| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): May I ask the Leader of the House to give us 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 5 February--Debate on policing of London, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Tuesday 6 February--Until 7 o'clock, a debate on the future of GP fundholding, on a Government motion; followed by a motion relating to the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations.
Wednesday 7 February--A slight variation from the usual Wednesday morning debate, in that this is the first occasion on which the first two debates will take place on Select Committee reports recommended for debate by the Liaison Committee. Until 12.30 pm, therefore, there will be a debate on the Agriculture Select Committee report on horticulture, and the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee report on employment creation in Northern Ireland; followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (4th allotted day): Until about 7 o'clock, a debate on rail privatisation, followed by a debate entitled "The renewed threat of Post Office privatisation". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Thursday 8 February--Until 7 o'clock, motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Remaining stages of the Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Friday 9 February--Private Members' Bills.
Monday 12 February--Opposition Day (5th allotted day)--the first of three allocated to the minority parties under Standing Orders. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, subject to be announced in due course.
During the rest of the week, I hope to provide a further day for the official Opposition, and it may be necessary to take Government business on the Thursday. On Friday 16 February, the business will be private Members' Bills.
[Thursday 8 February: (Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports); relevant reports: Local Government Finance Report (Wales) (1996-97); Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1996-97.]
Mrs. Taylor:
I shall begin with the issue that was raised at the end of Prime Minister's questions. I stress to the Leader of the House that there is obvious and widespread support across all parties for establishing a new mechanism for dealing with the pay of Members of Parliament and of Ministers. As only the Prime Minister can refer the matter to Lord Nolan by widening that committee's terms of reference, I stress to the Leader of the House the need for an early indication of the Prime Minister's intentions in that regard, so that hon. Members are not placed in the invidious position of having to make decisions about their own pay and that of Ministers.
This week, hon. Members on both sides of the House have made clear their opposition to the suggestion by some members of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that it should levy a pre-entry top-up fee of £300 per student. CVCP members believe that that is necessary because Government funding of higher education has not matched the increase in student numbers. I understand that the CVCP will meet tomorrow to make a final decision about the matter.
Should the proposal receive formal support, does the Leader of the House agree that a Minister should make a statement to the House on Monday to explain how the Government will respond to that very difficult situation? Would it not be wise to have a full debate on the funding crisis facing both higher and further education, as more and more further education colleges are also in significant financial difficulty?
Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Government intend to make a statement to the House the moment that the report of the Scott inquiry is published? It is important that the House should be the first to hear the Government's response to that report. I hope that any statement will coincide with the report's publication, and that that will be followed as soon as practicable by a proper, full-scale debate in the House.
Finally, the Leader of the House will not be surprised if I ask yet again about his proposals for debating important European issues. Last week, he said that he could not say whether or when there might be a debate on important issues such as convergence, social protection and economic and monetary union--which the all-party Scrutiny Committee unanimously recommended should be debated on the Floor of the House. Last week, the Leader of the House said that he had not seen the Committee's report. It is now available, and I hope that he will acknowledge that we should have an early debate on the matter.
While we are on that subject, I again press the Leader of the House to tell us when he expects to see the publication of the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, and when the House will have an opportunity to debate it. If the Leader of the House does not respond to that issue soon, we can conclude only that the Government are frightened of debating any European issue.
Mr. Newton:
I will take the questions in the order in which they were asked. First, in relation to Members of Parliament's and Ministers' pay, the hon. Lady will not be surprised to know that I would have said exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said had he not been asked. I will add only this. The hon. Lady's statements yesterday of Opposition support for a reference to an independent body were extremely helpful. As I have told her, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we hope to be able to announce our conclusions on that matter shortly, following our own further consideration and consultation through the usual channels.
Secondly, in relation to top-up fees and the meeting tomorrow, there is no sense in my speculating about what might or might not be appropriate in the wake of a meeting that has not taken place. However, I shall of course draw her remarks to the attention of my righthon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I emphasise that while, of course, the universities face a challenging public spending settlement
this year, they have been given new flexibility to finance capital investment through the private finance initiative, and we certainly see no need for universities to introduce top-up fees.
As for Scott, we will announce our plans for handling the report in due course. However, the House may like to know that my right hon. Friend the President the Board of Trade is answering a question this afternoon announcing the expected publication date.
In relation to the hon. Lady's question about European legislation, she is right to say that the report has been published--I have it with me. However, it was embargoed for any use before 2 pm today, so she will understand that we have not had an extensive opportunity to consider it. We will, of course, consider it, and respond in the appropriate way at the appropriate time.
Finally, the White Paper on the IGC is in preparation, and will be published in good time, before the start of the IGC at the end of March.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham):
Can I push the Leader of the House a little further on the important question of the IGC? Will there be opportunities forhon. Members to give their input before the drafting of the White Paper, as I am sure that there are still some issues to be resolved, and an opportunity for a good debate on or shortly after its publication? I am sure that many hon. Members would like to join in on those weighty issues.
Mr. Newton:
I will of course bear--[Interruption.]--in mind my right hon. Friend's points. I should also tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham(Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Member for Thurrock(Mr. Mackinlay) that neither of them has shown any inability to provide their input to discussions on those matters in a variety of ways.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey):
As a result of the Leader of the House's announcement that the annual debate on the policing of London will take place on Monday, which I welcome, will he go further and tell us whether it is possible to establish--given the controversy that occurs when it is not done--annual dates for debates on such matters as "The Health of the Nation", which is the Government's document setting annual targets, and the environmental state of the nation, which is a departmental and Government programme?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why next week's business does not include a debate on the Leicestershire (City of Leicester and District of Rutland) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which is the first local government order to be debated not in the House but in Standing Committee, quite against the interests of many hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. Newton:
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, as he will well know, the understanding about the changes made by the House after Jopling was that statutory instruments would normally be taken in Standing Committee unless requests were made through the usual channels for them to be taken on the Floor of the House. We would always consider such requests. In this case, it seemed sensible to take the order, which Opposition Members have been pressing for, in Standing Committee.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |