| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: Order. This is not how the House should respond to statements--hon. Members must ask questions of the Minister. I have allowed the questions to run for some time, as there is much interest in the subject. I now want the hon. Gentleman to ask a direct question, so that the right hon. Lady can answer it. Two more hon. Members wish to ask questions, and I ask them to have them ready, as I want them to ask them briskly.
Mr. Wilson: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Apart from the scratchcard issue, how have even this Government ended up appointing a lottery regulator whose defence turns out to be that he has been a personal friend of the principals in GTech for 20 years?
Mrs. Bottomley:
I have repeated at great length that, in all the circumstances, I have not found the director
Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South):
Is not the Secretary of State aware that, at the meeting between Richard Branson and Peter Davis to discuss the bribery attempt, a note was passed to GTech, not by the Treasury solicitor, as GTech's press release of 11 December states, but by Peter Davis or Oflot? Will the Secretary of State investigate that matter, and investigate what was received in return?
Mrs. Bottomley:
I have already announced to the House that Miss Rafferty is establishing an inquiry into the allegations made by Richard Branson against an officer of GTech in an interview broadcast on 11 December, to consider the facts surrounding a meeting between Richard Branson and Mr. Guy Snowden in September 1993, and to report to the director general any bearing those allegations or facts may have on the exercise of his powers under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley):
As the Secretary of State said that Mr. Davis took the free flights to save the taxpayer money, will she explain why her officials advised Mr. Davis against taking those free flights?
Mrs. Bottomley:
I did not say that he did it "to" save the taxpayer money; I said that the taxpayer was the beneficiary, rather than Mr. Davis personally. I said that he took the flights for operational reasons in order to be able to complete his visits to a great number of lottery centres and return to the UK at the earliest opportunity. Officials, in general terms, advised the director general to be responsible for his travel and hospitality costs, because of the normal rules on such matters. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. Let the right hon. Lady answer the questions.
Mrs. Bottomley:
The director general, Oflot and the British taxpayer funded the vast sums involved in the visit--for the flights and the basic accommodation. Mr. Davis took the view that, in this particular incident, it would not be appropriate for him to hire a jet independently, and he accepted the offer in order to complete the task faster and return to England. There is no question that the incident affected his judgment, integrity or honesty.
I made it clear, however, that I believed that it was unwise, which is why I asked the director general in the letter to ensure that he keeps in closer touch in future. It is not my judgment that that incident should deprive him of the job that he has so evidently carried out successfully and effectively, to the great benefit of the British people and the good causes that have received extra funds from the lottery.
Business of the House
4.13 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): Will the Leader of the House please give us the details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for the period after the imminent recess--at least I hope that it is imminent--will be as follows:
Tuesday 9 January--Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Wednesday 10 January--Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Security Service Bill.
Thursday 11 January--Remaining stages of the Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill.
Debate on progress on business links on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 12 January--The House will not be sitting.
More provisionally, the business for the second week back which I expect to include is as follows. On Monday 15 January, there will be the Second Reading of the Finance Bill; on Tuesday 16 January, the first allotted Opposition day, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion, the subject of which will no doubt be decided nearer the time; I am not yet in a position to give details of the business on Wednesday 17 January; on Thursday 18 January I intend to have a debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House; and Friday 19 January is the first day for Second Readings of private Members' Bills.
Mrs. Taylor:
May I thank the Leader of the House for that information? He knows from business questions last week that we were pleased that he decided to withdraw from debate the regulations that would withdraw benefit from asylum seekers. We advocated the withdrawal of the regulations because we thought it was wrong that such measures should be activated before a debate had taken place in the House. The Leader of the House will be aware that the Select Committee on Social Security is also considering that issue, and I wonder whether he can give an assurance to the House that the debate on those regulations will not take place before we have the benefit of the Committee's report on them.
Is it possible to have an early debate on the conditions in Holloway prison, which so alarmed the new chief inspector of prisons? In particular, it would be useful to have a debate so that Ministers have an opportunity to tell the House how long they have been aware of that appalling situation.
Do the Government intend to publish a White Paper setting out Government policy on the issues to be discussed at the intergovernmental conference of the European Union, which will start at the end of March?
That would be very useful, because it is important that the House has ample opportunity to debate such issues before those negotiations and discussions get under way.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that there will be a ministerial statement and report to the House on the Fisheries Council, which starts tomorrow, so that
Members will be able to judge to what extent the Government have taken on board the concerns that led to last night's defeat for the Government?
Mr. Newton:
I cannot give an assurance that the Government will not propose a debate on the regulations on benefits for asylum seekers until the intended report is received from the Social Security Select Committee: not least because I think that urgent action is needed, for reasons that have been explained to the House. I do not know when the Select Committee's report might arrive. I repeat what I said last week--the undertakings that the Deputy Prime Minister and I gave should provide an opportunity for the Social Security Select Committee to complete its deliberations. We would welcome sight of the report before any debate takes place in the House.
The hon. Lady left it to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)--I make no complaint about that--to deal with this morning's debate. Therefore, she will not have had time to receive a report on it, and still less to study it.
Mr. Newton:
If she has been able to see a report, it must have been by mysterious means into which I will not inquire. In that case, she will be aware that I made some observations on the subject of Holloway in my speech this morning, to which I refer her.
On the subject of a White Paper on the IGC, I am not in a position to add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in the recent debate, and in other exchanges that have taken place.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would expect to report to the House, in the usual way and at the appropriate time, on the outcome of the Fisheries Council.
Mr. David Congdon (Croydon, North-East):
Will my right hon. Friend find time when we return from the recess for a debate on waste in local government so that hon. Members have a chance to consider the £200 million being wasted by Hackney council on paying 100 employees who should be made redundant but for the council's no compulsory redundancy policy?
Mr. Newton:
As I have observed on several recent occasions, I am glad to say that there will be further opportunity to debate local government matters. For example, my hon. Friend may be fortunate in catching the eye of the Chair during the debate on the local government finance orders, which normally come before the House towards the end of January or early February.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire):
I support the plea for an urgent report to be made early in the new year on the result of the discussions in the Fisheries Council meeting to be held later this week. The business has yet to be announced for 17 January, and it would certainly be of benefit to some of us who have fishing interests in our constituencies to know what chance there is of a sensible reform of the common fisheries policy at next year's IGC. Does the Leader of the House also accept that there is a need for a debate in Government time on the privatisation of the railways?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |