Business of the House

HC Deb 09 January 2003 vol 397 cc317-32 12.31 pm

Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire)

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

MONDAY 13 JANUARY—Opposition Day [2nd allotted day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Failure of the Home Secretary to Provide a Credible Criminal Justice System", followed by a debate entitled "Failure of the Government's Drugs Policy". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.

TUESDAY 14 JANUARY—Until about 4 o'clock there will be an Opposition half day [unallotted] on a motion in the name of the Ulster Unionist party entitled "The Future of Education in Northern Ireland", followed by a debate on the London bid for the 2012 Olympic games on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

WEDNESDAY 15 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill.

THURSDAY 16 JANUARY—Motions on General Synod Measures, followed by a motion to take note of various European documents relating to fisheries policy.

FRIDAY 17 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting. The provisional business for the week after will be:

MONDAY 20 JANUARY—Opposition Day [3rd allotted day], there will be a debate on an Opposition motion subject to be announced.

TUESDAY 21 JANUARY—Debate on House of Lords reform on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The House will wish to know that there will be a further debate during the week commencing 3 February in which Members will have an opportunity to vote on the seven options recommended by the Joint Committee.

WEDNESDAY 22 JANUARY—Debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

THURSDAY 23 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.

FRIDAY 24 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 30 January will be:

THURSDAY 30 JANUARY—A debate on the report from the European Scrutiny Committee on democracy and accountability in the EU and the role of national parliaments.

Mr. Knight

I thank the Leader of the House for his reply. We are rather surprised that he has announced a debate on defence in the world for 22 January. Does not he recall that we had a debate on that very subject on 17 October last year, less than three months ago? The next defence debate that the House was expecting was one on defence procurement. With so many decisions awaited on new defence equipment, should not Members on both sides of the House be given an opportunity to raise those issues in debate? Why is he allowing Defence Ministers to dodge scrutiny on such issues, when many Members, including a large number of Labour Members, wish to express their views, particularly on the aircraft carrier project in which BAE Systems is a key contender? As he has said that this business is still only provisional, will he consider changing it to allow the House to debate defence procurement on that date?

Flooding remains a serious issue that has returned to devastate parts of the UK over the past few days, with many people suffering severe losses and the trauma of being forced to flee their homes. In view of changing weather patterns, it is clear that much more needs to be done. May we have an early debate on the Government's strategy on this now near annual emergency? It is important that the House is able to examine what is being done following the warning given by the Institution of Civil Engineers as long ago as 2001. It said that the Government's plans were "piecemeal and inadequate" and it concluded that spending on flood defences ought to he doubled. If the recommendations in the report have not been fully implemented, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must take most of the blame for the scale of the latest devastation?

On the subject of modernisation, has the Leader of the House any plans to improve and update the way in which members of the Cabinet communicate—not with the public, but with each other? May we have an early debate on that? Is he aware of the widespread concern that there has been a complete breakdown in Government collective responsibility this week? That is not just our view—the newspapers have been full of it. The Independent of 8 January said: Reform of the House of Lords was in disarray yesterday after the Lord Chancellor warned that many MPs and Peers had rejected the 'nonsense' of a partly-elected second Chamber. It went on to say: But he was immediately contradicted by Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons, who insisted he favoured a 'mixed' House of Lords. Meanwhile, on the same day, the Daily Mail reported on the Government's foreign policy under the headline Cabinet is rocked as Hoon rebukes Straw on strategy". The article by its political editor stated: Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon delivered a stinging rebuke to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw for playing down prospects of an Iraqi conflict. The paper added: The row also left Government policy on the approaching conflict looking confused and unfocused. That was not all. On the very same day, there was more evidence that the Cabinet is coming apart at the seams. Other reports said: Downing Street slapped down Lord Irvine yesterday after he insisted it was right to keep burglars out of jail. One article by Paul Eastham rightly concluded: By intervening so heavily, the Government has effectively humiliated its most senior law officer. In the midst of all this, where was the Prime Minister? He was telling a conference of ambassadors in London—and apparently he was serious —that under his leadership Britain's role was to unite the world and act as a unifier. He should start talking to members of his own party. In view of the widespread appeal of this ongoing free-for-all among Ministers, is there not a case for modernising the Government's procedures and perhaps allowing the next meeting of the Cabinet to be televised?

Mr. Cook

Happy new year to the right hon. Gentleman, too.

I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be surprised that we are holding a debate on defence in the world. Quite a lot has happened to defence in the world since 17 October, and I remind him of a technical but important point. The previous debate took place in another parliamentary Session; we are committed to holding a debate on defence in the world in each parliamentary Session. That is why we have again tabled the subject for debate. I will, of course, consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on whether he wishes to hold that debate or the other debate on defence procurement on that day. However, I have often observed the House of Commons in action and noted the ingenuity of Members, and I do not think that it is beyond their skill to find a way to bring within order comments on an aircraft carrier in a debate on defence in the world, to which they are plainly relevant.

I am pleased to report that there have been substantial increases in spending on flood prevention since the last floods and since the observation was made in 2001. That may partly explain why fewer houses were inundated during these floods than there were two years ago.

The right hon. Gentleman asked us to double spending on flood prevention, but that would be very difficult to achieve in the context of a 20 per cent. reduction in spending, which is the formal policy of the Opposition. I remain to be convinced about whether they can flesh it out, but we have an hour of questions before us, so I shall welcome, and take careful note of, observations from any Conservative Member who wishes to propose a 20 per cent. cut in public spending in his or her constituency. I will make sure that the Government act on that request.

The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps guilty of wish fulfilment by claiming that the Cabinet is falling apart at the seams. The Lord Chancellor and I have repeatedly said, including in statements to the House last summer, that there will be a free vote on House of Lords reform. It is a bit inconsistent for the right hon. Gentleman's party to welcome our commitment to a free vote in Parliament so that it can settle the matter but then complain that there is not a collective decision in the Government on what Parliament should vote for.

I am glad to take this opportunity to say that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has played an excellent role in ensuring that the Iraqi crisis is dealt with in the United Nations and that it is kept firmly anchored there. Through those efforts, we achieved a resolution that was unanimously agreed by the Security Council and got the inspectors back into Iraq, which I thought would be welcomed by all hon. Members. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend on that.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

We have just heard the Leader of the House speak warmly of the Foreign Secretary. Can he explain why the Foreign Secretary decided to make an extremely important statement on Iraq by way of a written statement on Tuesday given that there are two most extraordinary reasons why it should have been an oral statement on which we could have cross-questioned him? For the first time yesterday, time was allocated for statements to the House to allow Secretaries of State to explain what they are up to and to allow us to question them. Why was that opportunity not taken? To add insult to injury, my copy of Hansard yesterday did not contain the statement from the Foreign Secretary. I understand that that was subsequently corrected, but Hansard did not have that statement as a written submission. I hope the Leader of the House accepts that that is outrageous.

What plans does the Leader of the House have for further discussions with Opposition parties about pre-legislative scrutiny? What progress has been made on that, and what are the candidates this Session? In particular, will he consider the case made by both main Opposition parties for a civil service draft Bill? He will be aware that the report of the Wicks committee is imminent. Surely that must be a strong candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny.

What discussions does the Leader of the House intend to have with Opposition parties about appropriate Bills for carry-over in this Session? I notice that this morning's papers report that yesterday he canvassed the views of the parliamentary Labour party on candidates for carry-over. Perhaps he will also talk to other Members of the House, since he is Leader of the House, not leader of the PLP.

Finally, will the Leader of the House find an opportunity for a statement on appropriate penalties for excessive speeding on the roads? Unfortunately, there was no chance earlier for the Solicitor-General to make a statement, but no doubt she would like to do so.

Mr. Cook

I am happy to deal with the last point first. My right hon. and learned Friend has just completed answering oral questions. I was with her throughout that period and she handled herself with great competence and authority. She is doing an excellent job and will continue to do so. On the matter to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, she has said that she is sorry for what happened and will of course plead guilty at the first opportunity. I hope that the House will now let the matter close.

We heard an oral statement on Iraq on Tuesday from the Defence Secretary. The Foreign Secretary has addressed the House many times on Iraq and will continue to do so. I do not think that anyone can fairly accuse the Government of not keeping the House fully informed of developments in Iraq or of not giving it opportunities to cross-examine Ministers and to express its views. We will continue to maintain that record.

On Hansard, I cannot explain why the written statement did not appear; we will make inquiries about that. Since we introduced the new system, it has, on the whole, been to the benefit of Members and the public because it provides a clearly identifiable and transparent system for Ministers to make statements, as opposed to the surreptitious device of planted questions. I am glad we have put that behind us.

It is early in the Session to decide which Bills might be appropriate for carry-over. As I repeatedly said when we discussed that in the autumn, the issue of carry-over will arise only for Bills introduced after Easter. I fully accept, however, that when we reach that point we will want to carry the House with us and that we will have to consult other parties on appropriate Bills.

Similarly, with pre-legislative scrutiny I am very keen that the House should have the chance to scrutinise Bills in draft, because I believe that the earlier it can get in on the act, the better its opportunity to influence the shape of Bills will be. That is why I have committed the Government to trying to produce more Bills in draft during this Session and the next.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from previous Sessions, draft Bills tend to appear towards the latter half of the Session because our efforts are necessarily focused in the first half on the official Bills for consideration. I fully understand the interest of Select Committees and others, particularly the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, in knowing in advance what Bills may come before the House for pre-legislative scrutiny, and I will endeavour to make sure that everybody is kept informed.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

May we have a debate on the declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in its special session on children in May, entitled "A World Fit for Children"? It includes the statement: Children must be protected from the horrors of armed conflict. As 42 per cent. of Iraq's population are children of 14 and under, it would he appropriate to have that debate before Britain enters into any armed conflict with Iraq, so that we can see how we will live up to the provisions in the declaration.

Mr. Cook

I fully understand my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. He will be pleased to know that, in UN discussions, the United Kingdom has consistently supported the rights of children and wanted to make sure that we provide strong international norms for the respect of children's rights and the treatment of children. I only share with the House my deep regret that it is doubtful whether any of those norms, standards or rights will be observed by Saddam Hussein.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)

The Leader of the House may be aware that the Vale of York suffered substantial flooding over the Christmas holiday, although on this occasion no homes near Thirsk were flooded. Will he give the House the opportunity of an early debate to consider two matters?

First, the Minister with responsibility for flooding should come to the House to consider the archaic procedure whereby the Environment Agency is responsible only for the main watercourses, and not for minor watercourses such as Cod beck, which in this case burst its banks dramatically. Such incidents are the responsibility of internal drainage boards. Will the Leader of the House review the matter by providing a debate in which the Minister responsible can respond to our concerns?

Secondly, it seems perverse that insurance policies will no longer cover the flooding of homes built on functional flood plains. Developers of such homes will probably have made a substantial profit by building them, but it will be the homeowner's responsibility for making sure that they are flood-proof. Will the Leader of the House invite the responsible Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry to respond to our concerns at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Cook

The hon. Lady's point about the lack of consistency in responsibility is a matter that should he addressed, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of the relevant Minister.

Insurance policies are primarily a matter for the insurance industry, but I have a lot of sympathy with the point that lies behind the hon. Lady's question. It is now clear that many housing developers have put up developments, sold the houses and invited willing purchasers to move in without adequate forethought to the risk to which they were exposing those new homeowners. I hope that the lesson of the past two years means that developers will be much more careful about where they site homes and much more frank with those purchasing them about the risk.

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting)

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent presidential and parliamentary elections in Kenya. As former President Moi's corrupt and incompetent Government have finally been defeated, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, as Kenya is a Commonwealth country, we will do all that we can to work with the new Administration as they develop their economic and social policies and that, at the appropriate time, a debate on those developments will take place in the House?

Mr. Cook

Like my hon. Friend, I very much welcome the fact that the population of Kenya have had an opportunity to carry through a democratic process and to choose the Government for whom they voted. As a friend of Kenya, Britain will make it a high priority of its foreign policy to make sure that we support that democratic process, so that it can deepen and develop and be entrenched in future constitutional activities in Kenya. Obviously, we stand ready to work with the new Government on developing ways to deal with the poverty that many Kenyan people face. We are proud of the fact that our overseas aid to Africa has increased by 50 per cent. over the Government's lifetime.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

In light of the welcome revelation and admission in The Times today by the General Secretary of the Labour party that the Labour party is guilty of no fewer than 120 breaches of funding law, amounting to a sum of approximately £300,000, would the Leader of the House consider the merits of an early debate on honesty in government so that the House can properly compare and contrast the welcome and refreshing candour of the Labour General Secretary on the one hand and the Government's continuing failure to admit to failures in health, education, transport and the fight against crime on the other?

Mr. Cook

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the honesty of the Labour party, and we shall seek to build on the support that he has offered us. I shall find every possible opportunity for the Government to be honest and frank with the House about the fact that in the health service we have more nurses and doctors than ever before, and that for the first time in 30 years we have more beds in the NHS rather than less beds—

Mr. Bercow

Fewer.

Mr. Cook

I am sorry, I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. The fact is that the number of acute and general beds in the NHS has increased in the past year after 30 years during which the numbers declined, including a dramatic decline in the period when the Conservative Government were in office. They will decline dramatically again under any Conservative Government committed to a 20 per cent. cut in public spending.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston)

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the deteriorating situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo? As a former distinguished Foreign Secretary, does he agree that the international community does indeed have a role to play in seeking to prevent further genocide in the great lakes region? Is there perhaps a possibility of a debate in the House?

Mr. Cook

The situation in Congo is tragic, and has been both violent and unstable for a long period. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the international community does have a responsibility. Britain has sought to work with our European partners, particularly France and Belgium, to find ways in which the support of the international community can be used to try to bring an end to the suffering of the people of Congo and to start to develop the country's substantial assets. One of the great tragedies is that the country is perpetually assailed on all sides by violence because it contains riches that are used to enrich not local people but local warlords. I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government will continue to do all that we can to work with the international community to help the people of Congo.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on proportional representation, of which he and I are long-standing supporters? Does he agree that one of the benefits of PR is that it allows Parliaments to control Executives, and that we should therefore welcome the defeat in the Scottish Parliament last night of the Labour-Liberal Executive's shabby and underhand attempt to close fire stations? Will the Leader of the House arrange for that early debate so that we supporters of PR can further celebrate that example of democracy in action?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Do not expect to win.

Mr. Cook

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for his expression of support, but I rather suspect, taking the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that I may be unwise to call for a snap vote on that proposition.

Mr. Skinner

The man has brains.

Mr. Cook

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. We devolved power to Edinburgh precisely so that the Scottish Parliament can make decisions affecting Scotland. Sometimes those decisions may be ones with which we may not exactly agree, but it is right that the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament should make them.

Ann McKechin (Glasgow, Maryhill)

My right hon. Friend may be aware that the Department of Trade and Industry recently completed a public consultation on the World Trade Organisation negotiations on the general agreement on trade in services. Given the importance of those negotiations to the supply of services, particularly in the public sector in fields such as education, health and transport, will he agree to hold a debate in the Chamber at the earliest possible opportunity so that Members can express their views?

Mr. Cook

My hon. Friend makes a point of immense importance about the next trade round and developing a freer trade in services to make sure that developing countries can protect their own economic interests and public services. A balance has to be struck—I can assure her that the Government are well aware of that—and I am sure that over the protracted period of the next trade round there will be opportunities for the House to debate the issue.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk)

Will the Leader of the House turn his attention to the forthcoming cricket world cup fixtures in Zimbabwe? Why have the Government been so slow to focus on the issue and the inevitability of President Mugabe hijacking the tournament for political purposes? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was only when the Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), spoke out on the issue that the Government belatedly started to focus on it? Surely the time has come to stop passing the buck and make some decisions?

Mr. Cook

I am very happy to put the record straight, and am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to disabuse him of the idea that the Government have shown an interest in this matter only recently. As far back as early July, the England and Wales Cricket Board was advised that the Government would not wish the team to go to Zimbabwe. I also think that it is rather unreasonable of the ECB to pretend that it has noticed only in the past few weeks that there is a problem in Zimbabwe. We could not have been clearer about the Government's position—the cricket team should not go, and it would be wrong for it to do so. I agree that, if it does so, there is a risk that President Mugabe will seek to exploit that for a propaganda victory. However, the decision is for the ECB. I understand the difficulty of the decision, but I hope that it will recognise that there are compelling reasons why it should decide not to go.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I have a question for my right hon. Friend as a moderniser about next week's business. Half of a core day in the Chamber will be spent on Church of England Measures, but I invite him to consider whether those matters should not be debated in Westminster Hall. Looking around the Chamber, I see Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholics, lapsed Catholics, people brought up as Catholics, agnostics, followers of Islam and members of Jewish congregations: hands up all those who are communicants of the Church of England—there you are.

Mr. Cook

I have to confess that I cannot raise my hand in response to my hon. Friend's challenge. The matter to be discussed next week relates to the consolidation of the Church of England's pension rules, which is undoubtedly important to people who have such a pension. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend, and accept that there is a wider issue to be addressed. However, there are procedures to deal with that, and it is entirely right to retain those procedures at present. As for what may obtain on a future occasion, that is as much a matter for the Church of England as it is for the House of Commons.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

The reference by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) to Free Presbyterians reminds me that I am truly a Free Presbyterian of the Auld Kirk.

The Leader of the House will no doubt join me in welcoming the advertising campaign this week dealing with the menace of child abuse and the internet. May we have a statement shortly on the state of conversations between the authorities in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom on transferring information on known paedophiles travelling to England, Wales and Northern Ireland without giving proper notification to the requisite authorities so that action can be taken?

Mr. Cook

The hon. Gentleman raises an important dimension of our fight against the abuse of children, which has become highly internationalised, so it is therefore very important that international authorities co-operate closely. National authorities should be part of that exercise to make sure that we prevent paedophiles from taking advantage of any national authority's ignorance of activity elsewhere. We are therefore seeking the closest possible co-operation with all our European partners, and I shall invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to write to the hon. Gentleman setting out what we are doing in that respect with Ireland.

David Winnick (Walsall, North)

On religious matters, non-believers should not be excluded.

If there is to be a ministerial statement on the proposed cricket tour of Zimbabwe, as there should be, would not that be a good opportunity, first, to remind the House that although many of us opposed English cricketers playing in apartheid South Africa, the Tories were in favour of that, and secondly, to argue strongly that there is no justification for English cricketers to play in Mugabe's lawless tyranny, and that to do so would be a disgrace?

Mr. Cook

If I may say so, we have had several ministerial statements on the issue and they have all been consistent that the cricket team should not go to Zimbabwe. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the parallels with the boycott of South Africa, but as I understand the present situation—and I would not wish to disturb it—there is unity from all political perspectives that it would be a mistake for the cricket team to go to Zimbabwe, that that could hand a propaganda victory to Mugabe, that we should not do so at a time when he is oppressing his people, and that those who go to play or to watch the cricket will be entering a country and eating food in a country where 7 million people are near starvation.

Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell)

May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider his last answer? In my recollection, there have been no statements from the Dispatch Box from Ministers responsible for Zimbabwe. That is why so many of us believe that the message from the Government has been blurred. It is not good enough for Ministers to make personal statements, as we had from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) in the Westminster Hall debate. We require an urgent statement as soon as possible from a senior Minister, making it abundantly clear how wrong it would be for the cricket team to go to Zimbabwe. Then, I believe, there would be action.

Mr. Cook

The Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box only yesterday that it would be wrong for the cricket team to go. There is no more senior Minister than the Prime Minister. That is an authoritative statement. All statements from Ministers have been consistent. As I understand it—although I am beginning to doubt it—the position of Opposition Members is that the cricket team should not go to Zimbabwe. They do not help to get that message across by suggesting that there has been any weakness, doubt or confusion about where the Government stand on the matter.

John Cryer (Hornchurch)

The Commission for Integrated Transport recently suggested that the transport subsidies to pensioners should be cut in various ways. One effect of that would be that the freedom pass in London, which covers my constituency, would disappear, and there would be a more uniform subsidy along the lines of the 50 per cent. subsidy in the rest of the country. May we have a statement from the Dispatch Box from a Transport Minister to make it clear that the Government will have nothing to do with such a barmy suggestion, which would curtail my constituents' ability to travel?

Mr. Cook

As I understand it, the suggestion to which my hon. Friend refers is not from any Minister, but from an advisory body. It is in the nature of appointing advisory bodies that we receive but do not initiate the advice that they offer to Government. The Government have a good record of making sure that pensioners have an appropriate concessionary fare and are encouraged to travel. It is important that the transport system is fully used, and it is important for pensioners that they are able to get about. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will wish to continue to defend the ability of pensioners to travel and to have full opportunities for concessionary fares.

Mr. Andrew Rosindell (Romford)

May I reiterate the comments of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) regarding concessionary travel for pensioners? Will the Leader of the House consider not only a statement, but a debate on concessionary travel throughout the United Kingdom? He will be aware that there are many inconsistencies, whereby old age pensioners can travel within certain regions but not across boundaries. Will he consider a nationwide scheme, so that all pensioners can have access to free travel throughout our country?

Mr. Cook

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We welcome support for the Government's position from whatever quarter. I remind him that it was the Government who introduced the concessionary fare scheme. There was a full debate in the House and his party opposed it at the time. Presumably, in the search for the 20 per cent. savings, to which we have heard little reference in the past 40 minutes, it would be extremely difficult for any future Conservative Government to retain that scheme.

Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent)

A number of my hon. Friends are concerned that the Ministry of Defence is continuing to usurp the power of Parliament by continuing with the sale of part of the defence evaluation quango to QinetiQ. Details of the deal were quietly placed in the Library during the recess, so Parliament has effectively been asked to agree on the nod liabilities of about £100 million. May we have a debate on the matter, and on the lack of and the need for public accountability for the use or misuse of massive sums of public money?

Mr. Cook

I listened to what my hon. Friend said. I should not have thought that there was any member of the Government left who could imagine that putting a document in the Library was tantamount to doing so in private or without notice. The Ministry of Defence has been open about the matter. My hon. Friend will be aware that a number of items of Government business are done by statutory instrument. That is why statutory instruments are available to us. We have a prodigious programme of primary legislation in the present Session. If we successfully carry it through, we will have passed more pages of primary legislation this Session than in any previous Session. Not everything can be dealt with on the Floor of the House. I regret to have to say that as Leader of the House, but it is a matter of record that we must decide what are the priorities for the Floor of the House, and what other matters can be dealt with by statutory instrument.

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire)

The right hon. Gentleman will know that in just over two months, a European regulation on animal by-products that prevents the burial of fallen stock on farms will come into effect. Britain is one of the few EU countries that has not published a statement or a policy on how farmers should deal with the matter. It will not be possible to stack up animal carcases as fridges have been stacked up in the past, owing to the incompetence of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in these matters. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State to publish as soon as possible a statement on how farmers should proceed to dispose of their fallen stock?

Mr. Cook

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are well aware of the great importance of the matter in rural communities and the severity of the difficulties that may arise. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will wish to clarify our proposals as soon as possible, and I will draw her attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead)

May we have a statement on the London underground, as the contract with the private consortium TubeLines took effect on 1 January without any parliamentary announcement? It is important that we know what arrangements there are for public sector management of those contracts. My understanding is that there is no expertise in place to provide such public sector management. Without that, private consortiums have a blank cheque. Moreover, that represents a step on the road towards privatisation of the underground.

Mr. Cook

I was not aware that that was an issue that we had failed to ventilate in the House over the past year. I remember many exchanges on the public-private partnership for the London underground. I can assure my hon. Friend that expertise will be made available to make sure that we maintain competent management. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the objective of the whole exercise is to make sure that we modernise the underground, provide the investment that it plainly needs, and offer a modern, effective service to the underground consumer. That must surely be the right way forward. I hope that we can start to make progress in providing the improvement that passengers and London Underground want.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

Surely the point about Zimbabwe is that no Minister has made a formal statement to the House and thereby subjected himself to questioning.

May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on a subject first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Defence Secretary, with the Secretary of State for Defence on Tuesday, namely, the attitude of the Government to the UN inspectors and their role in Iraq? It is clear that Saddam Hussein had four years in which to produce chemical and biological weapons stocks, then to destroy the plant that produced them and conceal the stocks in any hole in the ground anywhere in Iraq. The House needs to know what the Government's attitude will be if, as expected, the inspectors fail to find any of those stocks and the Americans decide nevertheless that the danger is so great that they must proceed with military action. This is an important matter. It was raised by the Conservative Opposition and has been taken up by Labour Back Benchers and the Liberal Democrat leader. The House deserves to have its say on the matter.

Mr. Cook

It would be impertinent for the House or any member of the Government to try to anticipate what the UN inspectors might say to the United Nations. It will, after all, be only another three weeks before we hear about progress from the head of the inspection team. I expect that he will necessarily say that he will require further time to carry out the task. Surely, the appropriate and responsible attitude for any Government—especially when they are a permanent member of the Security Council—is to say that we want to ensure that the inspectors can carry out that task, that they have adequate time and resources to do so and that the authority that they have been given by the Security Council is fully respected by the Government of Iraq. This should not be a business of the inspectors trying to discover that Iraq is concealing anything. The resolution is explicit in saying that the duty is also on the Government of Iraq to declare what they have.

Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire)

May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider initiating an inquiry into the abuse of the democratic process of this House by political parties submitting spurious and repetitive questions only to try to portray themselves falsely as working harder than other political parties? Does he further agree that, if other parties were to follow that sharp practice, the administrative processes of this House would grind to a halt and that that would be extremely expensive for the taxpayer?

Mr. Cook

I have a lot of sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes. I can only commend to him and other Members of the House the excellent report from the Procedure Committee, which rightly pointed out that information requested by means of a written question can often readily be found in the Library or other published sources.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I do not accept that.

Mr. Cook

I am very sorry to hear that my hon. Friend takes that view, as I was quoting my submission to the Procedure Committee, which it reprinted in full. In making that commitment, I said that, as a Back Bencher, I found it useful to get information in the Library, where it is often readily available. I commend the excellent, competent and authoritative services of the Library to the House.

Bob Spink (Castle Point)

Can we find time for a debate on the position of pensioners, who are perplexed by the Government's inability and weakness in grasping the nettle on the Zimbabwean cricket issue and making a specific decision about it? During that debate, we could focus on the £5 billion-a-year pension tax that the Government are imposing on pensioners, which is causing so much hardship to many of them.

Mr. Cook

For a moment during that question, time stood still for me. I shall try to disentangle the two separate issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. First, as I said, there is no ground for any confusion whatever about the Government's position in relation to the cricket tour—it is wrong and the team should not go. As I understand it, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber agree about that. I lament the fact that it is proving so difficult to establish the consensus that I understand exists on both sides of the Chamber.

On pensioners, I would be delighted to arrange a debate so that we can demonstrate the extent to which the Government have increased the state pension at a much faster rate than that of earnings or inflation, the way in which we have raised 2 million pensioners out of poverty and the fact that, as a result of the introduction of the pension tax credit, there will be a further increase in real income for the less well-off pensioner, who will be about £20 to £30 better off than in 1997. That very substantial achievement would be put entirely at risk by a 20 per cent. cut in public spending—a proposal that I understand the hon. Gentleman supports.

Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North)

In view of the well-publicised views of the head of the Church of England, does my right hon. Friend find it unusual that our procedures allow for a debate on the pension fund of the Church of England, but not on its views about war in Iraq? Notwithstanding his reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), does he not feel that at the very least, there is a need for a statement about the processes that are to be followed after the publication of the UN weapons inspectors' report, especially given the imminence of the completion of the interim report and its presentation to the Security Council?

Mr. Cook

I hear what my hon. Friend says about the Church of England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) identified earlier, I have no personal authority to speak for or on behalf of the Church of England. I am happy, if I may, to leave that for it to absorb.

On the question of the United Nations inspectors and the statement to the Security Council, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary have been punctilious in making statements to the House on these matters. I am sure that they will want to ensure that the House is kept fully informed about whatever develops in the Security Council on 27 January. I am confident that they will want to ensure that the House is kept fully up to speed, but at the same time, I counsel us against imagining that 27 January will necessarily be some sort of dramatic watershed. It is a staging post towards a programme of work that will probably have to continue.

Mr. David Cameron (Witney)

Is the Leader of the House aware that, because of the delays in securing parliamentary approval of the financial settlement for local government, many councils, including Oxfordshire, are having difficulties in setting their precepts on time and some councils will not have time to debate the full budgets before they have to do so? Can we have a debate in the House to chivy the Government on that issue? Does the Leader of the House not think it is important that we should look at the size of that stealth tax, which is going to be paid by our constituents, especially as council tax has increased since the Government came to power not by 20 per cent., but by 40 per cent.?

Mr. Cook

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have only just had a debate on the Local Government Bill and that I responded to the demands of the House that we debate the local government settlement in advance. As I am sure he is aware—he is a fair-minded Member of the House—every local authority throughout the length and breadth of England has received a settlement that exceeds the rate of inflation. Over the past few years, we have provided a very substantial additional real-terms increase in local government funding. I am glad that he asked the question in the way that he did, as it gives me the opportunity to say that, if there had been a 20 per cent. cut in public spending, we would have seen cuts in his local authority budget and not an increase.

Mr. John Lyons (Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

On the 27th of this month, we will mark Holocaust Memorial day. This year, the event is being held in Edinburgh. May I ask the Leader of House to do two things? First, will he ensure that the House is represented at the event, and, secondly, will he find a way of reflecting such an important day in the business of the House?

Mr. Cook

Of course, it was this Government who introduced the Holocaust Memorial day. We did so precisely because that appalling act of genocide should not be forgotten, as part of committing ourselves to ensuring that there is no discrimination in our modern world and because we should never again see such appalling discrimination visited on anybody for any racial, religious or ethnic reason. The Government will therefore want to ensure that we appropriately mark 27 January. I cannot immediately tell my hon. Friend who will be representing the Government at the event, but I shall ensure that he is fully informed. I can assure the House that we will treat the day with appropriate dignity.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland)

Might I be probably the first hon. Member to wish you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the House and all hon. Members a very happy old new year for when it comes this weekend? I invite the right hon. Gentleman to join me in sending greetings to my constituents in Foula, which still celebrates the old new year, or Yule, with some vigour.

I welcome the addition of a fishing debate to next week's business, but what we really need is a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suspect that, as it will be an exercise in reporting back, the fisheries Minister will simply tell us what we already know. What we do not yet know is whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is in supporting the industry, and that question can be answered only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Cook

I am happy to wish the hon. Gentleman's constituents a happy weekend, in whichever year it falls. I hope that we can achieve unanimity on that proposition.

On the fishing industry, the fisheries Minister will rightly be speaking in the House next week because he has been heavily engaged in the process. I hope that all hon. Members, from whatever perspective, will recognise that he has been fully committed on the issue, on which he has given very dedicated service. It is therefore right that he should speak for the Government in that debate. Of course, we understand that there will be difficult consequences for communities as a result of the changes and we will seek as best we can to assist those communities, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no future for the fishing communities if there is no future for the fish. That is why we must put conservation at the top of the agenda.