| Home Page |
Column 483
Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 23 October----Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report .
Motion to take note of EC documents Nos. 7596/95, 7465/95 and 8817/95 relating to the common fisheries policy control system. Details will be given in the Official Report .
Tuesday 24 October----Opposition Day (19th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Current Environmental Concerns in Scotland" on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party. Followed by a debate entitled "The Plight of Pensioners in Wales" on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru. Wednesday 25 October----Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (20th allotted day). There will be a debate on the national lottery on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 26 October----Remaining stages of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill [Lords] .
Motion on an order relating to the salaries of Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Whips in each House, and the Officers of both Houses.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
Friday 27 October----Debate on sport on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Monday 30 October----Consideration of Lords amendments which may be received to the Disability Discrimination Bill.
Remaining stages of the Law Reform (Succession) Bill [Lords] , the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] , the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [Lords] and the Civil Evidence Bill [Lords] .
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet as follows:
Tuesday 24 October at 10.30 am: EC document No. 6591/94 relating to comparative advertising.
Wednesday 25 October at 10.30 am: EC document No. 6871/95 and the supplementary explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of National Heritage on 5 July 1995 relating to tourism.
I am sorry that at present I am not able to be as forthcoming as I would normally wish about business after Monday 30 October, but I think hon. Members will understand some of the difficulties at this time of year. I should tell them--it would certainly be for the convenience of the House-- that Government business will be taken in the week beginning 30 October and will also be taken in the week beginning 6 November for some time in that week, subject to the progress of business in another place.
[Monday 23 October--European Community documents: (a) 7465/95, Fisheries enforcement: financial provision; (b) 7596/95, Common fisheries policy control
Column 484
system; (c) 8817/95, Fisheries: log book records. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: (a) HC 70-xxi (1994-95); (b) HC 70-xxi (1994-95); (c) HC 70-xxv (1994-95).Tuesday 24 October--European Standing Committee B. European Community document: 6591/94, Comparative advertising. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 48-xxi (1993-94), HC 70-xii (1994-95).
Wednesday 25 October--European Standing Committee B. European Community document: 6871/95, Tourism. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 70-xix (1994-95) and HC 70-xxiii (1994-95).]
Monday 23 October
Reports Session 1993-94
No. |Report title |HC No. |Date of
|publication
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 |Property Services in the |316 |7 September
|English Occupied Royal
|Palaces
42 |The Renewable Energy |387 |8 September
|Research, Development and
|Demonstration Programme
43 |The Industrial Injuries Scheme|368 |21 September
44 |British Army in Germany- |408 |17 November
|Drawdown of Equipment and
|Stores
45 |Export Credits Guarantee |406 |2 November
|Department Appropriation
|Accounts 1992-93: Irregular
|Payments to Exporters
46 |Registers of Scotland: Service|394 |3 November
|to the Public
47 |The British Film Institute |491 |23 November
48 |Management and Sale of |303 |24 November
|Houses in Borders Region
49 |National Health Service: |427 |1 December
|Hospital Catering in England
50 |National Insurance Fund |419 |7 December
|Account 1992-93
51 |Auditing Clinical Care in |375 |8 December
|Scotland
Reports Session 1994-95
No. |Report title |HC No. |Date of
|publication
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 |Ministry of Defence: The |42 |14 December
|Major Projects Report (1993)
2 |The Sports Council: Initiatives|93 |11 January
|to Improve Financial
|Management and Control and
|Value for Money
3 |Merseyside Development |94 |12 January
|Corporation: Grand Regatta
|Columbus and Fanfare for a
|New World Concert
Reports Session 1994-95
No. |Report title |HC No. |Date of
|publication
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 |Inland Revenue: Getting Tax |105 |19 January
|Right First Time and Dealing
|with More Complex Postal
|Queries
5 |Council Tax Valuations in |137 |8 February
|England and Wales
6 |Wolds Remand Prison |138 |9 February
7 |Excess Votes |280 |14 March
8 |NI Excess Votes |281 |14 March
9 |Improving Social Security |145 |3 May
|Services in London: The
|Provision of Services to
|Customers
10 |Appropriation Matters 1993- |215 |4 May
|94
11 |English Nature: Protecting |375 |10 May
|SSIs
12 |Property Holdings Leaseholds|106 |11 May
13 |Management in NHS Trusts in |155 |17 May
|England
14 |MOD: Management of |188 |18 May
|Telephones
15 |Resource Accounting and |407 |24 May
|Budgeting
16 |The Privatisation of NI |24 |25 May
|Electricity
17 |Department of Agriculture NI|25 |25 May
|Science Service-Research
|and Development
18 |NHS Day Hospitals for |95 |7 June
|Elderly People in England
19 |Fraud on the Business |200 |8 June
|Sponsorship Incentive Scheme
20 |Appropriation Account |207 |14 June
|Matters 1993-94
21 |Financial Health of Higher |139 |15 June
|Education in England
22 |Management of Intellectual |237 |21 June
|Property
23 |Value for Money at Grant |225 |22 June
|Maintained Schools: A
|Review of Performance
24 |Dtp: Land and Property for |43 |28 June
|Road Building
25 |Administration of the Crown |173 |29 June
|Courts
26 |Management of the Trident |486 |5 July
|Works Programme
Reports Session 1994-95
No. |Report title |HC No. |Date of
|publication
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 |General Practitioner- |264 |6 July
|Fundholding in England
28 |Severance Package for the |242 |12 July
|Vice-Chancellor of the
|University of Huddersfield
29 |Welsh Development Agency |376 |13 July
30 |Home Office: Entry in the |355 |19 July
|United Kingdom
31 |Scottish Courts: |301 |20 July
|Administration of Scottish
|Courts
32 |ODA: Management of |337 |26 July
|Programme Aid
33 |FCO Irregularities |330 |27 July
34 |Green Form Legal Aid Frauds |282 |2 August
35 |Administration of Retirement|415 |3 August
|Pensions
36 |VEM at Colleges in the |309 |9 August
|Further Education Sector
37 |NAO Estimate 1995-96 |53 |10 August
38 |NAO Estimate 1995-96 |52 |10 August
39 |Sale of Forward Civil |344 |16 August
|Service-Catering
40 |Suspension of Dr. O'Connell |322 |17 August
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information, and accept his point that, at this time of the parliamentary year, there must be some uncertainty in future planning. Will the Leader of the House ensure that, during the debate on Wednesday 25 October on the national lottery, the Secretary of State for National Heritage is able to resolve the inconsistency between her junior Minister's answer to a parliamentary question on 27 June this year, and the statement earlier this week by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us whether the Government regard lottery funds as public money, as seems to be the case from what the Chief Secretary was saying.
As for the business after next week, will the Leader of the House assure us that time will be found before the end of the Session to debate the Procedure Committee's report on our trial of the Jopling proposals on the management of parliamentary time? Will he ensure that there will be time for a debate and decisions on the report which is expected from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life? I know that he is anxious that that Committee should report as soon as possible. Will he guarantee that time will be found for such a debate?
On related matters, will the Leader of the House tell us when he will be tabling the appropriate resolution to establish the new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to which the House has agreed in principle? Will he also give an assurance that the Select Committee on Employment will continue?
Column 487
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position on Question Time involving the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? Will he confirm that hon. Members tabling questions to that Minister before the recess were told that such questions should be addressed not to the Deputy Prime Minister but to the First Secretary of State, but that, when he himself found out that that was the case, and despite the fact that questions appeared on the Order Paper addressed to the First Secretary of State, the Order Paper was changed, so that the questions were addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister? As the Deputy Prime Minister then declined to answer the first question to the Deputy Prime Minister, is that not a case of his making a mockery of the House's proceedings, and should not the Leader of the House be stopping that?Mr. Newton: My gratitude to the hon. Lady for the generosity of her acknowledgement of the difficulties, expressed in the early part of her comments, was rather dissipated by her later remarks. My right hon. Friend is Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State. The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 makes it clear that lottery funds are ultimately under the control and management of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I am advised that, because it is ultimately under ministerial control, lottery money must be classified as public money under
internationally recognised standards for national accounts, but I shall of course bring the hon. Lady's apparent confusion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
As for Jopling, the hon. Lady has good cause to know that I am undertaking the usual consultations, with her among others, with a view to bringing appropriate resolutions before the House during what we call the spillover.
As for Nolan--again, the hon. Lady has good cause to know this because we are spending a great deal of time in Committee on the subject at the moment --the aim is to bring forward proposals and give the House the opportunity to debate them before Prorogation. All of us on the Committee are working hard to that end. I also hope to make progress with the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I am more than willing to listen to representations, but I should have thought that the convenient time to deal with it would be when we debate the matters to which I have just referred. I have not, however, made a definite decision about that.
As for the Select Committee on Employment, the hon. Lady knows that I am currently consulting, as is appropriate on new arrangements. However, I find it difficult to see a reason for departing from the long-established practice of matching Select Committees to Government Departments, and changing them when there are changes in the structure of Government Departments.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): My right hon. Friend may be aware of the mounting criticism in certain organs of the press about the amount of legislation going through the House under statutory instrument powers. I wonder whether he shares my concern that too much legislation is going through under such powers and is not receiving
Column 488
sufficient scrutiny by the House, and that the matter should be debated. Or does he have news for the House that the Government are already considering the problem?Mr. Newton: I cannot quite answer my hon. Friend in the terms which he would no doubt like because, if we are to have the debate on procedural matters that I am hoping for, he may be able to advert to that matter. On his general point, he will know that the Government are working very hard to reduce the amount of regulation.
Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale): Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on the rise in teenage smoking which has just been announced? It is particularly important in the light of the new survey that links tobacco advertising and teenage smoking.
Mr. Newton: I cannot arrange for an urgent debate--certainly not during the spillover period--but I shall of course draw the hon. Lady's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Hartley Booth (Finchley): Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the House should debate VE and VJ day, not only because it would be right in itself in this particular year, but because there is a risk that many thousands of people will feel that the House has not adequately honoured them?
The case of a constituent of mine in Finchley illustrates the point that I would urge on the Leader of the House. A lady who lives there was bombed in her house in 1944. She was blinded at the time, and has lived and is still living in the same house. Many thousands of people lived blameless and supportive lives way behind the soldiers' ranks, and feel that they too played an important part, which we could recognise in the House.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the whole House would want to join in paying tribute to, and indeed expressing respect for, my hon. Friend's constituent and many others who no doubt have similar experiences. On the question of recognition of these events, I thought that the rather splendid ceremony in Westminster Hall at the time of VE day--but very much recognising VJ day as well--was a proper and fitting tribute from the House.
Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe): The Leader of the House will recall that I wrote to him many weeks ago as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund about the independent review body's recommendations in relation to the fund. Word has reached me--it is a welcome word--that the Leader of the House is proceeding with all speed to give effect to the decision of this House of 17 July. In anticipation of an early statement from him, can I thank him for the work that he is doing?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. If he has not had a reply, I apologise for that. The work that has been required in relation to translating the thoughts of the House and the Senior Salaries Review Body into regulation form has proved extremely complex.
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle): My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are approach and departure flight paths from Manchester airport over my constituency. He will therefore be aware that aircraft noise is a constant problem for many of my constituents. Currently, airports do not have the statutory power to fine aircraft which stray from
Column 489
designated corridors without the permission of traffic control. Manchester airport, and indeed my constituents, would like that to be made a statutory right, so that the fines may provide some meaningful control over such aircraft movements. My talks with the Department of Transport suggest that it accepts that such action is necessary, and would require primary legislation. Will there be any opportunity at an early date for such legislation to be implemented?Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, by tradition, I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech. Nor, at a time when there are many demands, would I want to excite his hopes too much, even having said that. I shall bring his question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): The Leader of the House has always been careful about the duties and support of the House of Commons. He will be aware that, when he is thinking about the Jopling report and the reforms that he will bring forward, a number of hon. Members will want to say that they are not overly impressed with some of the changes that have taken place, which have enabled the Government to escape proper scrutiny. I hope that he will not rush forward just on the basis of a fashionable change in hours, without thinking of the implications for legislation.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady was kind enough to use the words that she did at the beginning of her question, and I hope that I have shown that I do not seek to ride roughshod over people's reservations. However, there appears to be wide, and probably overwhelming, support in the House for changes along the lines of those with which the House has experimented this year.
Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South): Notwithstanding the narrow debate scheduled for later today, may we have a debate next week on the prison building programme? That would give me an opportunity to recognise the decision by all parties on Salford city council to reject the Prison Service's proposal to build a prison next door to my constituency, and to ask the Prison Service to think again about that disastrous proposal.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will note that question but, for my part, I cannot promise another debate on prisons in the near future.
Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston): Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House on Lord Donaldson's assessment of the sinking of the Derbyshire? The House and the families of the Derbyshire bereaved should hear from the Secretary of State what Lord Donaldson had to say.
Mr. Newton: As ever, I shall remind my right hon. Friend of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing concern about that matter. I suppose that I could claim that I have arranged for the Secretary of State to be here to answer questions on Monday, but I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman would regard that as an adequate opportunity.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): Is the Leader of the House willing to postpone the three fishing orders next Monday for a week? As he knows, the Fisheries Council will meet next week to see whether it is possible to change
Column 490
those ridiculous control measures, which would oblige our fishermen to make 170,000 individual reports, costing them £1.2 million, which would cost the average fishing vessel up to £5,000. How can we debate the orders next Monday without knowing the outcome of the review until about Thursday? Could we not simply delay the debate for a week? What is the problem?Mr. Newton: I am mildly puzzled by that question, because the suggestion usually made to me is that the House should have opportunities for debate before a Fisheries Council. That is the purpose of that debate.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe): Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement and debate on the repair and replacement of system-built schools? My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) have a number of Derwent schools, which have been given a limited life, but we have never been able to get out of the Government a programme to fund their replacement. Birley Spa school in my constituency has been given only a two-year life, but the Government will still not commit themselves to funding a replacement for it, thereby blighting the lives of hundreds of children in my constituency. May we have a statement on precise Government policy in that regard?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a statement, but it is classically a question that I should want to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North): May we have a debate on local government finance, so that we can consider the decision of Ealing's Labour council to cut £6 million off Ealing's budget, sack 100 people and virtually eliminate adult education, which it has a statutory duty to provide? It has done so in a totally careless way, blaming next year's grant settlement, which has not even been made.
Mr. Newton: I am always keen to satisfy my hon. Friend's appetite for revealing the iniquities of his local authority. I cannot assuage it at the moment, but in five or six weeks' time, there will be a statement on local authority expenditure.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): The Leader of the House will be aware that, for the past six months, the Government have said that only one person, Nick Leeson, was responsible for the collapse of Barings. This week we have received an authoritative report from Singapore detailing collusion and a cover-up at the London end. We also now know that Barings gave £900,000 to Tory party funds in recent years. May we have a debate soon on the collusion and cover-up in London, above all to restore some confidence that the regulation and supervision of overseas trading banks in the City of London is now in safe hands?
Mr. Newton: We will obviously study the report of the Singapore Ministry of Finance carefully. It appears to me to confirm the main conclusions of the report published in London in July by the Board of Banking Supervision.
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North): Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early opportunity to debate the governance of Scotland? He will be aware that the Labour party, the Liberals and others have come forward with their crackpot proposals for Edinburgh. With four
Column 491
Scottish-based Scots in the Cabinet and the possibility of many more Scots in any future Labour Cabinet, including a Chief Whip, is it not about time in this Parliament that we got down to the serious business of finding out how well Scotland is governed?Mr. Newton: We will be short of time in the next week or two even to debate such important subjects. I do not know whether there is any chance that my hon. Friend might manage to weave that subject into the debate next Tuesday on environmental concerns in Scotland, but he might have a try.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): In view of what happened yesterday, when several hundred carers came to lobby their Members of Parliament, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made about what use can be made of Westminster Hall?
Those people were unable to go into the Grand Committee Room, because a private Bill was being considered. They assembled in Westminster Hall, but were then told that they could not use the microphones because of reasons that the establishment had made clear on other occasions. Given that the VE day celebrations took place in Westminster Hall--in fact, it was a meeting which made use of microphone facilities and everything else--why is it that disabled people, many of them in wheelchairs, were not allowed to use microphones there to have a meeting with their Members of Parliament? Can we sort this out?
Mr. Newton: A number of my constituents were also here yesterday, so I am aware of some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am not responsible for the arrangements in Westminster Hall, although many people sometimes think I am, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of those very elevated people who are responsible for them.
Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South): Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the operation of the European Standing Committees? As I understand it, it was originally intended that there should be far more of those Committees, and that far more people with specialised interests should be involved in considering the various directives that are passed by the House under delegated legislation. I served on one of those Committees for four years and I enjoyed it greatly, but the difficulty now is that those Committee sittings clash with the sittings of Select Committees and other meetings. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the way in which those Committees are arranged, or would he reconsider the way in which they are constituted and operate?
Mr. Newton: I am always willing to consider constructive suggestions, but my hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the problems: quite apart from the great demands on Members of Parliament created by those Committees, it is a fact that the more Committees one sets up, the more likely they are to clash with other Committees. It is a question of trying to find the right balance.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West): I should like to add my voice to the concerns expressed already by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I urge that something be done to resolve the long and
Column 492
continuing vexed issue of access by and the treatment of people with disabilities in this place. What happened yesterday was even worse than my hon. Friend made out, because efforts were made to send many of those people in wheelchairs to a Committee Room upstairs, access to which is virtually non-existent.Why on earth is there unwillingness to allow meetings to be addressed in Westminster Hall, when Heads of State from all over the world have addressed both Houses in it? In fact, Parliament sat in that hall for a long time. It appears that petty tinpot bureaucracy is standing in the way, and means that, yesterday, many people went home feeling extremely disappointed at being unable to lobby their Member of Parliament whom they had come to meet. Why on earth can something not be done to ensure that in future when people with disabilities come to lobby their Members they are offered the use of Westminster Hall, microphones and other facilities to enable them to do so?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has raised two separate points. On the main point, in support of Bolsover, if I may put it like that, I shall not attempt to add to what I said. On the earlier point, which is about facilities for disabled people in the Palace generally, the hon. Gentleman knows that a substantial programme of work is under way to bring about modifications to help solve that problem.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): Is my right hon. Friend willing to arrange in the near future a debate on the middle east peace process, so that I might mention yet again in the House the plight of Ron Arad, who was captured many years ago in the Lebanon and whose family have been denied access to him or letters from him for at least eight years?
Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend that we want the release of Ron Arad, and indeed all those people in that part of the world who are held outside the due process of law. We continue to mention the matter to everyone who might be able to help, whenever we have the chance to do so.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): Further to the question asked by the shadow Leader of the House about the tabling of questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House investigate why a question that I tabled before the recess, which was accepted by the Table Office, was removed on Monday from the Order Paper? In my opinion, it was a legitimate question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It asked him what proposals he had to promote equal treatment for men and women. I should have thought that, as one of his responsibilities is the working of government, that is a question that he should have answered.
Mr. Newton: I will look into that, but, as it happens, I am Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Women's Issues. The question may have been transferred to me but, if so, it has not yet reached me.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth (City of Chester): Will my right hon. Friend consider an opportunity for an early debate on the assisted places scheme, so that we may explore the Government's plans to extend that scheme, and so that we may give the Opposition an opportunity to explain to my constituents--especially parents and pupils of the King's school and indeed the Queen's school, which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) attended--why
Column 493
they should be denied the opportunity of an outstanding education at two outstanding schools in the city of Chester?Mr. Newton: That really is a very good idea.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): As we shall be treading parliamentary water for a little while, would it be possible to hold a debate on the future of the BBC world service? There is enormous support on both sides of the House for the world service yet somehow, apparently, it continues to be confronted with cuts all the time. The BBC world television service may be one of the few national institutions that has an international reputation, but it is a belt and braces show. Surely we should give further financial support to both those services. Perhaps, if the Government listen to the overwhelming opinion of both sides of the House, they might be persuaded of the case.
Mr. Newton: We all hold the work of the BBC world service in high regard, but not even that enables me to promise an early debate.
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian): The Leader of the House will be aware that the Scottish Grand Committee will meet in Aberdeen on Monday. Does he accept that meetings of that Committee in different parts of Scotland are little more than an expensive charade, as the Secretary of State for Scotland is not accountable to Members elected in Scotland? Does he accept that what people in Scotland require, and what they will have, is an elected parliament to control their Government within the United Kingdom?
Mr. Newton: The very fact that the Scottish Grand Committee is to meet in what I believe have been widely
Column 494
welcomed arrangements in Aberdeen in Scotland is a measure of the importance that we attach to those matters. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be there, but perhaps he can make his speech there.Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West): I welcome what the Leader of the House said about holding an early debate on the national lottery. However, will he ensure that, by the time that the debate is held, the confusion between the Welsh Office, the Department of National Heritage and the Treasury about double funding is cleared up? I say that in the light of the conflict between the current guidance note from the Welsh Office, which has led to the Wales tourist board withdrawing a grant already offered to the Brecon jazz festival because it has now been successful in obtaining money from the national lottery, and the answer that was given by the junior Minister at the Department of National Heritage to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), which said:
"Applicants are required to provide an element of partnership funding which can come from a variety of sources, including public funding."--[ Official Report , 27 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 598. ] Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, once and for all, the three Departments get their act together and do not issue totally contradictory instructions to innocent applicants for Government funding and national lottery funding?
Mr. Newton: Taking together the original points of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and those made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), I repeat my assurance that I shall bring to the attention of those participating in the debate the fact that there is confusion in the minds of Opposition Members.
Column 495
Prescription Charges (Exemptions)
4 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): With the permission of the House, I wish to make a statement on prescription rate exemption arrangements in the light of the European Court of Justice judgment on the Richardson case which we received earlier today. Mr. Cyril Richardson is a married man who, in 1993, when aged 64, was required to pay a prescription charge of £4.75. His wife aged 62 had been exempt from charges on age grounds from age 60--whereas men are not exempt until they are age 65. Mr. Richardson contended that, as a result, he suffered discrimination contrary to directive 79/7/EEC, which provides for equal treatment of men and women in matters of social security. In December 1993, he sought leave to apply for judicial review, and in May 1994 the High Court referred the case to the European Court of Justice for a ruling.
Our position has always been that the directive, which is based on article 235 of the treaty of Rome and was therefore approved unanimously by member states in 1978, did not apply to the United Kingdom's prescription charge exemption arrangements; or, if it did, those arrangements were covered by the derogation for state pension age. We have argued that the directive applies to statutory schemes against risks such as sickness or old age and to social assistance in so far as it is intended to supplement those schemes. Our case was that exemption from prescription charges is a health not a social security statutory scheme; nor is it social assistance.
Alternatively, if those arguments were not to be accepted by the court, we argued that the clear link between our exemption arrangements for prescription charges and state pension age should mean that the derogation from the directive for state pension age would enable us to operate different age exemptions for men and women, as we now operate different state pension ages.
However, as many Members of the House will be aware, the court has found in Mr. Richardson's favour. The ECJ has ruled today that our arrangements fall within the scope of the directive, and that the derogation does not apply. That means that the existing clause in the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations, which provides for men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over to receive free prescriptions, is not consistent with European Community law.
It is open to us, within the terms of the judgment, to equalise the age exemption arrangements in a number of different ways--for example, at age 65 for both men and women. But equalising at 60 is, I believe, the right approach, because it protects the rights of those women aged 60 and over who currently receive free prescriptions. The Government accept the court's findings, and will comply fully. The purpose of my statement today is to make clear to the House and to the public the arrangements that we are making, which will come into effect from tomorrow, for men aged 60 to 64 to obtain prescriptions without charge and, where appropriate, for them to obtain reimbursement of charges.
I have accordingly today made amending regulations to equalise from tomorrow, 20 October, the age exemption arrangements for men and women at the retirement age
Column 496
for women. That means that more than 1 million men in England and Wales aged 60 to 64 will from tomorrow be entitled to free prescriptions on age grounds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have today made similar amending regulations.I shall clarify the position on retrospection, about which there has been ill reporting in the media. Although the judgment was not limited in retrospective effect, it recognised that national procedural rules, such as time limits, will apply. Our regulations specify a maximum period of three months for retrospective claims, and that is the period for which claims will normally be allowed. The existing regulations also make provision for reimbursement of charges paid by people who were exempt at the time of supply. We shall operate a simple procedure allowing men aged 60 to 64 at the time of supply initially to register a claim for a refund. Details of how those who may have a claim for a refund can register their interest will be published in national newspapers tomorrow, Friday 20 October 1995, and during next week.
We will also be distributing posters and coupons to national health service contractors in the next week or so. Claims for reimbursement should be registered within three months of the date on which the drug or appliance was supplied. The judgment explicitly recognises that national procedural rules, such as time limits, will still apply, although the judgement itself was not limited in retrospective effect.
I shall make a further announcement when the arrangements for inviting claims for refunds are finalised. I am sure that hon. Members will understand why I am not in a position to bring the arrangements to the House today at such short notice. We will at that time take steps to ensure that information is widely available about how to complete the detailed claim form--including what supporting information will be required.
Letters are being sent today to all hon. Members giving information about the case, the Government's response to it, the arrangements for informing the public and the national health service about revised exemption arrangements, and the procedure for registering an interest in claiming a refund. The letter includes details of the freepost address to which eligible claimants may wish to write and which will be in newspapers tomorrow.
In addition to the announcements in the national press, officials have written today to all health authorities, community pharmacists and other interests advising them of the change. A simple black and white notice is included for local display. The information explains that, until a revised print of the prescription form is available, patients should make manuscript alterations to the declaration of exemption on the reverse of existing forms.
As I have already said, I shall make a further announcement when the detailed arrangements for claiming refunds are finalised.
Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East): The Minister's message today to Cyril Richardson is surely: "Who dares, wins." I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he confirm that the Government were first aware that their prescription exemptions were not consistent with European law regarding equal treatment for men and women as long ago as 1985, and that the Government
| Next Section
| Home Page |