Business of the House (Hansard, 18 July 2002)

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
Will the Leader of the House please give the business for next week?

§ The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook)
It will be a pleasure. The business for next week will he as follows:
MONDAY 22 JULY—Second Reading of the Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Bill [Lords].
Motions to establish the Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committees.
Motion on the summer recess Adjournment.
TUESDAY 23 JULY—Debate on public expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. [Interruption.] I look forward to the contribution from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
WEDNESDAY 24 JULY—The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Bill [Lords].
The business for the week after the summer recess will be:
TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER—Motion relating to the Industrial Development Act 1982.
Remaining stages of the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords].
Debate on local government finance formula grant distribution on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 16 OCTOBER—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 17 OCTOBER—Debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 18 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
I would also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for October will be:
THURSDAY 17 OCTOBER—Debate on the report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee on road traffic speed.
THURSDAY 24 OCTOBER—Debate on the UN charter on the rights of the child.
THURSDAY 31 OCTOBER—Debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism.
The House will also wish to know that on Tuesday 15 October, there will be a debate relating to major accident hazards involving dangerous substances in European Standing Committee A, and on Thursday 17 October 2002, there will be a debate relating to the European Union action plan on drugs in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Tuesday 15 October 2002:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 15275/01, Major accident hazards involving dangerous substances. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-xxxiv and HC 52-xix (2001–02).
422 Thursday 17 October 2002:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 10207/01, The EU Action Plan on drugs 2000–2004. Relevant European Union Scrutiny Committee report: HC 152-ii (2001–02).]
As this is the last business statement before the recess, may I—

§ Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
Invite us all for drinks?

§ Mr. Cook
Sadly, I am too constrained by my work on behalf of the House to take time off to do that. On behalf of the House, I wish to thank all the staff of the House for their hard work—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Without that hard work, we could not have sat over the past year. As Leader of the House, I also wish to record my personal thanks to the parliamentary clerks across Whitehall for their co-operation and support.

§ Mr. Forth
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. I echo strongly his thanks to all of the staff and Officers of the House who help us in our work. It should never go unrecorded or unappreciated.
Can the Leader of the House tell us why we are having a defence statement today? Yesterday, we had a defence debate—indeed, the Minister opening that debate took some 74 minutes of the time of the House. I should have thought that it would not be beyond the wit of the Government and the Leader of the House to have put a defence statement on the same day as a defence debate. Instead, there will be three statements today. They will squeeze consideration on the Proceeds of Crime Bill, for which 13 groups of amendments have been selected. That is the very Bill whose progress the Prime Minister tried to imply that the Opposition were obstructing. It is the Government who seem to be conspiring to give that Bill less consideration than it deserves. Will the Leader of the House explain what on earth is happening, and why he seems to have lost his grip almost completely?
Next Monday, we will get the Anderson report on foot and mouth. We know that because Anderson has told the world so. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that the House will have the opportunity to consider that very important report before we leave for the summer recess? We must not slip into the recess without being given the chance to consider the report, and perhaps we could delay the recess by a day. [HON. MEMBERS: "You will be on your own."] I hear Labour Members say that I will be on my own, but it is clear from their response to that that my colleagues will be here. We want the opportunity to hear from a Minister about the Government's response to the Anderson report on foot and mouth. We are prepared to be here for as long as that takes.
In connection with matters agricultural, the Leader of the House will be aware of the excellent report produced yesterday by the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the annual report for 2002 from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Among other things, the Committee stated that the "achievements" section of the annual report was misnamed and that it
might usefully be included in future reports, but in brief, and described simply as 'how we spend our time'. The Committee also recommends that
the Report contain more hard financial data & and less waffle. 423 That is how a Select Committee of this House, with a Labour majority, sets out what it thinks of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It goes on to state that the level of detail currently given is not acceptable. It recommends that the Department as a matter of urgency examine the accuracy of the data in the Departmental Report, and issue corrigenda as necessary. It also states: Finally, some data is missing.
I hope that the Leader of the House agrees that those studied comments by a Select Committee warrant full consideration by the House before the recess. Such matters should not be slipped away so that—as the Government hope—they might be forgotten.
The next section of my remarks might be entitled "ministerial inaccuracies". I choose that second word carefully, as you, Mr. Speaker, would reprimand me if I used words such as porkies, whoppers or anything else. In deference to you, therefore, I shall stick to the word "inaccuracies".
My first question refers to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), to which reference was made at last week's business questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). The point of order referred to the Minister for Pensions, who my colleagues believed had given the House inaccurate information on whether pensioners could elect to have a home visit from the pension service.
That is a serious matter, as there appears to be a complete difference of view between the Minister and one of his officials. I hope that the Leader of the House will give the Minister for Pensions time to come to the House and correct the record, not least so that pensioners can be reassured that what he and the Department are saying is accurate and reliable.
On July 15, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Chancellor, that he was Home Secretary "when crime doubled." The truth is that crime fell by 18 per cent. while my right hon. and learned Friend discharged his duties as Home Secretary. Will the Leader of the House say what is the source of the Chancellor's assertion? Will the Chancellor come to the House to apologise, or will the Leader of the House now have to start excusing inaccuracies by the Chancellor as well as by the Prime Minister?
Talking of which, yesterday in PMPs, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted the Prime Minister as saying that the Government would reduce levels of street crime to below the April level. The Prime Minister replied: I shall certainly repeat exactly what I said in other words, he seemed to imply that that would be done. However, at column 281, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked by how much the Prime Minister expects robberies to have fallen by September?
424 and the Prime Minister said that instead of the trend being up, it should be down".—[Official Report, 17 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 279–81
Obviously, again, the Prime Minister chooses his words to fit the moment, with a blithe disregard for accuracy. So the question to the Leader of the House is: is the Prime Minister massaging, redefining or spinning, and how often does the Leader of the House expect to have to come to the House on a Thursday and excuse or apologise for what his colleagues have said?

§ Mr. Cook
The right hon. Gentleman must be seriously concerned that he will miss these exchanges over the next three months, so he has given us a treble helping today. I am in generous mood, and the House is in demob mood, but as the right hon. Gentleman quoted one of the Select Committees calling for a lot less waffle, I should have thought that he might reflect on those words himself over the next three months.
On the statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I do not think that the House can hear too often from my right hon. Friend, who is punctilious in fulfilling his duties to this place. I am advised that in yesterday's debate we had fewer speakers from the Conservative Benches than from the Labour Benches. My right hon. Friend is no doubt keen that there should be a full attendance of Conservative Members on this occasion to hear his important statement about the future strategy for our defence forces. It is absolutely right that that should be brought before the House.
As to any squeezing of time for the Proceeds of Crime Bill, I saw the right hon. Gentleman in his place yesterday when we both supported our senior figures. He may recall that the leader of the Conservative party assured the House that the Conservative party now supports the Proceeds of Crime Bill. It is therefore a bit rich to complain only 24 hours later that there is not enough time to debate it.
On the forthcoming Anderson report, it is unusual to declare this in advance to the House, but in these circumstances I think it is right to do so: I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and she is keen to make a statement to the House on Monday. There will be a statement on that issue.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that he wanted additional time for the House to debate the matter, and that we should postpone the recess. Before we embark on the wider question of the business statement, I should warn the House that I have no plans to go abroad this summer, so there is a serious danger that if asked to detain the House longer, I might agree. I hope that my hon. Friends will take that on board before putting their questions to me.
On the crime statistics, over the 18 years of the last Conservative Government—the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of this, as he was present throughout that period—crime did indeed double, compared with the drop of 22 per cent. since we took over in 1997. I shall be happy to provide the right hon. Gentleman with a full list of all the Conservative Home Secretaries who collectively presided over that doubling of the crime figures during the Conservative years.
I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that
425 I do not wish to give an off-the-cuff response to a matter that has not previously been drawn to my attention, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will respond perfectly adequately to him.
On the crime figures, I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that street crime in the Metropolitan area has fallen by a third since last January. That is well on course for the target for September, and the Prime Minister was right to say that we are taking special measures to make sure that we bring street crime under control. I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman next addresses the House, he will wish to congratulate the Government on their success in that initiative against street crime in the Met.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman asks whether there is a massaging of figures. I am sure that there is no massaging of figures. Indeed, we have just gone out of our way to provider fuller, clearer recorded crime statistics, and we did so despite the fact that, as he knows, the effect of the change in recording was to produce a slight rise. The rise was the result of the recording rather than the reality. That provides a stark contrast to the behaviour of the Government of whom he was a member in massaging the unemployment figures so that some of the unemployment would vanish. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, on the eve of the general election, which is the nearest that we can come, he said that half of those who disappeared from the figures represented genuine falls. Given that he said that in February 1997, it is bit rich for him now to complain about anyone on the Government Benches massaging figures.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)
A serious problem faces firms trying to renew their employer's liability insurance. A firm in my constituency—Moorside Mining—has ended up paying seven times more than it did just over a year ago to continue in operation. Can we discuss that insurers' ramp, which is taking place at the moment, and the possibility of a scheme being devised—perhaps through the Consolidated Fund—so that construction, mining and quarrying firms, which are particularly badly affected, can have some protection in the future; or will pressure be put on insurers so that they bring themselves into line and provide insurance cover at a reasonable rate?

§ Mr. Cook
My hon. Friend raises a serious issue. I cannot hold out any immediate prospect of a debate of the kind that he suggests, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the Minister for Energy and Construction, who is in charge of such matters.

§ Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)
May I associate the Liberal Democrats with the words of thanks that the Leader of the House has extended to the staff, and single out those who have been responsible for our security this Session, following the events of last autumn?
I welcome the debate on the Select Committees that will take place on Monday 22 July. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the House approved the Modernisation Committee on that topic earlier this Session, the one issue that was not addressed was the political balance of Select Committee chairmanships? In considering the forthcoming reorganisation, will he undertake to use his good offices to ensure that the party political balance of the chairmanships is restored to the level that it should be?
426 Last Monday, the House was presented with a Government motion to end Friday sittings in October. Presumably, that was done in expectation that the Home Energy Conservation (No. 2) Bill—the HECA Bill—will be successfully completed on Friday.

§ Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)
Read the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.

§ Mr. Stunell
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the event that the Bill, as amended, does not pass—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting a question to the Leader of the House. Let the Leader of the House answer the question.

§ Mr. Stunell
Unfortunately, Conservative Members do not appear to be aware that a substitute Bill is being submitted. My point to the Leader of the House is that, were that Bill

§ Mr. Swayne
It has been withdrawn.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Mr. Swayne, please be quiet. The House is very noisy, and we have only a few days to go.

§ Mr. Stunell
I think that I am entitled to be wrong when I speak in the Chamber, as well as to be right. My point to the Leader of the House is whether he will reconsider his decision, as put to us, to end sittings on Fridays in October to give extra time to private Member's Bills that have not been completed before the summer break?
Just before I entered the Chamber, I was given a detailed brief on what the Deputy Prime Minister will tell the House in the statement that he will make in a few minutes' time. I got that detailed briefing from BBC News 24. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is highly unsatisfactory that hon. Members could put on to the record of the House what the Deputy Prime Minister will say in advance of his saying it on the basis of news reports, but that we cannot get that information from the Vote Office? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have something to say about that.
Finally, the Leader of the House will know that I have been challenging the Government's capacity to answer parliamentary questions during this Session. Does he accept that several Departments are still massively behind in responding to questions, and that increasing evidence exists that political advisers and civil servants are working together to obstruct and prevaricate in the provision of honest and accurate replies, rather than facilitating them as the ministerial code requires?

§ Mr. Cook
Let me say, first, that the Opposition will join me in saying that all Members of the House would support fully the democratic right of the hon. Gentleman and his party to be wrong. There is no contention from us on that issue.
I know of the Liberal Democrats' concern that they do not hold sufficient numbers of chairmanships of Select Committees. Of course, that is not, in the first instance, 427 a matter for me; strictly, it is a matter for the Committees to resolve. In the case of the two Committees that we shall appoint next week, there are two existing Committees in that area and two splendid Members of the House who have tended to preside over them. I could not counsel anyone to whom I have good feelings that they might intrude on that particular contested field. I am aware of the issue, however, and I shall certainly bear it in mind for a future occasion.
On private Members' Bills, those for this Friday—if I may clear up this doubt—consist of about 40 Bills on the Order Paper, which I think will be sufficient. The first three of those are: the Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs, Etc.) Bill, which, the House will be aware, the Government support; the Commonwealth Bill, which the Government also fully support; and the Housing Benefit (Withholding of Payment) Bill, to which I understand members of the hon. Gentleman's party have tabled a very large numbers of amendments. That does not suggest to me that they anticipate that other Bills that appear further down the Order Paper will get a hearing. It is for the House on Friday to decide how it will handle these matters. I do not anticipate, however, that the Home Energy Conservation Bill will appear in either its previous reform or in a revised form on Friday.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about sittings on a Friday in October. I am not sure, however, that it would be responsible to extend the time available for private Members' Bills in October, given that the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred will still have to go to the Lords and come back. We must be realistic about what is achievable between now and the end of the Session.
Lastly, I would not, of course, accept in any way that Departments are conspiring to obstruct answers to Members. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the case of the Department for Education and Skills, Ministers have made it perfectly clear that they want the guidance reasserted to match that for civil servants so that we do not have a repetition of the e-mails that the hon. Gentleman saw.

§ Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon)
HIV/AIDS is currently claiming more than a million lives in heavily indebted poor countries, yet half the countries receiving debt relief are spending more on debt payments than on public health. Could the Leader of the House find some time for us to debate that matter to see how we can engage the international community on debt, aid and trade, to tackle this disaster, which is set to reduce life expectancy in some of those countries to the age of only 27?

§ Mr. Cook
First, I fully concur with my hon. Friend on the very important matter to which she draws attention, which is having a severe impact on some of the poorest countries in the world. For that reason, the Government have fully supported the proposal, through the G8 and the United Nations, for a special fund to tackle the HIV/AIDS threat in those countries. That is also why Britain worked very hard to make sure that development aid for Africa, which is one of the continents worst-hit by AIDS, should be at the heart of the debate held only last month at the G8 in Canada. We secured some progress there in making sure that there were fuller commitments to help Africa.
428 We have shown leadership on the relief of debt, and it is fair to say that no other major developed country has done more than we have to tackle the debt burden. We have unilaterally renounced the debt to Britain of more than 20 of the poorest countries. We shall continue to work on that—there is a lot more to be done—but Britain does not need to be ashamed of its record in this area.

§ Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)
The last time that I asked the Leader of the House for a full-scale debate in Government time on agriculture, he counselled me that it could not be done until all the reports associated with foot and mouth disease were in the public domain. As that is about to be achieved—in addition to the publication of the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on the activities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the fundamental spending review report on the future budget for DEFRA—will the Leader of the House ensure that as soon as we come back after the summer recess, if not before, we have a full-scale debate on agriculture? All the criteria that he laid down for such a debate have now been fulfilled.

§ Mr. Cook
It will not be possible to do that before the House rises for the summer recess. However, I am well aware of the issue and will bear it in mind when we return.

§ Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
The Minister for Rural Affairs will conduct public inquiries in September in connection with the latest leg of the saga on hunting with dogs. He has given the same amount of time to those who argue for a ban as he has to those who wish to retain the status quo. Inexplicably, he has given the same amount of time to those who argue for the middle way, which has no discernible support in the House or outside. I urge my right hon. Friend to pass on my concerns to the Minister. Will he ask him to make an early statement when we return in October on precisely where we are on that issue, which concerns many of us?

§ Mr. Cook
The precise arrangements for consultation are for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs to determine. I am sure he will want to make proper arrangements so that he hears the full spread of views. As someone who has consistently supported the middle way both times, I can only say to my hon. Friend that I think that I am discernible.

§ Mr. Michael Trend (Windsor)
The Leader of the House will be familiar with the fourth report of the Science and Technology Committee on developments in human genetics and embryology, which is an important and difficult matter. Can he reassure us that ownership of that important subject still resides with the House? Will he give us an early debate on the important matters raised in the report, especially the question of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's decision to allow tissue typing in conjunction with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis?

§ Mr. Cook
The hon. Gentleman is right. Such matters can always be brought before Parliament, and the Select Committee's report reasserted the importance of Parliament's view. We have not legislated on that subject 429 for some years, and I heard a spokesman this morning from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority say that there are ways in which the authority might also welcome the law being looked at. However, it is important to recognise that we established the authority because individual decisions of that nature should not be made by politicians on political lines—

§ Bob Spink (Castle Point)
That was not an individual decision. That particular decision was ground breaking.

