were issued in connection with a Single Market Council meeting on 7 December. Her announcement gave members of the Committee precisely three and a half working days to read files on those directives that were each about 3 in thick. Committee members also had to try to get a briefing from the Library of the House on all the matters involved, but there was no time to arrange any consultation or advice sessions with interested parties outside the House.

Will the Leader of the House assure me that we will not suffer the same farce when it comes to the future scrutiny of crucial European legislation? Back Benchers must have adequate time to get properly briefed and to seek the views of the people affected by the directives, if we are to scrutinise the legislation properly.

Mrs. Beckett

I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, but may I gently point out that the problem is a consequence of the summer recess. The documents were not available to hon. Members earlier because the House was not sitting.

Mr. Jack

They could have been.

Mrs. Beckett

The right hon. Gentleman says that the documents could have been available, so I presume that a conscientious Back Bencher with an interest in the matters involved might have tried to get them from the Library earlier.

I repeat that I sympathise with the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. He will know that the Government have taken steps to try to improve the scrutiny of European business, and we will continue to work on that. However, he will also know that it is sometimes not possible to give hon. Members as much notice as we would like. We shall continue to strive to improve in that regard.

Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley)

My request follows on from that made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). As we reach the end of breast cancer awareness month, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the very important issue of breast cancer? That would allow the House to examine the success of the Government's pilot initiatives in extending routine screening to women aged between 65 and 69.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate would provide a useful opportunity for the House to examine the Opposition's attitude to such important initiatives, especially as they are on record as stating that the Government are being reckless in giving an extra £40 billion to the NHS and education services?

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There was a half-day debate on health service matters in Opposition time this week, and the matter that she raised continues to be important. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate, but my hon. Friend has reminded me of a point that I should have drawn to the House's attention earlier. As we have agreed to experimental sittings in Westminster Hall, that is precisely the kind of debate that might find a place there when it is not easy to find time in the Chamber.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent)

Would the right hon. Lady ask a Minister to make a statement on a very important issue? Among all the heat and light generated over the national health service, no mention has been made of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus. MRSA is a killer which has invaded virtually all our hospitals. It is extremely difficult to get rid of and it has enormous knock-on effects on staffing and the segregation of male and female beds. Whether or not people should be admitted to hospitals from nursing homes that have MRSA is a tremendous issue. Nothing seems ever to be said about it, and many trusts are going into deficit partly because of the costs incurred as a result of it.

Mrs. Beckett

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and entirely correct point. I share his concern. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the near future, but the House would sympathise if he looked to the opportunities available to hon. Members to raise important issues. MRSA is a good example of a specialist, non-party political issue that requires consideration in depth. There are, unfortunately, so many such issues that it is not easy to find time to debate them all.

Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)

In view of the ministerial statement earlier this week in response to the report of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on radioactive waste management and the additional statement on means of complying with the Ospar convention, not to mention the important and controversial decisions pending on the Sellafield MOX plant and the discharge authorisation at Sellafield and the proposed partial privatisation of British Nuclear Fuels, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an overwhelming argument for a debate in Government time on all aspects of nuclear policy?

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend raises a number of important, and to some degree related, issues, but I must tell him, as I have told others, that I cannot find Government time for a debate on those matters in the near future. I am confident that my hon. Friend will use his ingenuity and the procedures of the House to find other ways to raise those matters.

Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh)

Is the Leader of the House aware that it is perfectly legal to allow 12-year-old children—minors—to be subjected to cosmetic body piercing without parental consent? During an earlier debate, her colleagues recognised the law's inadequacy and the need to strengthen it. However, they did not find time for new legislation. Will she use her good offices, if not to introduce legislation in this Session, to do so early in the next? That would put at rest the minds of many parents throughout the country.

Mrs. Beckett

That is one of the many worthy issues for which it is not easy to find legislative time. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may press the matter on one of the hon. Members who wins a place in the private Members' ballot. I cannot undertake to introduce Government legislation in the near future, although I say that without pre-empting the Queen's Speech in any way.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)

Is the Leader of the House aware that two days after the House rose for the summer recess, but before the other place had risen, a substantial amendment to the air navigation order was laid before us? It will have swingeing bureaucratic and financial consequences on flying training, and is likely to increase costs by about 35 per cent. Bearing in mind that 45 per cent. of our pilots train themselves initially through private flying, will the right hon. Lady—who has a constituency interest in aviation as she represents the home of the Rolls-Royce aero engine company—allow the House time to debate an issue of serious concern to the flying training industry?

Mrs. Beckett

I freely confess, and hope that it will not be held against me, that I was not aware of that. I had other things on my mind two days after the House rose for the summer. I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the possible knock-on effects, and I undertake to draw the matter to the attention of my relevant ministerial colleague.

Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth)

I am sure that my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have enjoyed watching the Rugby World cup in the past few weeks. Will she find time for a debate to ensure a fair deal for rugby supporters? I was able to attend the game last Saturday at Cardiff and there were clusters of empty seats at a game that was supposed to be a sell-out, thus denying many supporters the opportunity to go to the game. Next Thursday, there will be no trains back to London from Cardiff after the third and fourth place play-off and the minimum price of the tickets for that game will be £30, thus denying my constituents, especially young people, the opportunity to go to the Millennium stadium to see what a wonderful creation that is in Cardiff.

Mrs. Beckett

I was not aware that the travel difficulties would be as great as my hon. Friend has identified and can understand his concern about those who will suffer a disadvantage. I can only hope to draw the matter to the attention of the relevant authorities, since from what he said it is a combination of the activities of the rugby and the transport authorities that have led to those difficulties.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)

Does the right hon. Lady understand Opposition Members' concern about the fact that she has chosen today for a statement on the millennium bug when the House has risen early twice this week? There is growing concern in the countryside that we have not had sufficient time to debate agriculture. The simple fact is that the Opposition have chosen it as the subject of debate on three occasions this year. There are many concerns also about the wider implications for the countryside.

Mr. Tyler

We had a debate on agriculture last week, but the hon. Gentleman was not here.

Mr. McLoughlin

Is the Leader of the House also aware that in the past two days I have received letters from the Post Office to inform me of the closure of two rural post offices in my constituency, at Lea Bridge and Roston? It is the whole fabric of the countryside about which we are concerned as well as the agriculture industry.

Mrs. Beckett

I can only repeat that the Opposition have no cause to complain about the Government since we have volunteered the time for that debate. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has pointed out, there was a further opportunity to debate agriculture last week, when attendance on the Conservative Benches was unfortunately a little thin. Undoubtedly, there will be further opportunities to discuss a range of rural matters when the White Paper is published. I assure the hon. Gentleman that as we now have so many Labour Members who represent rural constituencies, the Government will be happy to find further opportunities for such debates.

Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan)

Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to deal with the worrying problem of train overcrowding? I draw to her attention early-day motion 941.

[That this House notes the incident on the 10 a.m. Paddington to Swansea train on Saturday, 23rd October, when over 1,000 passengers boarded a train designed to carry fewer than 450 persons; notes that in the interests of passenger safety, the drivers refused to stop the train beyond Reading at Bristol and Newport station to take on more passengers; and calls upon the Government as a matter of urgency, to consider introducing a numeral limitation on the numbers of people who can travel on passenger trains.]

The situation on the train was so dangerous—it was designed to take only 428 people—that the driver and guard refused to stop at stations beyond Reading in case more passengers tried to board it. Dangerous overcrowding happens daily in my constituency and affects my commuters. I suspect that many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have a similar problem. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no numerical limit or maximum capacity for that form of public transport, unlike any other? We should tackle that problem.

Mrs. Beckett

I am aware that there is no limit on capacity for rail transport and can understand the concern that my hon. Friend expressed in the circumstances that he described. All aspects of rail safety are under review following the tragic accident on the line to Paddington. I strongly suggest that he should draw that aspect of safety to the attention of those conducting the review and encourage his constituents to do so, since I suspect, as he does, that it may be an aspect that is sometimes overlooked.

Mr. Robert Syms (Poole)

I implore the Leader of the House to reconsider the outrageous decision to guillotine the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. My constituents care greatly about that measure and it deserves sufficient debate. If the House had been over-busy this week and we had been dealing with a matter of substance on Monday, one might understand the Government's position, but the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Bill is nothing like as important as welfare reform. Please may we take the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill on Monday and give it at least a fair airing, because it is an important issue?

Mrs. Beckett

I remind the House that when the Bill previously came before the House three days were available for debate, although the Opposition had asked for only one. We have done our best to ensure that adequate time has been provided for those debates and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central)

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity yet to consider early-day motion 954?

[That this House notes with concern the proposal by Remploy to make 35 able-bodied employees compulsorily redundant at its Leeds orthotics factory; and regrets that the company's admirable no-redundancy policy for its disabled employees in not being applied to its able-bodied staff in this case.]

It concerns the 35 compulsory redundancies proposed at the Remploy factory in my Leeds constituency. The matter is of particular concern to those affected because although Remploy has a no redundancy policy for its disabled staff, it does not apply to able-bodied employees. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a ministerial statement on this issue?

Mrs. Beckett

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. As he knows, the employment provided by Remploy is greatly valued, particularly by its staff with disabilities. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on this matter, but I am confident that my hon. Friend will use his ingenuity to find other ways in which to raise it.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

Given that the Leader of the House has parliamentary time on her hands, squeezing important Bills such as the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill into the minimum time while on other days she sends her Labour colleagues on gardening leave, will she arrange for an early statement to be made on the impact on e-commerce of the matters referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)? Those changes from Brussels are likely to destroy the Government's strategy. We understand that the Lord Chancellor's Department, in supporting them, did not consult the Department of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State there. We need to know what impact those directives from Brussels will have on e-commerce, particularly as business failures in this country have risen by 13 per cent. in the past three months and will rise further as a result of this additional meddling and red tape.

Mrs. Beckett

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I, as a former Whip, never send anybody on gardening leave. The impact of the directive on e-commerce will have to be carefully considered. The Government do everything we can to ensure that the level of regulation, whether from Brussels or stemming from our internal activities, is kept under review and to a minimum, and to resist things that are not in our interests. We shall continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman may find an opportunity to raise the detail of the issue with DTI Ministers next week.