---

Mr. Newton: I shall take those questions in their natural order. I cannot add much to what I said in my

28 Nov 1996 : Column 480

statement about the two-day debate. For some years it has been customary to have pre-Council debates on a motion for the Adjournment. Further action is needed to complete the process of scrutiny, and we shall be reviewing the situation after considering what happens at ECOFIN, early next week.

On the channel tunnel, I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the hon. Gentleman's request. However, a number of substantial investigations are under way, so my right hon. Friend cannot be accused of having neglected his responsibility. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has made a point and I shall draw it to my right hon. Friend's attention.

On the blockade, the hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about an hour and a quarter ago. The British Government attach considerable importance to the matter and, acknowledging that ultimately it is a matter for the French, not the British authorities, they will do anything they can to assist in bringing the matter to an end and protecting the position of British lorry drivers. However, I was slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have referred to Members of the European Parliament without mentioning the Labour MEP who, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, is reported to have described the French lorry drivers as a shining example.

Mr. Rooker: It was "a shining beacon".

Mr. Newton: At any rate, the hon. Gentleman might have made some reference to that. I am trying to keep the temperature down, not raise it, so I shall not pursue that matter further.

No decisions have yet been taken about Oftel. The responses to Oftel's August consultation are publicly available and are the basis of press comment. Clearly, discussion on those matters will continue.

Lastly, on the Budget leak, I am certainly not in a position to report any progress to the House.

Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside): My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of us are pleased to have advance notice of a two-day debate on European affairs. I trust that my right hon. Friend will confirm that there will be an opportunity for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to define the copper-bottomed guarantees that were mentioned earlier this week so that we can judge for ourselves how safe the pound will be.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Apart from the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor earlier this week, I made it absolutely clear that my right hon. and learned Friend would take part in the two-day debate to which I referred. I am sure that he will wish to report on anything that happens at the ECOFIN meeting in that respect or any other.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): The Leader of the House will know that yesterday the Government published their long-awaited guidelines on Oftel's powers of control over the gateway box governing the future of digital broadcasting in Britain. Is he aware

28 Nov 1996 : Column 481

that there is a great deal of concern within the industry that the powers given to Oftel are not nearly strong enough to prevent Rupert Murdoch and BSkyB from blocking open and fair competition in the supply of digital services and television? May we have an early debate to explore some of those important problems?

Mr. Newton: As I have a relative working in a relevant industry, I am well aware of the variety of views in both directions. Some people say that we are going too far and others say that we are not going far enough. The Government's view is that we have struck the right balance, but we shall continue to consider the comments that people make.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): While welcoming my right hon. Friend's announcement of a two-day debate on Europe and noting his interesting statement that he will review scrutiny in the light of the European Community's Finance Ministers meeting, may I ask whether he accepts that scrutiny should take place in advance of that meeting? As the matters discussed in Committee are within the competence of the legislature--this Parliament--in as much as they concern European directives and regulations that could be incorporated into British law and are not a matter for the royal prerogative, they are not for Government action alone. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Procedure Committee ways in which the views of the House can be made the basis on which Ministers act at ministerial councils of the European Union.

Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee will read my hon. Friend's remarks with interest. It is difficult to be sure what my hon. Friend was asking for. We have established arrangements for scrutiny precisely because of some of the points that he made. That is why the discussion took place in the Standing Committee last week. There is a further requirement to bring the necessary resolution before the House. I said simply that we shall make decisions about that in the light of what happens at ECOFIN this week.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli): The Leader of the House will appreciate that binding agreements may be reached at the Dublin summit, especially on the stability pact. Will he give an assurance, notwithstanding the two-day debate on the Adjournment, that if such binding agreements are reached, the stability pact and the terms of the agreements will be debated on the Floor of the House so that we can vote specifically for or against them?

Mr. Newton: I have said what I believe to be the sensible course. I have announced in good faith what a lot of people wanted--a two-day debate with the Chancellor taking part as well as the Foreign Secretary. I have said that we shall need further to consider other matters in the light of what happens at ECOFIN on Monday. I cannot be expected to go beyond that this afternoon.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover): Will my right hon. Friend consider changing the business for next week? My constituency has virtually become a lorry park. There must be some action in Britain to support our lorry drivers and the haulage companies that are suffering. We must

28 Nov 1996 : Column 482

also try to sort out what we can with the French. Last time they promised to pay compensation and did not pay up. This time they are talking about it but will probably try to get out of paying up again. Should we not be taking action in Europe and should we not condemn any Labour Member of the European Parliament who has the gall to suggest that this is a shining example of trade unionism in action? Such statements are upsetting my constituents. My office telephone has been very busy with complaints about that Labour MEP's statement. Can we not have a debate about this important matter, which is upsetting my constituents?

Mr. Newton: I have already made some observations on one of those points and come close to enraging the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), so I shall not venture further down that path. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend, and even more with those in his constituency who are experiencing the difficulties that he describes. We shall do anything that we can as a Government in the circumstances that I have already referred to and, more importantly, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to. However, it must be acknowledged that the main responsibility for this matter rests with the French authorities, not the British authorities.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): A two-day debate on the Adjournment is not very satisfactory. I hope that the Leader of the House will give serious consideration to having two separate, one-day debates--one on the Adjournment, to deal with the regular six-monthly report and other documents, and a separate debate, with an amendable motion, on the crucial and highly controversial subject of the stability pact and the single currency.

Mr. Newton: I cannot add much, even for the right hon. Gentleman, to what I have already said. All those issues are expected, as matters stand, to be part of the discussion at the Dublin Council. I have therefore thought it right to provide for a longer than usual debate in advance of that Council. I doubt whether splitting the issue into bits is sensible.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): May we have a debate next week on the possibility of unfair pressure on civil servants, particularly in the run-up to the general election? In particular, we should consider the threat made during an Adjournment debate yesterday to the director of the Benefits Agency in Wales. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), a Labour Front-Bench spokesman, reminded the director of the Benefits Agency in Wales

"that there is likely to be a change of Government at the next general and he must be careful that he does not become one of the Benefits Agency customers".--[Official Report, 27 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 281.]

Is not that a threat and should not the matter be debated in the House?

Mr. Newton: That quotation, which appears to be a straightforward threat, raises a number of questions. Although I shall not seek a comment from them, I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will reflect on whether that is an appropriate way for Labour Members to speak.

---