| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. I will try to sustain the practice of giving two weeks' notice, but, as I said, it might not always be possible and such business will be provisional.
As for ministerial replies, I have said that I am concerned if there is a problem. I would welcome evidence from individual Members. The burden of letters is greater--I have checked with one or two Departments where that is clearly the case. The hon. Gentleman referred to Ministers not signing letters personally. There are always occasions, under any Government, when Ministers are not available, and I am glad that some hon. Members recognise that. It is of course desirable that Ministers should sign letters to hon. Members wherever possible, but that cannot always be the case.
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset):
Will the Leader of the House clarify her views on the conduct of European Standing Committee B? There have been a number of occasions--indeed, this has happened at every sitting so far--when papers have been delivered extraordinarily late, sometimes with only 12 hours' notice. There have also been times when Ministers have steadfastly refused to answer serious questions, and the Liberal Democrats have been utterly absent from the previous three sittings, thereby illustrating their contempt for the Committee proceedings.
Will the Leader of the House tell us why the most recent papers for the tobacco debate to which she referred fail to contain any reference to compliance costs or risk assessment, despite the relevance of those issues to that debate?
Mrs. Taylor:
If the hon. Gentleman has some queries about any of the factors he mentioned at the end of his question, he will be able to raise them in that Committee. I take this opportunity to remind all hon. Members that they can attend the European Standing Committees--and, indeed, some do. I know that there was a difficulty this week--on Tuesday, I think--in the sense that one of the documents that was tagged as relevant to the debate was not available until the evening before. However, it was not the document that was to be approved. It was an incidental document, which was useful but not vital to the work of the Committee.
As for the absence of Liberal Members, it is not for me to answer for them, although I suspect that some may have spent some time in Winchester.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Will the Leader of the House find an early opportunity for a debate on local government finance, or allow for a debate shortly after any statement on the revenue support grant settlement? Is she aware that that will present an opportunity for a matter of serious concern in Cambridgeshire to be aired? Less than a month before the general election, the Prime Minister promised that the recommendations of the Elliott review into the area cost adjustment would be implemented for 1998-99, but her hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing says that that is not to happen, so that promise is to be broken.
Mrs. Taylor:
I can confirm that the Department is considering a fairer system for the working of local government finance, and that there is much discussion on that matter. A statement on this year's settlement will be made in the near future.
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury):
Can the Leader of the House be a little more specific about the Committee stage of the Government of Wales Bill, following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and also the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who sits on the Government Benches? Will she take into account the fact that, although hon. Members from Wales have a great deal to contribute to such a Bill, so do hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mrs. Taylor:
I am sure that hon. Members from Wales have a great deal to say, although none of them will be
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh):
Is the right hon. Lady aware of the growing public concern at the aggressive and predatory marketing of pre-paid funeral services targeted particularly at the elderly and the vulnerable, as set out in some detail in early-day motion 504.
[That this House notes the growing concern over allegations of widespread aggressive and predatory marketing of prepaid and at need funeral and burial services targeted at the elderly and bereaved, the lack of transparency in the ownership of seemingly family run funeral parlours and in the prices charged for their services; the lack of control over the use and management of investments into prepaid funeral plans, now exceeding £10 million and growing rapidly and over the endorsement of these products by registered charities whose subsidiary trading companies are in receipt of commissions on sales; further notes that recommendations made by the Office of Fair Trading in 1995 to curb anti-competitive practices in the supply of funeral services have yet to be acted upon; and calls on the Government to bring forward legislation without further delay to regulate the selling and management of prepaid funeral investment plans, require total transparency in the declaration and display of ownership of funeral businesses and their charges, control the commercial activities of registered charities and their trading subsidiaries in the context of their charitable status and prohibit anti-competitive and predatory trading practices through direct selling techniques, through monopoly positions, and through exclusive commercial arrangements with nursing homes, hospices and NHS hospitals bereavement services.]
May I remind the right hon. Lady and the House that, in 1995, the Office of Fair Trading reported in some detail on the unregulated nature of those services, and made several recommendations on introducing regulatory legislation? Please will she find time to debate that issue fully in the House to try to stamp out the unfair practices and predatory behaviour of those organisations?
Mrs. Taylor:
I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which may be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There have been difficulties, which have been reported to many of us as constituency Members. Presumably that is why that early-day motion was tabled. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for consumer affairs is studying that matter and consulting. Perhaps that issue would be suitable for an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe):
I beg to move amendment No. 65 in page 1, line 12, at end insert--
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
No. 14, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
No. 15, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
No. 17, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
No. 18, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
No. 19, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
No. 20, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
No. 21, in page 1, line 13, after '(i)', insert
No. 1, in page 1, line 13, after 'Articles', insert
'but (for the avoidance of doubt) not Article 1 of the said Treaty.'.
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 1)'.
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 3)'.
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 5)'.
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 10)'.
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 11)'.
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 12)'.
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 13)'.
'Article 1 (other than paragraph 14)'.
'1, other than the words in paragraph 5, (Cm. 3780, page 9) "and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty".'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |