---

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman raises a significant point that affects all hon. Members trying to perform their job on behalf of their constituents. I cannot promise a debate, as he requested, but I will draw his comments to the attention of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. Perhaps I should remind hon. Members of the existence of that Committee. We will be inviting anyone with an interest in the matter or who wishes to comment on changes to submit evidence to the Committee. Examples of the type that he gave will help the Committee in its work.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West): Before the Christmas recess, can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security that will end, once and for all, the social insecurity being caused by her proposals to cut benefits for single parents and their children? More than 100 Labour Members have signed a letter of protest, and more than 90 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 333, deploring such an attack on the living standards of single parents and their children.

[That this House notes that a major impact of any cut in lone parent child benefit will be on parents who obtain work and that this appears to be contrary to the Government's strategic objective of encouraging lone parents to get jobs; therefore considers that before proceeding with this proposal a full assessment of its impact on the living standards of the children should be undertaken, including reference to the Social Security Advisory Committee and consultation especially with women's organisations and those campaigning against child poverty, so that these can be taken fully into account by both the Government and the House.]

Mrs. Taylor: On other occasions, Ministers have explained not only the position and the difficulties that we have inherited, but the significant initiatives that have been taken to help lone parents back into work. The points raised by my hon. Friend can, of course, be raised in other debates that will be held in the near future.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): What liaison has the Leader of the House had with the Scottish Office and with Scottish Members in determining the pattern of business in the House? Why, for example, will we not have before

27 Nov 1997 : Column 1124

Christmas the publication or a Second Reading debate on a Scottish Parliament Bill--although we welcome the debate on the Welsh Assembly?

May I point out also that, next week, the Scottish Grand Committee will meet on Wednesday afternoon. Hon. Members who serve on the highlands and islands convention will have to leave on the Thursday afternoon to attend a meeting, on Friday, in the Orkneys. That will deprive us of the opportunity to participate in a debate on the European Union, although the European Union is very important to the highlands and islands of Scotland. There needs to be a recognition of the pressures that are placed on hon. Members who come from the far-flung corners of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Taylor: All hon. Members find it very difficult to do all the things that they would like to do. Very often, choices have to be made between constituency work, attending Committees and being in the Chamber. It is an inevitable difficulty, which always arises. As for the Scotland Bill, I have not announced all the business up to the Christmas recess or all the Bills that will be published.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Does that mean that the Scotland Bill is likely to be debated on 22 December?

I have given the Leader of the House notice of my next question: given the widespread feeling among Arab countries that Britain is acting as the poodle of the United States, is there any possibility of some proper discussion of our relations with the Arab world?

Mrs. Taylor: In response to my hon. Friend's suggestion that I am simply keeping the House sitting on 22 December to debate the Scotland Bill, I have to say that other Bills are awaiting their Second Reading as well as the Scotland Bill. As for his request for a debate on our relations with the Arab world, I am grateful to him for giving me notice of it. My hon. Friend is always heard with great respect on these issues. During the recent crisis, we tried to keep the House as informed as possible, but I am sorry that I cannot find time for the debate that my hon. Friend wants. He could perhaps raise such issues in the Adjournment debate before the Christmas recess.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): I am sure that the right hon. Lady will be as concerned as I am that I received a telephone call in my office only at 11 am today, informing me that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was opening a new building at a college of further education in Altrincham at lunchtime today. I gather from the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that this lack of notice is an increasing trend. Will the right hon. Lady arrange a seminar on procedure for her ministerial colleagues?

Mrs. Taylor: I will certainly investigate what the hon. Gentleman has said, although, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was to be in Altrincham at lunchtime, he must have done very well, because he was certainly in London at 11.30 am.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): My right hon. Friend will be aware of press rumours that there might be a change in Government policy with regard to freemasonry and the

27 Nov 1997 : Column 1125

appointment of the judiciary. Will she find time for a statement to be made to the House next week to clarify the Government's position in that respect?

Mrs. Taylor: The Government have not changed their mind on freemasonry. We remain of the view that the public interest is served by having a register of membership of the freemasons for police officers, magistrates, Crown prosecutors and judges. We are considering the detail of how to implement that approach, and we will be responding as soon as possible to the Home Affairs Select Committee, which has commented on this matter.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): Will the Leader of the House stand by the assurance given by the Secretary of State for Wales in a press release issued this morning on the publication of the Government of Wales Bill:

"During the Bill's parliamentary progress, it is, of course, open to any hon. Member to pur forward changes to the Bill and to have these explored in detail through open debate."?

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the Bill will get the full attention of all hon. Members, which it deserves. As I said, we are discussing through the usual channels and with other hon. Members the detailed handling of the Bill.

Mr. Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown): Will the Leader of the House find time for a short debate on industrial relations, particularly in light of the extensive lobby of the House this afternoon by members of staff from Barclays bank, who have been involved in a long-running dispute, which I regret has not been the subject of conciliation and arbitration by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, as the Government would wish?

Mrs. Taylor: I am afraid that I cannot arrange for such a debate. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government would not wish to intervene in or comment on disputes of this kind. If he has a particular constituency interest, he might find other ways--perhaps by applying for an Adjournment debate--to raise the issue in the House.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate next week on the national minimum wage, as that would enable the House to explore the deep and worrying split between the President of the Board of Trade, who believes that widespread exemptions from it are impracticable, and the Minister without Portfolio, who believes that they are essential? Does the right hon. Lady understand that, if her answer is the usual niggardly no, people will start to inquire what exactly this shabby and unprincipled Government are afraid of?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that the National Minimum Wage Bill was published today, and will be discussed in the House in the near future.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): The Leader of the House referred to the fact that hon. Members like to have two weekends between Second Reading and the Committee stage of a Bill. I understand that my

27 Nov 1997 : Column 1126

colleagues were not able to table amendments to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill because of pressures placed on them by the Stormont talks. Would it be possible for amendments to be taken on Third Reading?

Mrs. Taylor: If hon. Members face any particular difficulties, we will always consider them, but we have given as much notice as possible of all stages of the Bills that have been introduced.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire(Sir P. Cormack) in thanking the Leader of the House for giving two weeks' notice of business. It is extraordinarily helpful to colleagues to be able to plan further ahead. It is very good of her to make the effort, and I am sure that it is a practice that she will continue.

I respectfully draw to the right hon. Lady's attention a point made by several colleagues about the lateness of ministerial replies to constituents' letters. Not only are they consistently late--it is not true that the burden of letters is greater now: I have checked with my former Department and the burden is about the same, although it is still onerous--but many are not signed by Ministers, and this is happening regularly.

Of course, Ministers often have to go abroad and letters have to be signed in their absence perfectly straightforwardly, but the number of instances of this happening is unacceptable. Does the right hon. Lady accept that such a practice is not only impertinent to hon. Members who are writing to Ministers in an official capacity, but extremely rude to their constituents who have a right to expect a Minister to take the trouble to sign a reply which has, in any event, been drafted for him by someone else?

---