---

Business of the House

12.30 pm

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 25 October—Opposition Day [20th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Political Interference in University Admissions Policy", followed by a debate entitled "Government's Failure on the Siting of Wind Farms".

Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.

Tuesday 26 October—A debate on programming, deferred Divisions, carry-over, short speeches and the removal of references to strangers.

The necessary motions for the debate have been printed in this morning's Order Paper, with explanatory memorandums available in the Vote Office.

Wednesday 27 October—Remaining stages of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords].

Thursday 28 October—Second Reading of the School Transport Bill.

Friday 29 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will be:

Monday 1 November—Second Reading of the Gambling Bill.

Tuesday 2 November—Remaining stages of the Children Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 3 November—Motions relating to the Senior Salaries Review Body's triennial review of parliamentary pay and allowances, followed by a debate on the Procedure Committee's report on the Sessional Orders and resolutions.

Thursday 4 November—A debate on defence procurement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 5 November—The House will not be sitting.

As I outlined to the House last week, the printed Commons calendar is now available from the Vote Office.

Mr. Heald: I welcomed the calendar last week; it is a useful document.

I thank the Leader of the House for at last finding time for debates on the Procedure Committee reports. Given that we have had to wait almost a year, does he understand the disappointment at this morning's negative Government response on programming? The Committee's proposals seem modest enough, so will he not think again? It is in the interests of the House to find an agreed, lasting solution to this thorny issue.

On Sessional Orders, given that, again, the Leader of the House has had a year to think about the matter, and that he has support from all parts of the House, including Mr. Speaker, will he confirm that he will table proposals to tackle the continuing problems in Parliament square?
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1022
 

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider adding two reforms to next Tuesday's business? Almost a year ago, the European Scrutiny Committee asked him to change Standing Orders to allow it to deliberate in public. That would provide the public and business with an early warning system for European proposals. The CBI has welcomed the idea, so why not do it next Tuesday?

Secondly, I have been pressing the Leader of the House for progress on the Osmotherly rules. Will he propose a forum, perhaps a Sub-Committee of the Liaison Committee, where disputes between Select Committees and the Government over witnesses and documents could be resolved by discussion?

Can the Leader of the House report any progress on my request last week for a debate on the middle east?

May we have an urgent statement on the report that the chief executive of Tees Valley Regeneration has been campaigning for a yes vote in the north-east regional assembly referendum? Does not that breach Government guidelines that impose a purdah period on any person whose expenses are defrayed from public funds or by a local authority, under section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000?

Finally, may we have a statement on the British grand prix? This country is the home of international motor racing. Mr. Ecclestone says that the grand prix has been cancelled. Media reports suggest that Ministers have been involved in discussions. May we be told about the present position and what can be done? It would be very sad indeed for the nation if the event were lost.

Mr. Hain: As an enthusiastic Formula 1 fan, I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), in whose constituency Silverstone is sited, that it would be disastrous for British motor sport if the British grand prix were struck off the Formula 1 calendar. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism has been working tirelessly with motor sport's authorities. However, I can say from personal knowledge that the politics of Formula 1 is even more difficult than the politics of the House. The internal difficulties in Formula 1 are legendary, but I hope that they will not stand in the way of the British grand prix at Silverstone being reinstated for next year. I thank the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for raising the matter.

We have listened to all representations made on programming, including that of the Procedure Committee, and have proposed a sensible approach. We have adopted several proposals that were suggested. Hon. Members will have the chance to debate the matter next week.

I understand and agree with the concern about Sessional Orders and the situation in Parliament square expressed by the hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members and, indeed, Mr. Speaker himself. We will signal our intentions during the debate. Primary legislation will be necessary, and we will make proposals at the appropriate time.

On the question of European regulations and legislation and an early warning system, I strongly support the principle of mainstreaming European matters rather than confining them only to the expert group of hon. Members who conduct such effective
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1023
 
scrutiny in the European Scrutiny Committee. The hon. Gentleman should support the new European constitutional treaty because, for the first time, it would allow Parliament to vet any new proposal from the European Commission, which would be a big advance for democracy. Given the cause that he argued from the Dispatch Box a moment or two ago, he should back the Government in giving Parliament much greater powers on new European proposals.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Osmotherly rules. I addressed the Liaison Committee the other day, and we had a good sitting during which I was questioned rigorously and gave my views. I stated that the Government will now embrace the presumption that requests from a Select Committee for Ministers or civil servants, including special advisers, to appear before it will be agreed to, subject to Ministers having the final decision. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. There is no need for a sub-committee. The House is paralysed by "committee-itis", and that it not a criticism of Select Committees—[Laughter.] There is a proliferation of sub-committees and one can never find out who is making decisions. I am a great fan of Select Committees—I made that clear the other day—but I am not a fan of setting up more sub-committees instead of resolving matters in the usual way.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about a debate on the middle east, about which we are all anxious. The Prime Minister has said that immediately after the American elections in early November—10 or so days away—he will try to get an urgent reactivation of the middle east peace negotiations.

There is a clear political disagreement about the north-east referendum, although not about its rules, which are absolutely clear and must be adhered to. The truth is that the Conservatives do not want the north-east of England to have a strong voice for its regional interests. They want to see it stuck in the past, while next-door Scotland has its own national voice, while Wales has its own national voice through its Assembly and while London has its own national voice. The Conservatives wish to deny the north-east the chance to get its own national voice. Anyone who campaigns in the referendum, including Ministers such as me, must abide by the rules.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): The Leader of the House just said that he is a great fan of Select Committees. May I remind him that the Procedure Committee is a Select Committee with all-party representation and that it has a Government majority? Its report on programming therefore has the support of all parties represented on the Committee. Will he assure us that, as this is a House matter, it will be subject to a free vote? There have been occasions when Government Whips have been seen to steer hon. Members into a particular Lobby. Can we be sure that there will be a free vote for Government Members?

Another Select Committee that I hope the Leader of the House takes even more seriously, as he chairs it, is the Modernisation Committee, which produced an excellent report earlier this year. I hope that he can now tell us that progress is being made. May I remind him
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1024
 
that the report, "Connecting Parliament with the Public", contains an important section about the role of the media? Does he propose to timetable a debate on that report? What progress is being made? May we have a debate shortly?

Does the Leader of the House accept that the role of the media in interpreting what happens within this building is extremely important, because many of our constituents learn what happens and how we operate from the media? The problem with the media today is that many people do not seem to understand the role of a Member of Parliament. In his discussions on this section of the report, will he emphasise the need for transparency and freedom of information in respect of editors and their role in public life? For example, perhaps he should suggest that they publish their salaries and expenses, the full cost of their offices and staff and how they would run two offices and two homes that are 250 miles apart. A bit of comparison would be useful for our constituents and for readers and viewers. Is the Leader of the House prepared to have those discussions? Does he think that they would be helpful, enabling us to understand what editors do, just as our electors understand better what we do?

---