§ Mr. Cook
If I may answer the question in my own way, it might be helpful to the House.
I do not think that the House should get involved in second guessing any individual case. On the particular case in question, I disagree with the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). The spokesman for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority made it clear this morning that it took a decision on that case simply to ensure that the next child was healthy. That is nothing new.

§ Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the report issued by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform yesterday, which says that it will conclude the first part of its work by the autumn and is planning to meet twice in September? Will he endeavour to allow us to vote on the report at the earliest opportunity, possibly in the spill-over Session before the Queen's Speech?

§ Mr. Cook
I very much welcome the report. It shows that the Joint Committee is going about its work in a brisk and business-like way. I welcome the fact that it will meet during the recess. It has already agreed that there should be two phases to its work: first, to report to the House on the list of options on composition and, secondly, to consider in more detail how it will craft a second Chamber around whatever decision is taken by both Houses. I stand ready to arrange for the first of those to be put before the House, but I need to receive it from the Joint Committee before I can do so.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)
The Leader of the House said that he hoped that the Modernisation Committee's latest report would be with us before we rose so that we could study it in the recess and debate it when we return. Is that still his hope and expectation? When does he expect this Session to end and the new Session to be opened?

§ Mr. Cook
I expect the Modernisation Committee to sit next Wednesday morning under my chairmanship to discuss the Chairman's draft, which I hope we will be able to adopt.

§ Mr. Forth
Oh no.

§ Mr. Cook
I regret to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but it is quite possible that we will adopt it. However, I cannot commit all members of the Committee to that, and I need their co-operation to secure that outcome.

§ Mr. Forth
Ah!

§ Mr. Cook
I do not think that I am giving away any secrets of procedure within the Select Committee. The 430 draft is the property of the Select Committee once I lay it before it. I have a lively expectation that we may reach a conclusion next Wednesday, in which case the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) will have some useful, viable and uplifting reading over the summer recess.

§ Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday the Director-General of the BBC appeared before a Committee of the House and denied vehemently that there are any plans to dumb down political coverage? Yet only hours later we saw Mr. Jeremy Paxman asking questions of the leader of the Liberal Democrats that were highly personal and completely irrelevant to political debate. This is an issue for all of us who are involved in politics, whether covering politics or involved in policy making. Are there to be no limits to questions from interviewers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will do nothing to enhance the institutions of Parliament or the BBC?

§ Mr. Cook
My hon. Friend raises a serious issue. Irrespective of political party, many Members must have been taken aback and distressed by the degree of personal questioning that took place yesterday. It does not matter how frank and open the replies Members give in these circumstances are—we all know that in such circumstances, when mud is thrown, there is a tendency for it to stick, and it is difficult to dispose of it.
The BBC needs to reflect on the fact that it is a public service broadcaster. As a result, it uniquely receives a licence fee that is paid by all viewers within the United Kingdom. One of the conditions of retaining that privileged status is that it should not seek to dumb down and compete with the bottom end of the market.

§ Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford)
Will the Leader of the House arrange next week for a Minister from the Department of Health to make a statement in the light of the crisis in care homes, especially in the Birmingham area, which is causing grave concern to many, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride)? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the Department with responsibility for social services spending 100 per cent. less on fees to private homes compared with its own homes, over the past 18 months it has forced more than 80 homes to close, with terrible problems for the most vulnerable and frail in our society?

§ Mr. Cook
I repeat what I have said in the House on a number of previous occasions. The Government have provided for a 20 per cent. increase in real terms for social service spending by local authorities. That compares with an increase in the last five years of the previous, Conservative Government of 0.1 per cent. Moreover, the House has just heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announce a comprehensive spending review, which provides for a similar increase over the lifetime of the next spending review. It is for local authorities to make their own judgments on priorities in their areas and how best to achieve them. It is not a matter for the Government to instruct local authorities and to try to second-guess how 431 they use resources. There are now far more resources—far more than were ever dreamed of by the Conservative Government.

§ Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley)
Yesterday, thousands of local government employees, many of them low-paid women workers, were involved in action over their pay. Even if there is no time to debate the issue before the recess, will my right hon. Friend ask his ministerial colleagues to consider whether there is any further action that they can take to encourage an early resolution of the dispute through negotiations or the use of the conciliation and arbitration procedures?

§ Mr. Cook
The House will be aware of the dispute to which my hon. Friend refers. It is a matter for the local authority associations and their staff to resolve it. The offer that is on the table provides for a 3 per cent. increase. That fully matches the average settlement at present within the private sector. Over the past five years, settlements involving local government staff have more than kept pace with inflation.
I understand entirely the point that my hon. Friend makes about lower paid members of the local government sector. They are very much a matter of priority for the Government. That is why, through working families tax credit and through the other tax credits that we have provided, we have tried to make sure that we target and help those who are low paid. That means, for instance, that a school caretaker on £170 a week is now £56 better off than he or she was at the time of the 1997 general election. We shall continue to do all that we can to ensure that the low paid are assisted and get priority. I hope that the unions and employers, too, will find a settlement that does the same.

§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the recently published annual report of the president of appeal tribunals on the standard of decisions taken in the name of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? For the second year running, he adverted to real problems in relation to the way in which medical evidence is collected, assessed and used by decision makers in reaching disability living allowance awards. The Department's own figures suggest that one in five cases is being under-awarded. Will there be an opportunity for the House to discuss that important matter?

§ Mr. Cook
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Many of us will have seen in our constituencies cases involving medical appeals where we might have come to a different judgment. The hon. Gentleman is well placed to ensure that such matters are processed, and no doubt his Select Committee will examine the matter and follow his lead.

§ Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead)
Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the bizarre fact that after a Budget we have five days of full debate, but after a most welcome—but most complicated—comprehensive spending review, we have had no time at all for an extended debate? I say that because there were some omissions from the review. I am particularly concerned 432 about the lack of any proper debate on provision for universities, some of which are facing such a funding crisis that, among other things, medical schools and faculties may close before Parliament reconvenes. Will my right hon. Friend request that the relevant Minister come to the House before the recess to discuss the apparent absence of commitment to our universities and their funding future?

§ Mr. Cook
I would not accept that there is an absence of commitment to universities. Indeed, we are proud of the fact that we now have entry rates that are among the highest of any of the OECD countries, as well as one of the highest rates of completion of higher education, and we want to build on that success.
I remind my hon. Friend that we heard a very full comprehensive spending review statement on Monday. It was well received inside and outside this Chamber and by many of those working in the public services, including in education. Since then, there have been two or three other statements in the House on how the money is to be spent by Departments, and hon. Members will have an opportunity fully to debate the matter next Tuesday. The totality of that record does not suggest that we are either seeking to deny the House the opportunity to explore the issues or saying anything that has not been well received here and elsewhere.

§ Bob Spink
The right hon. Gentleman showed an uncharacteristic lack of knowledge in answering the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend). He said that the decision taken on the Hashmi case was not a ground-breaking decision, but simply another in a string of decisions. That is not the case. It was a ground-breaking decision, as was acknowledged by the health editor of BBC Online this morning. Is it not time that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was brought back before the House to be debated, so that we can make decisions on matters of such fundamental importance as the creation of new human life for a pre-designed purpose?

§ Mr. Cook
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that my election by my constituents and my democratic mandate entitle me, just occasionally, to disagree with the BBC, and I may indeed do so again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for that encouragement. On the BBC this morning, I heard the spokesman for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority herself say that the decision in that case was taken perfectly in line with many previous decisions to ensure that the child was born healthy.
I repeat what I said earlier: I deprecate our debating in this Chamber the circumstances of one particular case. It is not our business, nor should it be decided along political lines.

§ Paul Flynn (Newport, West)
I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on early-day motion 1637.
[That this House welcomes the intention of film producer Steven Spielberg to create a television series recreating the life and battles of King Arthur, including British actors in the production; notes the success of the series 'Band of Brothers' filmed in England; recognises the historical and mythological connections of King 433 Arthur with Somerset, the identification of Camelot with Cadbury Castle and of the Isle of Avalon with Glastonbury; believes the beautiful and unspoilt countryside of Somerset would therefore be an ideal location for filming such a series; and calls on the Department of Culture Media and Sport to do everything possible to attract the production to Britain and to support the rural economy.]
That contains the dastardly and preposterous suggestion that the court of King Arthur was located at a site other than Caerleon in the city of Newport. A thousand years ago, the Mabinogion and the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth identified Caerleon as Camelot. That was confirmed by Tennyson, who wrote his Arthurian poems in Caerleon, and by the Loyal Knights of the Round Table, who funded the excavation of the round table in the village in 1928.
Now that Steven Spielberg is thinking of making a film about Arthur, is it not wrong and opportunist of certain other areas to claim that their towns were the site of Arthur's round table? Can we have a debate on the matter? Not only might the claim threaten an opportunity for further jobs and prosperity in the beautiful town of Newport, but it is a terrible attempt to steal part of Welsh history.

§ Mr. Cook
Of course, many Scots scholars maintain that Arthur was a prince of Strathclyde, and the legends recount the way in which he defeated the Angles of Northumbria. I therefore conclude that the whole of Britain has a good claim to sharing in Arthur's legend, exploits and success.

§ Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim)
Does the Leader of the House accept that, after Tuesday's partial apology from the IRA, it is more important than ever for the Government to present their promised statement on Northern Ireland before the summer recess? Does he agree that it must spell out the full implications of the Prime Minister's statement at Hillsborough about the breaches in the IRA's ceasefire? The Prime Minister said that the Government would lay down the clear principles that we abide by, and what happens if people don't abide by them. Does the Leader of the House agree that the time has come for the Government to impose sanctions on Sinn Fein-IRA and others who fail to abide by those principles?

§ Mr. Cook
As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland welcomed the apology; it is a useful contribution to the peace process. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that the apology is valuable only if it helps us to make progress with the peace process. The test of the apology is whether we make the progress that is necessary to secure a permanent and just settlement in Northern Ireland. That is the Government's objective.
A statement will be made before the House rises for the recess and the hon. Gentleman can put his points to the Secretary of State then.

§ Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan)
I acknowledge the leading role that the Government play in supporting international research into air travel and deep vein thrombosis. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure 434 that, throughout the summer, his colleagues in the Department for Transport and in the Department of Health continue to maintain pressure on other Governments to play an equally responsible role in funding the World Health Organisation's essential research?
I note that my right hon. Friend is not flying away on holiday this summer. However, all hon. Members will receive a free copy of the fitness-to-fly self-assessment guide before the House rises next week.

§ Mr. Cook
I am sure that all hon. Members will be grateful for any addition to their holiday reading. I am glad that my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to repeat his point in the last business statement before the recess. He has been one of our most regular contributors and I congratulate him on the tenacity and diligence with which he has pursued a serious issue. We are trying to make progress on the matter, and I believe that our Government have made a useful contribution to the international debate on it.

§ Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)
Notwithstanding the amusing exchanges between the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), some important issues arise from the conduct of the business yesterday and today. Less than 16 hours after a major debate on a subject, a Secretary of State is coming to the House to make a major statement on it. That cannot help hon. Members to debate in a well informed fashion.
More importantly, we will consider the Proceeds of Crime Bill later, and there is no doubt that our time is being squeezed. Whatever the Leader of the House thinks of the measure, it is not perfect and it needs fine tuning. Could we table a manuscript amendment to the programme motion so that we can sit longer to ensure that all hon. Members scrutinise the Bill fully?

§ Mr. Cook
Although the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I seek to be as interesting as we are when we make our points, there is always a profoundly serious purpose in our exchanges. I do not think that the House can reasonably criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I think it very important that the House should hear as often as possible and at every opportunity about any developments in our armed forces. We had a debate yesterday, we will hear a statement today and we will certainly have a further debate when the House reconvenes after the recess—an announcement that I have just made. I do not see any reason why my right hon. Friend should be criticised for coming to the House separately to make a clear statement on a new strategy for the defence forces.
I note that the hon. Lady says that the Proceeds of Crime Bill is not perfect. I did not detect that view from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, when he expressed the Conservative party's strong support for the Bill. With that good will and support, I am sure that we can make good progress today.

§ Roger Casale (Wimbledon)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent debate that took place on Tuesday night at the inaugural sitting of the Standing Committee on the Future of Europe Convention. In his 435 work as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, I know that he will continue to monitor the important and innovative work of that Committee, which is open to all Members of this House as well as to Members of the other place. In doing so, will he give particular attention to the recommendation made in the report of the European Scrutiny Committee on scrutiny in the House of Commons that there should be a European Grand Committee, of which the Standing Committee on the Future of Europe Convention could be the forerunner? There are very many European issues that do not currently have the platform or profile that they need in this place if we are to bring European decision making closer to the citizen.

