| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): It appears not only that the Secretary of State was not on the Sea Empress's bridge on Thursday night, but that he has not been at the Department's bridge in the subsequent five days. The heart of the matter is that the salvage company offered advice about adequate tugging power which has proved, at best, to be grossly optimistic--but, above all, it was advice. Who accepted that advice, who failed to question it, who was responsible, and who took the decision not to send adequate tug power to the disaster scene?
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman simply has not been listening to what I have said. I have set up an inquiry that will find the answers to the questions that he poses. I invite him to have some patience and to wait for the independent inquiries, the results of which we will publish as soon as they are available.
Business of the House
4.27 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement on the business for next week, which will be as follows:
Monday 26 February--Debate on the Scott report on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Tuesday 27 February--Second Reading of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 28 February--Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until 7 o'clock, motions on the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motions on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order and the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
Money resolution relating to the Noise Bill.
Ways and Means resolution relating to the Prisoners' Earnings Bill.
Thursday 29 February--Debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 1 March--Private Members' Bills.
Monday 4 March--Second Reading of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [Lords], probably followed by other Government business.
On Tuesday 5 March and Wednesday 6 March, I expect to take Government legislation and to provide Opposition time. On Thursday 7 March, I hope to have a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. On Friday8 March, the business will be private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 February to consider the Official Journal No. OJ C303 of 14 November 1995, relating to the European Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1994, together with the replies from the institutions, and the Official Journal No. OJ C352 of30 December 1995, relating to the European Court of Auditors' statements of assurance for the financial year 1994.
[Wednesday 28 February:
European Standing Committee B--Relevant Community Documents: (a) OJ C303, Court of Auditors' Report for 1994; (b) OJ C352, Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance 1994. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) HC 51-vi (1995-96); (b) HC 51-x (1995-96).
Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Reports--Relevant documents: Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order; Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order; Local Government Finance (Scotland) Notional Amounts Report.]
Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr):
I am the first to admit that it is possible for the House to engage in momentous debates on motions for the Adjournment. Indeed, it is on record that the Chamberlain Government were brought down on such a motion. Adjournment motions are not to be dismissed out of hand. Why,
Given the seriousness of the matter, it would be useful to know on Monday whether the Prime Minister has issued a writ against last Sunday's edition of The Observer, which accused him of lying in respect of the Scott report.
It would also be useful to hear a statement next week from the Minister for Industry and Energy about the Government's intentions in respect of nuclear privatisation--preferably with a view to its being scrapped. Yesterday, the Minister told the world that the Government had received an "indirect approach" from the American company Duke Power, whose safety record on nuclear reactors is being questioned in the United States. The Minister should make a statement explaining how United Kingdom nuclear regulators with no experience of regulating safety in a profit-motivated nuclear industry can protect the safety of United Kingdom citizens and communities.
May we also have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the special rules that govern the tax treatment of foreign nationals? Why should members of middle eastern royal families, companies that front for overseas Governments--such as the Kuwait Investment Office--and now the chair of British Gas be treated differently from millions of United Kingdom citizens who are prepared to put their shoulders to the British wheel and pay their fair share?
It has been widely reported that the Millennium Commission, chaired by the Secretary of State for National Heritage, has already decided in principle to award the millennium exhibition to London rather than the west midlands. Given that the award will represent the largest tranche of lottery cash, and that the Secretary of State is on record as referring to "committing public funds", should not the decision be announced in the House rather than at a press conference? It was made behind closed doors, with all the usual hurrying and scurrying; none of the participants could put their case to the public.
I give due notice that we shall be asking my next question until we receive an answer. Will the Government be moving the writ for the by-election in South-East Staffordshire next week? The delay is unacceptable. I do not want to hear about conventions relating to a certain number of weeks; we are ready to go. The people of South-East Staffordshire deserve a voice to put their case in the House of Commons, wherever that voice may come from.
Mr. Newton:
The hon. Gentleman has spoken with characteristic vigour. [Interruption.] I did not think that he was aggressive; he merely spoke with characteristic vigour. I shall reply with--I hope--characteristic emollience to his questions, although in many instances I have little to add to what I have said before. That certainly applies to the South-East Staffordshire by-election writ, and, indeed, to Monday's debate, on which I shall not seek to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only about an hour and a quarter ago.
On nuclear privatisation, safety is and will remain paramount in any arrangements. The Health and Safety Executive has confirmed that there will be no reduction in nuclear safety as a result of privatisation. On the points that I took to be principally related to British Gas, rather than the other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred, Mr. Giordano's pay package is, of course, a matter for the shareholders.
I shall bring the point about the Millennium Commission to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who will be answering questions on Monday 4 March.
Mr. John Biffen (North Shropshire):
On Monday's business, has my right hon. Friend been approached by the official Opposition about the offer of an Opposition day to match the Adjournment debate, the motion for which would be amendable, which would consequently enable a two-day debate on Scott and therefore validate the sincerity of their protestations?
Mr. Newton:
No, I regret that I have not.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire):
Given that only this afternoon Sir Richard Scott wrote to the President of the Board of Trade to say that he considered that Ministers were wrongly and selectivity misquoting what he has said at press conferences about his report, and that also this afternoon the Prime Minister said that the Government would be bringing forward substantive changes as a result of the report's conclusions, is it not slightly ludicrous that the Government are hiding behind the procedural device of an Adjournment motion, rather than arranging a substantive motion that could be amended and on which the House could vote on Monday?
Mr. Newton:
No, I do not think that it is ludicrous that the Government have thought it right to have a debate on the motion for the Adjournment, partly because although various different individual aspects of the Scott report have been focused on, it is a hugely wide-ranging report and contains many recommendations on issues such as export licensing control, the future use of public interest immunity certificates and other matters. Such a wide-ranging report demands the wide-ranging debate for which we have provided.
Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield):
On the millennium exhibition, which was raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no doubt that the announcement on its location will be made next week? Is he also aware of the concern, especially in the midlands, about the decision-making process that appears to be behind that decision? At the very least, we expect that a statement will be made at the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State for National Heritage on the day of the decision.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |