---

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will know that the arrangements have been agreed with Sir Richard Scott. The position as I understand it is that neither Ministers

8 Feb 1996 : Column 479

nor civil servants have access to the report now unless they need it to help prepare the Government's response. There is no difference between the position of Ministers and the position of officials in that respect.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): May we have an early debate on early-day motion 379?

[That this House notes with concern the Evening Standard's report on Islington Council, the local authority in which the Right honourable Member for Sedgefield has his home; understands that the council has been unable to calculate properly its own performance against national indicators, and has published inaccurate information in the local press as a result; notes that financial arrangements are unsatisfactory in several important respects; further understands that the council does not know the nature of its housing stock; congratulates the Evening Standard on its report; believes that the performance of the Labour-controlled authority in which the Right honourable Member resides exemplifies the reality of his party in power; and calls on him to deal with Labour's inability to run councils such as Islington before expressing readiness to govern Britain.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the incompetence of Islington council demonstrates that new Labour is just as incompetent as old Labour? Anyone thinking of voting for new Labour would be well advised to look at Camden, Hackney, Islington and Lewisham, as they would then realise that new Labour is just as bad as old Labour, and--as has been said before--is hard Labour.

Mr. Newton: I am aware of early-day motion 379. The performance of Islington council is yet another warning to anyone who doubts the risks of allowing Labour to take control.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin): Although I am sure that no Opposition Member feels any personal hostility to the mistresses of Charles II, or to any of their descendants, we are baffled why they should have the same right to make laws as those of us who have been elected. In the light of the Cabinet's bizarre view--as expressed by the chairman of the Conservative party--that the continuation of the hereditary right to legislate is an essential part of British democracy as we know it, will the Leader of the House arrange for the right hon. Gentleman to come to the Dispatch Box and explain those views on behalf of the Government?

Mr. Newton: I would like the Leader of the Opposition to explain why he talks about the constitution without addressing any of the real issues, such as the tartan tax or the West Lothian question. Given that some 30 hereditary peers were among those who voted against the Government in the other place earlier this week, I am mildly surprised that there is so much hostility towards them among Opposition Members.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): MayI thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to meet some of my constituents from Clay Cross later today? MayI also thank him for his replies to two previous business questions that I have raised about the work of the European Standing Committees. Perhaps I will be lucky for a third time. May we have a debate on the work of the compensation recovery unit? The unit takes away

8 Feb 1996 : Column 480

masses of benefits that have been paid to people such as a constituent of mine from Grassmoor who received an award of £40,000 following two mining accidents, only to find that £22,000 of that was taken away. There is a threshold of £2,500 before money starts to be taken away, which results in many solicitors advising people only to take awards below that amount. A report on the matter by the Select Committee on Social Security has been produced, so it would be appropriate for us to have such a debate.

Mr. Newton: Having pleased the hon. Gentleman--somewhat unusually--in two requests, I would love to make it a hat-trick. All that I can say, however, is thatthe Government are carefully studying the Select Committee's report.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will the Leader of the House reconsider the length of time allocated to debate the Scott report on the Floor of the House? In an average debate--even when Madam Speaker imposes a 10-minute rule--the maximum number of speakers who can take part is fewer than 30, or less than 5 per cent. of the Members of the House. The time at which the report will be in the hands of ordinary Back-Bench Members will mean that their ability to ask pertinent questions following the statement of the President of the Board of Trade will be somewhat limited. As this is one of the most important reports since the Franks report in the 1980s and earlier reports in the 1940s and 1950s, would it not be fairer and wiser to extend the debate to perhaps two or three days?

Mr. Newton: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but many important matters are debated in the House on the basis of one-day debates and it is not uncommon for there to be debates in which not everyone who wishes can take part. I certainly cannot promise always to provide enough time in relation to any subject for everyone who would like to participate to do so.

Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central): Will the Leader of the House reconsider the need for an urgent debate about the devastating changes proposed for the social welfare and support system? As a former Secretary of State for Social Security, he will know that in Tyne and Wear the present Secretary of State's statement puts more jobs at risk than all the jobs that we have lost in coal and shipbuilding in the area in the past 10 years.

Mr. Newton: The Department's aim is to try to improve efficiency in the delivery of the social security system by roughly a quarter in three years. Considering what is being said in other areas--for example in relation to national health service administration--it would seem entirely right that the Government should be trying to keep down administrative costs in the interests of expenditure, in this case on benefits, or, in the case of the NHS, on patient care.

Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North): Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement and justify why the War Pensions Agency is taking disability allowance away from war pensioners without there being any recourse

8 Feb 1996 : Column 481

to an appeal procedure? Or is it just a scam by the Government to raise revenue, so that they can dish it out in tax cuts for the rich leading up to the next general election?

Mr. Newton: That question verges on the irresponsible. The hon. Gentleman must know that there is nothing new about the way in which the war pensions system operates, going back over many decades. The method of operation has not been changed significantly by the present Administration, apart from the creation of the agency. That said, I will bring his concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Is the Leader of the House aware of all the significant developments that are, or could be, taking place in football? There is the possibility of a European Super League, the challenge to the deal between the Premier League, BSkyB and the BBC, and all the problems over the rulings on the transfer system. Those decisions are being taken by unelected people--general supporters have no input. There is no Parliament for football supporters. The people who are taking the decisions are self-appointed. Should we not have that debate here? We are the Parliament for football supporters and we should debate those developments. It would certainly please me and it might even please the Prime minister.

Mr. Newton: I have often thought that thehon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would be rather good on some terraces, but, on the main thrust of the question, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West(Mr. Banks) might like to consider applying for a Wednesday morning debate

Mr. Skinner: I used to play.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very good on the pitch, too. I do not think I would want to run into him, however. I used to play as well. Indeed, I was captain of football at school. Coming back to the question, if the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is proposing a debate on sport, I will add it to what I call my little list.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): At Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister talked about precedents. The Leader of the House has also talked about comparable precedents. What precedents does he have in mind? If it is the Franks report, I gave evidence for an hour and 25 minutes to Lord Franks and his colleagues and I assure the Leader of the House that there is no precedent there. First, what precedents does he have in mind?

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), did we hear the right hon. Gentleman wrong when he said that Ministers and civil servants would be treated in exactly the same way? Therefore, is a civil servant like Sir Stephen Egerton, who gave evidence to Scott, to get a copy of the report eight days before it appears, like the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? The relevant question that my hon. Friend asked was whether civil servants who may be criticised, like Sir Stephen Egerton, were going to be treated like Ministers. What is the answer? Will Sir Stephen Egerton,

8 Feb 1996 : Column 482

whom I use as one example, get his report eight days beforehand? If he does not, the Minister's reply is misleading to the House, although doubtless he did not mean it to be.

---