§ Mr. Cook
We are, of course, considering the very thoughtful and far-reaching report of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we will return to the matter in the autumn when we issue the Government' s response. I am not sure that I am immediately attracted to the idea of establishing another Committee in this area as a way of resolving the issue. As I have told the House before, I think that it is important that Europe should form a part of the work of all the departmental Select Committees, to ensure that they have mainstreamed the European dimension. However, I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the extraordinary Committee that we have set up to hear reports from our delegates to the future of Europe convention. The Committee is an innovation, and it hears from the Back Benchers who report to it and not from Ministers. I believe moreover that it is a useful innovation that is right for the current circumstances.

§ Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)
Can we have an early debate on the Government's ideas about changing the way in which money is distributed to local authorities? It appears that they are currently considering three proposals that will result in substantial reductions in the amount going to councils such as the Wokingham unitary authority. We find that very difficult to reconcile with their statements about there being more money for schools and social care. Can we have a proper debate about what the Government are proposing, so my right hon. and hon. Friends and I can have the opportunity to represent our councils and constituencies, which may suffer a lot as a result of the proposals? We are quite happy to stay on for another couple of days to finish the job.

§ Mr. Cook
I am not entirely sure that the right hon. Gentleman understood what I said in announcing the business for the week after the recess, as I announced that that issue would be a matter for debate on the very first day when we return to the House. In the meantime, I remind him that the Government have published options. We have expressed no preference as regards those options, which are out for consultation; and as a result of the representation that I received last Thursday, the House will have a full opportunity to debate them as soon as we return. I would have thought that that would be welcome to the House.

§ Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West)
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), will the Leader of the House 436 explain exactly when in parliamentary terms autumn ends and winter begins? Yesterday's report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords reform stated that the first stage of the Committee's work would be completed in the autumn. When exactly is that? Given that Tennyson was quoted earlier, does he think that when the Committee issues its report, we will be seeing mists or mellow fruitfulness?

Hon. Members
Keats.

§ Mr. Cook
I cannot hope to match the literary flair with which my hon. Friend asks his question. [HON. MEMBERS: "He's wrong!"] I can only hope that we manage to get some summer and autumn between spring and winter, although the matter appears in doubt at the present time.

§ Mr. Michael Weir (Angus)
The Leader of the House will be aware that in previous debates on the future of the Post Office, we have been assured that the universal service obligation is sacrosanct. He will also be aware that Consignia is currently trialling a scheme that may lead to small businesses being charged extra for the delivery of their mail before 9 am. Does he not agree that that appears to be a breach of the universal service obligation and the universal tariff, and will he ensure that the House has a debate on this important and disturbing development as soon as possible?

§ Mr. Cook
The universal service obligation certainly stands as a cornerstone of our relationships with Consignia and the Royal Mail, and indeed there is no suggestion that there will be a withdrawal of a universal service obligation to make a delivery to every premise six days a week. The pilot studies that have been proposed will affect only those premises that receive fewer than 15 letters a day, if I recall rightly. Those premises will get a delivery every day, although getting it before 9 o'clock may, in the pilots, be as a result of an additional charge. But these are pilots; there has been no universal decision yet for the country as a whole, and I am pleased that the Royal Mail appears to be reflecting on those pilots in the light of discussions.

§ Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield)
As the Leader of the House has confessed to being in a generous mood today, may I draw his attention to early-day motion 1408?
[That this House calls on the Government to strengthen its precautionary approach to the siting of mobile phone masts by introducing a moratorium on sites on or near to schools and by re-drafting PPG8 to make it clear that planning authorities can reject applications on the grounds of local public health concerns.]
The motion has been signed by 90 Members on both sides of the House. I signed it this week in the light of events that have taken place in Boldmere and in Wishaw in my constituency, which are causing great concern. Will the Leader of the House consider whether PPG8 should now be redrafted to ensure a better balance between the necessary commercial priorities of mobile phone companies and the rights of those affected by their decisions?

§ Mr. Cook
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Stewart report found no evidence, on balance, of any 437 general health risk, and that exposure levels were well below any risk level. As he rightly says, we have provided guidance on how planning authorities should proceed in these circumstances, but we are confident that no risk to public health has been demonstrated. If it had been, the planning system would not necessarily be the best way to address the problem. I am, indeed, in a generous mood, but I fear that my generosity has its limits.