| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
4.3 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, the deputy leader of the Labour party visited Harrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and I are keen that he should visit Harrow as often as possible because it is good for our votes. However, the courtesy of the House is for hon. Members who are visiting the constituencies of other hon. Members to let them know. Not only did the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) not let us know that he was visiting our constituencies, but when my hon. Friend reminded him of the usual courtesy, he used my hon. Friend's letter to ridicule the suggestion that people should abide by such courtesies.
Could you give us your advice, Madam Speaker, on how we might protect ourselves from such an abuse of the courtesies of the House? Perhaps the deputy leader of the Labour party regards himself as too important to abide by such courtesies.
Madam Speaker:
This matter is raised with me several times a week. Quite frankly, it is very juvenile to raise such a point of order on the Floor of the House. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could deal perfectly adequately with the deputy leader of the Labour party and not use the time of the House, on a very busy day, to raise such an issue.
Ms Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has there been a request from the Secretary of State for Social Security to make an oral statement about his decision to privatise, against the wishes of the civil servants involved, the child benefit centre in Washington? Surely such an important issue should not be left simply to a written answer.
Madam Speaker:
No Government Department has told me that it is seeking to make such a statement. As I explained earlier, I have no control over statements and I cannot demand them from a Minister. I have not been advised that the Secretary of State is seeking to make a statement, at least today, on that issue.
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is item 2 on the Order Paper, the Adjournment (Summer) motion, debatable?
Madam Speaker:
No, it is not debatable.
Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Overnight, there was a break-in at Clyde
Madam Speaker:
I have not been informed that a statement is to be made on that incident. However, before the House goes into recess, there will be opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue if he so wishes.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard many references--and no doubt seen reports in the press over the weekend--to the Premier Club, where business people apparently spend large sums of money wining and dining with Ministers. As it is alleged that some people pay up to £100,000 for dinner with the Prime Minister--which clearly cannot be for either the food or the company--do you think you should ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate to ensure that the facilities of this House are not being used for what are clearly party political purposes: to raise money for the Conservative party and to buy influence in Government decisions?
Madam Speaker:
I do not have to ask the Serjeant at Arms; I know what the facilities of the House are used for, and it is not for any such fund-raising activities.
Order for Second Reading read.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Ordered,
That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 24 July, do adjourn until Monday 14th October.--[Mr. Wells.]
Lords amendments considered.
Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the huge volume of amendments with which the House is being asked to deal this afternoon--no fewer than 329. Some are minor and technical, but many are not. There are 31 new clauses and three new schedules; one of the new schedules is 21 pages long. The bundle of Lords amendments covers 85 printed pages, considerably more than most of the Bills that have been presented during this Session.
Is it not an abuse of parliamentary procedure for such an enormous volume of lengthy and substantial new legislation to be presented at this late stage in the proceedings, when there is no opportunity for detailed scrutiny? Does that not bring into disrepute our procedures, which are supposed to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised? Does it not make it far more likely that--either during the next Session, or during the one after that--we shall have to deal with amendments tabled to remedy defects in legislation that has been drafted hastily, and has not been subject to proper scrutiny?
May I ask you to give the matter some thought and to advise us--not necessarily this afternoon--whether steps can be taken to ensure that, in future, the House is not asked to consider such an impossibly large volume of amendments so late in the process, when there is not adequate time for full and adequate scrutiny of the legislation?
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The number of amendments demonstrates the opposite of what the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) suggested. In Committee, when a point was raised that I thought worthy of reflection, I said that I would take it away and look at it. That happened throughout our deliberations. We have shown that the procedures work, if hon. Members on both sides of a Committee want to secure the best possible form of legislation. Most of these measures are technical, and reflect the openness with which we debated the Bill.
Madam Speaker:
I have noted the points raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). As he is fully aware, it is the Government who arrange the business of the House--the Minister has just explained that--and the Government will have noted what the hon. Gentleman had to say. Let me say for my part that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is so familiar with the Bill that he is quite capable of coping with the business before us.
Mr. Curry:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 2, 17, 23, 24 and 26.
Mr. Curry:
These are technical amendments, which enable the register to be introduced in an orderly manner on a phased basis.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
Mr. Curry:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 9.
Mr. Curry:
Again, this is a tidying-up amendment.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 9 agreed to.
Mr. Curry:
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 11, 12, 27, 28 and 34.
Mr. Curry:
The purpose of the amendments is to clarify when the Housing Corporation's consent is required by a registered social landlord seeking to dispose of land. Some of them also clarify when the corporation can serve a notice to obtain information, and one would add to the list of topics on which the corporation may issue housing management guidance.
Mr. Raynsford:
The Opposition welcome the amendments, especially Lords amendment No. 34, which increases the number of subjects on which the Housing Corporation may issue guidance. That particularly highlights the issue of devolution to tenants of decisions concerning the management of housing accommodation.
I put it to the Minister, however, that there is an inherent conflict between this provision--which we welcome--and the extremely restrictive guidance that the Housing Corporation has been issuing on its ability to register as social landlords organisations containing a majority of tenants on the board, or in which the tenants have the major interest in the new social landlord. If the advice that is to be issued by the Housing Corporation is
to be meaningful and not ridiculous, it will be necessary for it to reconsider that blanket restriction on its ability to register social landlords with the majority of tenant representatives.
4.9 pm
Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out ("Part") and insert ("section").
Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 1, line 17, at end insert ("which is a housing association").
Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 5, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |