| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): Will the Leader of the House provide 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 29 January--Second Reading of the Housing Bill.
Tuesday 30 January--Opposition Day (3rd Allotted Day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the record of the privatised water companies, followed by a debate entitled "The Cuts in Overseas Aid". Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).
Wednesday 31 January--Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the English revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Thursday 1 February--Debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 2 February--Private Members' Bills.
Monday 5 February--Debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
[Wednesday 31 January:
The following reports are relevant:
The Local Government Finance Report (England) (1996-97); the National Parks Supplementary Grant Report (England) 1996-97); the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1996-97); Special Grant Report (No. 16).]
I am afraid that I am not able to be as forthcoming as I should like to be this week about the following three days--6, 7 and 8 February--but I hope to provide an Opposition day, and it may be necessary to take Government business on Thursday 8 February.
On Friday 9 February, the business will be Private Members' Bills.
Mrs. Taylor:
I thank the Leader of the House for that information, and also for responding to our request for a separate debate on the police grant report on Tuesday. In the past, the Leader of the House has also made favourable noises about the desirability of a debate in this Session on further changes to our parliamentary procedures. When I last raised the matter, the right hon. Gentleman was not unsympathetic. I wonder whether he has any further thoughts on what he might do to find time for a wide-ranging debate, which might lead to further improvements in the workings of the House following the changes that we have already made with the Jopling report.
I asked for that especially so that we might consider one aspect of the changes required, to which I have referred during the previous two business question sessions. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in each of those two sessions I asked about plans to provide time for a debate on the EC directives that the Scrutiny Committee unanimously recommended should be debated on the Floor of the House. I refer in particular to economic
and monetary union, convergence and social protection. Having had two weeks to consider, can he now tell us when the issues might be debated? Can he also tell us the timetable for the publication of the Government's White Paper and any subsequent debate that should take place in the House?
We heard this week--though not through any announcement in the House--that the Government are retreating from their plans to introduce identity cards. The position has moved from the Prime Minister believing that they should be compulsory, to the Home Secretary saying that they should be voluntary, to nothing at all. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the Government's position? Will he further confirm that Ministers have suggested that other forms of identity cards, such as those proposed for driving licences and Department of Social Security purposes, do not require legislation? If that is the case, and if the Government are proposing to introduce such measures without legislation, would not it be wise--indeed, proper--to provide a mechanism to gain parliamentary approval before any such measures are taken?
In view of today's National Audit Office report that more than 16 per cent. of benefit awards contain errors, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the staggering levels of waste that have been revealed? Such a debate would allow us to examine the full extent of the incompetence of the Benefits Agency and to raise the problems that such errors create for our constituents.
Mr. Newton:
I shall take the hon. Lady's points in the order in which they were raised. I am grateful for her remarks about the police grant report. I always try to respond to representations, even though I cannot always do so. I am glad to have been able to do so on that matter.
I remain sympathetic to the idea of a debate on parliamentary procedures and I shall continue to keep the matter on what I have recently been calling my list.
I have made further inquiries about the points that the hon. Lady has raised a couple of times relating to European legislation. I am advised that the Committee reports that it is said will contain the recommendation to which thehon. Lady referred are not yet available. As soon as they are, I shall consider her request in the usual way.
On the hon. Lady's point about the White Paper, I assume that she was referring to the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference. I am not yet able to give further guidance on the timing for that.
No decision has been taken on whether an identity card should be introduced and, if so, what sort of card it should be. Specifically, none of the options in the Green Paper has been ruled either in or out. The time to consider what sort of debate might be appropriate is when we reach a decision on what might or might not be done.
I understand why the hon. Lady felt it right to raise a point about the National Audit Office report. However, the Auditor General commended
that were being taken.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North):
May we have an early debate next week on choice in education so that we can, in particular, consider education for 11-year-olds and examine why the Leader of the Opposition is so
Mr. Newton:
I certainly cannot begin to explain that--and more to the point, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Leader of the Opposition cannot begin to explain that.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire):
Having regard to the concerns throughout the UK about the privatisation of British Rail and also to the puzzling reluctance of Her Majesty's official Opposition to use one of their Supply days to debate the subject, may we have an early debate--preferably in the week beginning5 February--to discuss that very important subject?
Mr. Newton:
I take that as a plea addressed to Labour Front-Bench Members. No doubt there will be time for a Liberal Supply day, and the hon. Gentleman can perhaps consider that as a subject for the debate. I have no plans, however, for such a debate in Government time.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
In view of the proposals from European Commissioner Bangemann for a European-wide defence procurement agency and a system of tariffs for the import of defence equipment from outside the EU, may we have a debate on trade and industry policy on one of the free days that remains in the week after next, so that the potential damage to national security caused if such proposals were carried through can be debated?
Mr. Newton:
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the debate that I have announced for next Thursday on the Royal Navy. He may find some way of taking part in that debate and raising the points to which he referred.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
May I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given his office notice? Could we have a statement next week on the validity or otherwise of a report emanating from Japan and published in Le Monde, that iodine 131, caesium 137 and strontium 90 elements have leaked in Mururoa? If the report is true, does not that undermine the assurance that was given by France that it was impossible for leaks to occur in material encased in rock? Does not that raise a question about the dangers arising from fissures in subterranean rocks? Will the Government consider the introduction of an international commission, as has been asked for in leading articles in Asahi Shimbun and other serious papers in Japan?
Mr. Newton:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, with his usual courtesy, has given me notice of his question. I am advised that the French have assured us that the recent reports do not relate to the current test programme, and they have confirmed that the so-called revelations relate to information that has been public for some time. It remains the British Government's position that we have no reason to doubt the assurances that President Chirac has given that the tests do not put at risk the environment or public health. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the President has invited independent experts to visit the region to verify that for themselves.
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton):
In addition to one of the points made by the shadow Leader of the House, the
"the energetic and effective steps to address fraud and error"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |