HC Deb 02 May 2002 vol 384 cc1049-61 12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook)

The business of the House for next week is as follows:

MONDAY 6 MAY The House will not be sitting on the bank holiday. [Interruption.] Another step forward for modernization

TUESDAY 7 MAY—Second Reading of the Police Reform Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 8 MAY—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.

THURSDAY 9 MAY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.

FRIDAY 10 MAY—Private Members Bills.

The provisional business for the week after will be:

MONDAY 13 MAY—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.

TUESDAY 14 MAY—Motion to approve the First Report from the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee on Select Committees.

Motions relating to the Ninth Report from the Standards and Privileges Committee on a new code of conduct and guide to the rules.

WEDNESDAY 15 MAY—Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.

THURSDAY 16 MAY—Progress on a Bill. Details to be confirmed next week.

FRIDAY 17 MAY—The House will not be sitting.

The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 15 May 2002, there will be a debate relating to packaging and packaging waste in European Standing Committee C.

Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Wednesday 15 May 2002:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union documents: 15194/01; Packaging and packaging waste. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xiv, (2001–02).]

Mr. Forth

I thank the Leader of the House for that statement.

I wish to ask, in particular, about the business for 14 May, when the House will consider the Modernisation Committee's report. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when he expects to table the many amendments to Standing Orders that will no doubt be required to give effect to the Committee's recommendations? Is he having any regrets about what he is proposing to do on Select Committees?

For example, the suggestion of an increase in the size of Select Committees is agitating many Members. I understand that the Leader of the House might want to give a sense of purpose to the lost souls on his Back Benches who have nothing else to do and that he might therefore want to find them a place on a Select Committee. However, given that just the other day four Labour Back Benchers bunked off from a Select Committee, does he not find it difficult to justify increasing representation on such Committees when their existing members cannot even be bothered to attend?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the remarks made by one of those Committee members, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer)? He said: There is a long tradition that Select Committees operate by consensus. That tradition is normally to the benefit of Opposition Members, as, otherwise"— here, Mr. Speaker, is the key phrase— Government Members on Select Committees would routinely pass motions praising the Government to the skies and approving every detail in every Bill."—[Official Report, 30 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 831.] Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is a remarkable insight into the attitude of Labour Members to Select Committees? Indeed, it is a shocking revelation of their role on Select Committees, which are supposed to be impartial and to operate on a non-political basis.

Is the Leader of the House also aware of early-day motion 1214, signed, I think, by virtually all Select Committee Chairmen, who are members of the august Liaison Committee?

[That this House endorses the Liaison Committee's welcome for the Modernisation Committee's belief in the central role of select committees in parliamentary scrutiny; also endorses the Liaison Committee's support for most of the proposals in the Modernisation Committee's report on Select Committees; regrets, however, that the Liaison Committee's strong concerns that the standard size of departmental select committees should remain as 11 have been overlooked; notes that the collective objections of chairmen are related to their experience in maintaining the cohesion of committees in carrying out the crucial task of scrutiny; points out that an increase of over one-third in the size of most committees would substantially alter their effectiveness and method of working; and urges the Leader of the House to reconsider this important issue.]

The early-day motion challenges the proposal to increase the size of Select Committees, and I suspect I know why. If the membership of Select Committees is increased and if, as I would hope, their budget for travel is not increased correspondingly, those signatories have rumbled the fact that more Committee members would go on fewer trips. That is probably the killer fact in the consideration of that ill-fated suggestion. I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider what he is proposing, even at this late stage.

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about his understanding of the guidelines issued by the Prime Minister on pre-election Government publicity. I have no doubt that he is intimately aware of those, but perhaps it will help right hon. and hon. Members if I give a few choice quotations. The guidelines are headed, "Elections to local councils: guidance for civil servants on conduct". Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed those with the Cabinet Secretary? If not, can we have brief debate on them in the near future?

The guidelines state: The period of sensitivity preceding Local Elections is not fixed in relation to any particular date, but the general convention is that particular care should be taken in the three weeks preceding the elections; in this case, from 11 April 2002. They go on to say: there should he even-handedness in meeting information requests from different political parties … particular care should be taken over official support, and the use of public resources, including publicity, for Ministerial announcements which have a bearing on matters relevant to the local elections". The guidelines go on to give the further helpful advice that it may be better to defer an announcement until after the elections". Some Departments have taken that suggestion to heart. The Daily Telegraph told us on 30 April that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said: 'We want to publish the draft Bill next week, after the local elections. We cannot publish before then as there are purdah rules in place to cover the election.' So that Department was trying to stick to the rules. Then, The Guardian told us on I May: the department for culture media and sport said it was unable to make any announcement until after May 2 because of the local government elections in England. Any announcement would be made to parliament first. So the House can congratulate the Secretary of State and the Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on trying hard to stick to the rules.

That is the good news. Unfortunately, not all Departments took that admirable attitude. Is the Leader of the House intending to have discussions with the Cabinet Secretary, and perhaps even with the Prime Minister, about other colleagues who were more cavalier with the rules? I do not want to pick out anyone in particular—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, as my colleagues urge me, what about the Home Secretary? He has been parading up and down, talking about more of this and more of that, and of better this and better that, in flagrant violation of the very rules that have just been issued.

Can we have a debate on that matter and, before we do, can the Leader of the House tell us what on earth is going on'? Does anyone in the Government take any rules seriously any more? Is the Prime Minister going to do anything about that? Is the Cabinet Secretary a complete busted flush, or are we going to get some action on this rather than just pieces of paper that are completely ignored by almost every Department except the good old Department for Culture, Media and Sport?

Mr. Cook

First, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the Standing Orders debate on 14 May, I can tell him that I will be discussing the draft of the Standing Orders with the Modernisation Committee next Wednesday, and I hope to table them immediately afterwards. I hope therefore that they will be on the Order Paper in the week before the debate so that the whole House can see them.

Do I regret the Modernisation Committee's proposals? No, I do not. Nor for one moment do I imagine that the other members of the Committee from all parties who are with us in the Chamber regret what we are proposing. It represents a major strengthening of the Select Committee system in the House. It will provide a form of independent and transparent nomination to Select Committees; it will provide for greater resources, especially staff, for Select Committees; and it will provide a clear statement of the core tasks, functions and focus of Select Committees. All that is a very important step towards increasing the powers of scrutiny in the House, and all of it has been welcomed by members of the Liaison Committee, whose report on the Modernisation Committee's report is very positive, describing it as "excellent".

I fully understand the sensitivity of the right hon. Gentleman's party on increasing the size of Select Committees. The Conservatives have so few Back Benchers that they are now obliged to fill up Select Committee places with Front Benchers, so I do not anticipate that they will vote for a significant increase in the size of Select Committees.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk)

At least our members turn up.

Mr. Cook

On the question of those who missed Monday's meeting, I point out to the House that one of them has been absent from the House for some time because of long-term illness, and we must respect that. Another was attending a funeral—there are times when all Members must carry out such personal tasks—and I understand that another was attending to a family illness. We must approach these demands with appropriate respect because we are all human and we all have such demands made of us.

What the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is acknowledging is that the full membership of the Treasury Committee would not have signed up to the preposterous report that finally emerged from an unbalanced, badly attended meeting. However, I should have thought that if he were seriously concerned that occasionally an hon. Member will have a family duty to perform and would therefore be unable to attend a meeting, he would support our proposal for a larger membership, to make sure that when one or two Members went missing it did not result in such a disproportionate outcome. [HON. MEMBERS: "Four."] Opposition Members shout "Four", but I have explained that three of those four had perfectly compelling and understandable reasons for their absence. Had those three attended, we would not have had the result that we did. Nevertheless, I welcome the Conservatives' enthusiastic interest in Select Committees, and I hope that they will support the proposals that we will make on 14 May to strengthen Select Committees and to give hon. Members more opportunity to take part in the work of scrutiny.

I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's congratulations to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, with an appropriate health warning instructing her to "handle with care", as I am sure she will. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that if he studies with care the guidelines on what can be announced during local authority elections, he will find that they clearly and specifically state that the business of government must go on. It would be preposterous if central Government ground to a halt for a three-week period. Indeed, I personally warmly support what the Home Secretary announced this week, and if the right hon. Gentleman will permit me I will convey to my right hon. Friend my own congratulations on what he said.

The Conservative party may not like it, but let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that the nation will welcome the announcement of £67 million to tackle street crime, £194 million to create more prison places and £36 million more for police operations. We will be very proud today to stand on our record of having created a record number of police throughout England and Wales, and that is one reason why we look forward with confidence to what happens at the polls.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South)

I understand that this morning GMTV again highlighted the insidious pyramid gifting scheme, women empowering women, which results in women being tricked into parting with up to £3,000 of cash in the hope that they will get back £24,000. Like all pyramid schemes, it works on the gullibility of people who believe that they cannot lose. In fact, only those who get into the scheme at the beginning get back any money, and the vast majority—usually those who can afford it least—lose out.

This scheme has been spreading throughout the UK for almost two years, and it was rife in Aberdeen last summer, when I secured an Adjournment debate on the subject. I was therefore dismayed to hear that women are still being suckered into parting with their money. As it would appear that the trading schemes regulations that came into effect in 1997 cannot be used to stop gifting schemes such as women empowering women, will my right hon. Friend find time to legislate to outlaw this pernicious scheme?

Mr. Cook

I fully endorse what my hon. Friend said. I welcome the fact that she has taken the opportunity of exchanges in the House to warn of those dangers and I hope that her remarks will be reported in her local area. When I was Foreign Secretary, I saw the enormous damage done in foreign countries, particularly in the Balkans, by pyramid schemes, and we do not want to allow them through the door here. Frankly, I would be surprised if the blatant fraud involved were within the law, but I shall happily draw the problem to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and consider whether fresh legislation is required.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the House to have an early opportunity to consider the deplorable and depressing situation that has arisen as a result of the collapse of the United Nations' initiative on an investigation in Jenin? It would be preferable to have such an opportunity early next week if the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs can come to the House, as that would be of benefit to all of us.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the House to have an early opportunity to consider the relative merits of different voting systems? Does he accept that the system that allowed the French nation to be put in its present dilemma is not one of proportional representation, but is effectively identical to the system that the Government introduced today for the election of mayors in seven cities in this country? I understand that last night the Leader of the House and his Conservative shadow agreed on the issue of proportional representation, so can the House have an opportunity to discuss that, too?

The debate that we have long been promised on the report published on 14 February by the Select Committee on Public Administration on House of Lords reform must surely take place soon as we have now had the Government response. A number of the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet colleagues keep going on about the need for the House of Commons to have a predominant voice in the way in which our Parliament operates, so why cannot Members of the Commons be allowed to express a view before consultation is complete? Will he comment on the fact that last night a senior Law Lord was reported as saying that it was extremely important to separate the Law Lords' function from the function of a supreme court?

Finally, we are surprised that there is to be a debate on the report just out on the new code of conduct and guidance on rules. Apparently, it announces a relaxation of disclosure, even though the Wicks committee is still looking at standards of conduct. Is it not premature of the House to take a view on those matters when that important committee has yet to report?

Mr. Cook

On the last point, I have arranged for a debate to be held on the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee at an early opportunity which, to be honest, I believe will be welcomed by the Committee and Members of Parliament. It is important that we should express a view on those matters. I do not readily accept the hon. Gentleman's characterisation of the report as relaxing the rules; on the contrary, it is trying to make sure that we have rules that are easily understood and applied, and therefore more difficult to duck. It is for the House itself to decide, but I can see that there is a case to be made that that will result in more, rather than less, effective regulation.

On the other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman, the Israeli Government's refusal to admit the UN inspection is a grave matter. The investigation was originally suggested by the Israeli Government, who said at the time that they would welcome it. I very much regret that they have changed their mind. I believe that that will rebound badly on them in the world and in international opinion and that it is a mistake according to the test of their own interests. We will of course continue to work through the United Nations to find ways of ensuring a proper audit and account of what happened in Jenin, but ultimately we will require the co-operation of members of the Israeli Government who recognise that it would be better if the investigation went ahead.

On voting systems, I agree with the hon. Gentleman; the system for electing the French President proceeded on the basis of the first two past the post and has run into spectacular difficulty as a result. However, I am encouraged by the dramatic rise in turnout in parts of England conducting a postal ballot for local authority elections—as high as 57 per cent. in Chorley and typically over 50 per cent. in many other areas. It is very encouraging that that change in the system has produced a much higher turnout, and I hope that the other experiments that we are carrying out—for example, electronic voting—will show a similar revival of interest from voters who have found it easier to cast their votes.

I have repeatedly answered questions on the House of Lords. Only this week, I told hon. Members that we anticipate being able to make a statement on the matter before the House rises for the summer recess, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the sooner that happens, the better. When we have that discussion, plainly Lord Bingham's observations will be relevant.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

The Leader of the House will no doubt have seen my early-day motion 1223 on attacks on places of worship.

[That this House is appalled that a North London synagogue has been daubed with racist graffiti; expresses its sympathy to the members; condemns any attacks on places of worship of any religion; and calls for respect and tolerance of all faiths.]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would join me in condemning the disgraceful attack on and daubing of a synagogue in north London last weekend, as well as the other attacks that have taken place on mosques and other places of worship over the past few months. Will he do his best to ensure that the Home Office makes it clear to every police authority that it should give priority to protecting such buildings and trying to track down those who perpetrate such attacks?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be useful if all hon. Members visited mosques, temples and synagogues in their constituencies to show that we as a community are not prepared to tolerate such attacks, and that we recognise that allowing people to get away with them makes race relations considerably worse and is seen as a victory for the forces of intolerance?

Mr. Cook

I readily agree with my hon. Friend. I condemn attacks on places of worship of any religion, and I am sure that the police and appropriate authorities will respond vigorously.

I should add that the incidence of hatred, intimidation, violence and desecration to which my hon. Friend draws attention is another solid reason why today the British people, wherever they are voting, should vote together to reject the fascists who are standing for election.

Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk)

Does the Leader of the House agree with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Education and Skills that its report on individual learning accounts, which was published yesterday, should be debated, and will he make time—preferably Government time—for such a debate? Such a debate is necessary in the light of the report's conclusion that no evidence was presented to the Committee to suggest that Ministers sought advice from other Government Departments, or even heeded warnings from within their own Department, on how to protect the scheme from unscrupulous opportunists"— and of the admission to the Committee by the Minister with responsibility for adult skills that the design of the scheme did not allow us to stamp out abuse"— in other words, that it was fundamentally flawed. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the seriousness of the report's comments about the waste of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, and will he allow time for a debate?

Mr. Cook

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the report was presented only two days ago. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will examine it carefully, but cannot give a considered response at this point. I fully understand that the Committee and the House will wish to pursue the points raised, and the Government will respond fully.

In the meantime, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Department acted speedily and vigorously when evidence of fraud emerged, and consequently the system was shut down very quickly.

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)

Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and India, so that the House may discuss the rising tide of violence in Gujarat, which has been somewhat under-reported? Hundreds of people are dying week after week, many of them relatives of British residents, and there are disturbing reports of state involvement in massacres of Muslims. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on that very serious human rights situation?

Mr. Cook

My hon. Friend returns to a matter that has been raised in business questions on several occasions, especially by hon. Members representing communities with friends and relatives in Gujarat, who are understandably distressed by what has happened to those communities. It appears that worrying loss of life and serious cases of violence and conflict have occurred in the region.

Foreign Office Ministers have been in repeated contact with the Indian Government to convey the concerns of people in Britain about what has been happening. We shall continue to do so, and I am sure that hon. Members will look for ways in which they can, rightly and properly, express their constituents' concerns.

Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim)

Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the launch in Belfast of the new multi-agency initiative to assess and manage the risk posed by sex offenders in Northern Ireland? I welcome that and, on behalf of my party, congratulate those involved.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a debate on protecting the public against sex offenders would promote more openness on this most serious and sensitive issue, and hopefully encourage greater public co-operation in the campaign to remove this evil from society?

Mr. Cook

I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating all those involved in the multi-agency initiative in Northern Ireland. I hope that they will succeed in achieving more openness about sex offending.

If we are to tackle the problem of making the victims of sex offences feel able to come forward and talk to others about their experiences, we must ensure that they have confidence in the system and understand that we are willing to respond vigorously and give the matter priority. I believe that the initiative in Northern Ireland will go a long way towards achieving that.

Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble)

My right hon. Friend knows that the events of 11 September had a dramatic effect on aviation and aerospace industries throughout the world. As the medium to long-term consequences are now becoming clear, does he agree that we are approaching the time when it would be appropriate to debate the matter in the Chamber? Will he do his best to find parliamentary time for such a debate?

Mr. Cook

I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on the subject given the pressure on business as we approach the end of the Session. However, I shall draw his observations to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have closely followed the difficulties of the aviation industry and we are willing to assist in any way that is appropriate.

I am pleased to say that the evidence from the tourist boards shows a revival in visits to all parts of Britain. I hope that that increase in traffic will help the aviation industry out of the crisis into which it fell after 11 September.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

The interim report of the Select Committee on the Treasury has already been mentioned today. Perhaps its most worrying finding was the inadequate consultation on national insurance increases with small and medium-sized businesses, like many in my constituency, which are currently suffering from the shock announcement. Will consultation form part of the Government's annual report, which we expect daily?

When the Government launched the annual report, hon. Members, not unreasonably, expected it to be published annually. We have not received one for some time. Will it be published? Will consultation be part of it? Will the Prime Minister, who has condescended to come before the Liaison Committee regularly, be questioned on the annual report when he performs in that capacity?

Mr. Cook

My impression from the newspapers in the past few days is that the Government have been through a quinquennial report. I believe that we emerged from that assessment with much credit. The Prime Minister is entitled to be given credit for his decision, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, to give evidence twice a year before the Liaison Committee, which represents all the Select Committees in the House. That is a courageous and proper step, which will increase the power of Select Committees to scrutinise. No previous Prime Minister has taken such a step, including during the 18 years when the Conservative party had Prime Ministers.

Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda)

My right hon. Friend knows that in the past six to seven months, Argentina has suffered an economic and political crisis that is probably unparalleled even in the history of Latin American democracies. It is affecting many British nationals and companies based in Argentina. Yet, so far as I can ascertain, not a single sentence has been uttered in the House about Argentina in the past six months, despite five opportunities to discuss Gibraltar, which probably affects fewer British citizens. Will the Leader of the House allow an early debate so that we can discuss ways in which to protect British nationals from the problems in Argentina?

Mr. Cook

I congratulate my hon. Friend on setting right the neglect of Argentina in the record of the House. Thanks to his intervention, sentences referring to it will appear. I shall reflect on his comments and there will be opportunities to discuss Argentina in general debates when it is relevant to raise anxieties about Latin America and specifically Argentina. I do not believe that I would be thanked next time there was demand for a statement on Gibraltar if I said that there would be a statement on Argentina instead.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)

Perhaps it is understandable for one Labour Member to be missing for compassionate reasons from a vital meeting of the Select Committee on the Treasury, but it is surely careless and cavalier for four to be missing. I shall therefore ask the Leader of the House two questions. First, will he deny press reports that he, on behalf of the Government, will in the near future produce a motion to remove some, or all four, of those Members from that Select Committee? Will he tell the House that he has absolutely no intention of doing so? Secondly, will he explain—having failed to do so to the shadow Leader of the House—why he completely disagrees with every member of the Liaison Committee, which comprises, after all, the Chairmen of all the Select Committees, in wanting extra members on Select Committees? It is clear from the experience of the Treasury Committee that that would not work.

Mr. Cook

On the contrary, I think that the evidence to which the right hon. Gentleman refers suggests that perhaps we do need more members on some of the major Committees that handle business. I would like to say two further things in response to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I have had no motion suggested to me in relation to changing the membership of the Treasury Committee. Indeed, the only reference to that that I have seen in the press has been in the gossip columns, and I would strongly advise him not to take the gossip columns that seriously.

Secondly, I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should turn up on 14 May and vote for the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, which provide for an independent Committee of Nomination, representing the House rather than any party, to decide on the nominations to the Select Committees. If he does so, it will not then be a matter for me to decide who should or should not be on a Committee.

Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)

Given that the questions of democratic participation and voter turnout are very much in the minds of those of us with elections in our constituencies today, and given the many innovative experiments in voting methods to which my right hon. Friend has referred, will the Government make a statement analysing the effect of those experiments on the levels of voter turnout? Will he provide time for a debate in which the House could consider the effects of the experiments, so that we can inform the development of Government policy in respect of changes to voting methods?

Mr. Cook

I can certainly say to my hon. Friend that the Government will make a full analysis of the pilot schemes. After all—

Mr. Forth

Look, it's a doughnut!

Mr. Cook

I am very happy to be a free-standing speaker at the Dispatch Box, without any requirement for a doughnut.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

It's not for you. It's a Welsh doughnut for the next debate.

Mr. Cook

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that guidance. It is often difficult to know exactly how many Members are sitting behind me when I have to look over at the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—a sacrifice that I make every Thursday.

Perhaps I can return to my hon. Friend's question. I am pleased to say that we shall make a full analysis of the pilot schemes. We did, after all, encourage these pilots schemes to come forward and I believe that we funded most of them. It is already evident that the postal ballots have been taken up with enthusiasm; that might be one early conclusion that we can reach. A whole range of other experiments is being carried out, and I hope to spend tonight in Newham observing the use of electronic voting, which has already enabled people in hospitals and old folks homes, who could not otherwise have voted, to vote. I hope that that will result in more people having a right to exercise their democratic choice.

Pete Wishart (North Tayside)

I, like the Leader of the House and several other hon. Members, am pleased that the Prime Minister has agreed to turn up to the Liaison Committee and accept questions from the Chairs of the Select Committees. The Leader of the House will be aware, however, that we in the SNP-Plaid Cymru do not have even a member on a non-regional departmental Select Committee, far less a Chair, hence our interest in the debate on 14 May, as we all support the Modernisation Committee report. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when we will have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister, beyond the opportunity available to us at Prime Minister's questions?

Mr. Cook

The hon. Gentleman welcomes the Prime Minister's decision to appear before the Liaison Committee, and I am grateful for that welcome. The decision represents a major step forward and strengthens the accountability of Government to the Select Committee system. I also welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman will support the increase in the size of the Select Committees. One of the problems with a membership of 11 is that it is difficult to secure a precise, representative balance on each Committee, and, if we can secure the increase that I am proposing, it will be easier to ensure that the minority parties have better representation.

Dr. Julian Lewis

It is tempting to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and call for a debate on proportional representation, as that would give hon. Members the opportunity to remind him and his fellow Liberal Democrats of the role of PR in putting the National Front on the electoral map in France in the first place. I shall resist that temptation, however, and ask instead for a statement or debate on Zimbabwe. Has the Leader of the House seen in today's press the simultaneous announcements of the declaration of a disaster in Zimbabwe—largely due to the maladministration of the Mugabe regime—and of the arrest of The Guardian's correspondent there? I know that the relationship between The Guardian and the Labour party is not as close as it used to be, but I am sure that we all agree that what is happening to journalists in Zimbabwe is totally unacceptable. Is not it important that we do not let the crisis in the middle east divert our attention from what is happening in Zimbabwe now that the election has 0been stolen, as everybody predicted?

Mr. Cook

I am not sure that I recall the golden era of a close relationship between the Labour party and The Guardian to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I have great sympathy with everything else he says. The economic situation in Zimbabwe is appalling and there is a real threat of hunger and suffering in a country that, traditionally, was fertile and which exported food, never mind had difficulty feeding its own people. That is overwhelmingly down not to any failing by the people of Zimbabwe, but to the grotesque mismanagement and brutality of the Mugabe regime. I entirely support the hon. Gentleman in that we should not forget what is happening in that country or stop applying pressure to the regime simply because the elections are over and some television cameras have moved on.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland)

May we have an early statement on the worrying delay in the European Commission's response on common fisheries policy reform, which is causing considerable concern in the fishing industry, especially in Shetland? Will the Leader of the House emphasise to his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the fishing industry thinks that the European Union and the CFP are drinking in the last chance saloon and that reform as outlined in the Green Paper is welcome, but that anything else will be resisted?

Mr. Cook

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with authority, representing the constituency that he does. Of course, the Government are keenly aware of the interest in the Commission proposals and are keen to discuss them with the Commission. However, I must tell the House that, when we receive those proposals, it is important that a long-term perspective on fish conservation is part of the package. Unfortunately, some fish stocks are themselves drinking in the last chance saloon.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk)

May I again ask the Leader of the House about PowderJect and the smallpox vaccine contract? Last week, I mentioned a Danish company, Bavarian Nordic. Is it true that a German company—Impfstoffwerke Dessau Tornau, or IDT for short—is now involved? We know that PowderJect was paid £32 million on a contract by Her Majesty's Government. Do we know how much PowderJect paid Bavarian Nordic? Is it true that Acambis—another UK company, which has successfully completed two smallpox vaccine contracts for the US Government—was not allowed to bid for the UK contract? Why is that? Can the right hon. Gentleman answer those questions? Is not it time for a debate on the issue?

Mr. Cook

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman—three times now, I think—the contract was awarded following five separate tenders. Although I do not have, off by heart, the names of the other four companies, and although I cannot say whether the company to which he refers is among them, there was a competitive bid involving five different companies and PowderJect won the tender on the basis of providing the best value for money. How PowderJect supplies the contract that it has obtained is primarily a matter for PowderJect. I certainly have no insight into its private accounts.

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight)

Now that those whom Damilola Taylor's father believes murdered his son have forgone the opportunity to defend themselves in court, but have had a series of soft lobs on the "Today" programme, will the Government introduce proposals to reduce the number of dodges, loopholes and procedural technicalities that make it so difficult for those genuinely pursuing justice to bring cases effectively to trial?

Mr. Cook

The Government have been vigilant and vigorous in pursuing steps to ensure that we can bring to justice those who have committed crime. Indeed, the House will have many opportunities to debate that in the forthcoming Session, when there will be a number of Bills relating to court proceedings and criminal justice.

In this country we are very clear about the separation between politicians and the judiciary. I would deprecate anything said in the Chamber that cast doubt on the outcome of the court proceedings.

Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge)

Perhaps the Leader of the House will find an opportunity to read early-day motion 1228, which concerns effective local councils.

[That this House notes with concern the large number of resignations by town and parish councillors in protest at the implementation of the 'Model Code of Conduct for Parish and Town Councils'; believes that this is undermining local democracy and will severely weaken the representative character of these immensely valuable watchdogs; considers that the code is too Draconian for most small councils and that its implementation should have been delayed for one year to coincide with the local elections in 2003; and calls upon the Government urgently to reconsider both the terms and the application of these constraints.] May we have a debate on the effect of the new model code of conduct?

Is the Leader of the House aware that there have been a large number of resignations from parish and town councils, and that in one instance the entire council resigned? Such councils control very small budgets, and councillors receive no payment for the hard work they do for the community, but they are being asked to declare very small interests. That is a far more onerous requirement than the one placed on us.

Mr. Cook

I shall be happy to consider the point and write to the hon. Gentleman. In the meantime, let me say that I think the country and, too often, the media undervalue the voluntary contribution made by tens of thousands of people throughout the country who make local government work, and neither receive nor expect any financial reward. It is of course important for them to be open and declare what financial interests they may have, because we do not want anyone to be able to profit from his or her position, but most people in local government are driven not by a financial incentive but by a will to serve the local community, and to further their own genuine political convictions on behalf of the community.