| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): Has the Leader of the House noted that last night, very unusually, a substantial number of his colleagues voted against the programme motion? They obviously shared the misgivings of everybody else in the House about the way in which the house arrest Bill is being pushed through all its remaining stages on Monday. In view of that, does he not recognise that one particular problem about having one day for remaining stages is that there is not proper time to consider amendments? If, as he hinted just now, there is going to be a substantial Government amendment, or perhaps several, can we have an assurance that it will be published before the weekend, so that we do not see, as has happened very often in the past, the Home Office producing last-minute, ill-thought-out concessions to buy off its own rebels on the Back Benches? Can we ensure that the amendments are given proper consideration before Monday?
Can we have a statement from the Chancellor on the ongoing problems surrounding tax credit overpayments? Every Member in the House will have heard about the experience of constituents who have been asked to pay back to the Government sums that the Inland Revenue
24 Feb 2005 : Column 478
considers it unreasonable for them not to have known that they were paid unduly. Given that the formula on tax credits is now so complex that the computer charged with the job has to think overnight—human beings cannot do it; the computer has to think over a 24-hour period—and that the Revenue has now had to publish a special booklet of guidance, can we have a statement from the Chancellor to explain what it is reasonable for the public to know or not know, what target the Revenue has to clear the backlog of disputed overpayments, when exactly it will introduce the new clearer award notice and when it will overhaul the IT system to deal with the situation?
Finally, what steps is the Leader of the House taking to meet the strictures that Mr. Speaker has given on several occasions on timely and accurate answers to parliamentary questions? Is he aware that the Home Secretary is having major problems answering any questions at all? For example, I asked the Home Secretary on 20 December last year how much his Department was making out of 0870 so-called national rate telephone numbers—he has no fewer than 19 different lines charging the public. Despite my prompting him with another question for a named day two weeks ago, I have still not heard anything. What has he got to hide?
Mr. Hain: I am sure that there is no intention on behalf of the Home Secretary or any Minister to hide anything, but I shall certainly draw the matter to his attention, because the hon. Gentleman has a right to know the answer to the points that he has made. The hon. Gentleman will also know that I wrote to all Government colleagues last year to address the issue of delayed answers to questions and said that it was not a practice that should be encouraged; on the contrary, it should be stopped and answers given as soon as possible.
I shall certainly draw the Chancellor's attention to the hon. Gentleman's point about tax credits, which is important.
On the programme motion and its timing, we have been over this matter before. I have just said that we will be allowing extra time on Monday. I did not say that there would be a Government amendment. I said that, if there was a Government amendment, it would be easier to handle that, but I guess that other amendments will have been tabled for Monday, and if they are selected by Mr. Speaker, they can be considered. Let us look at the time that Parliament as a whole, both the Lords and Commons, are devoting to the measure. It is an emergency Bill. We have to bring it in and get Royal Assent before 14 March. [Interruption.] We do have to do it, because the present orders, which have been ruled illegal by the Law Lords, have to be replaced. That particular section has to be replaced, so we do need to do it quickly. I think that there is an understanding of that. Between the Commons and the Lords, there will be six days on the Floors of both Houses. In addition, I guess, if any amendments come back from the Lords, the House of Commons will have further time to
24 Feb 2005 : Column 479
consider them. In all, I think that hon. Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise and deal with all issues that they want to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have to bear it in mind that there is strictly timetabled business before the House today, so hon. Members will have to ask short, concise questions if I am to have any chance of calling them all.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): How about a ministerial statement next week on the obligations of senior Ministers to the House of Commons? Acquit me of personal chagrin, but I did not want to speak yesterday. However, the truth was that many important speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House were heard by a Minister of State and a junior Whip. When I first came here, Leaders of the House—R.A. Butler and then Herbert Bowden—would certainly have been present for such a debate so that they could report the atmosphere of the House back to the Cabinet. Frankly, that is the Leader of the House's job. Will he consider his obligations to report to the Cabinet about situations such as that in the House yesterday? It is a dereliction of duty for the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip not to be present in such circumstances.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but he will understand that I have a range of duties to do with this job. However, the debate was important and I shall certainly bear in mind the point he makes.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): Governments are judged by both what they do and how they do it. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on how the Government are managing business? My hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House has made it clear that we have had inadequate time to scrutinise important legislation, such as the Drugs Bill, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill and, most especially, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. It really is not acceptable that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not have adequate time to hold the Government to account and scrutinise such legislation. Will the Leader of the House personally make a statement to reassure us all that we will have adequate time to examine such matters, rather than having legislation rushed through the House in this most undignified way?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman asks how business is being managed and I would say that it is being managed well. We are making progress with Bills, and if he looks at the record rather than rhetoric, he will find that scrutiny is better under the procedures that we have adopted because there is less scope for filibustering. We have been over this argument before: timetabling allows clauses to be examined carefully so that Bills are properly scrutinised.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): Would the hon. Gentleman abolish it?
Mr. Hain:
My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House asks whether the hon. Member for South
24 Feb 2005 : Column 480
Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) would abolish timetabling. If the Conservatives got into power, it would be interesting to find out whether they would abolish timetabling.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Yes.
Mr. Hain: I do not think that the former shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), would have the job, but if the current shadow Leader of the House was standing on this side of the Chamber, I am sure that he would not abolish timetabling because it is sensible, it allows the House to scrutinise legislation properly, and it allows interested parties outside the House to know when things will be happening in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It thus makes for better scrutiny and public understanding all round.
Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon) (Lab): May we have a debate on local government so that I can raise my constituents' concerns about Swindon borough council's Conservative budget? This week, the council put through £10 million of cuts, which included breaking a pledge to the voluntary sector by taking £250,000 from it? It has also raised day care charges from 65p to a massive £10 a day. Should we not have a debate to show that when the Tories talk about running services efficiently, in fact they make cuts to services on which we all rely?
Mr. Hain: That is a horrifying story from Swindon showing what happens when the Conservatives get into power. It shows what happens locally and what would happen if they got into power nationally, with their programme of £35 billion cuts that would result in the massacring of services throughout the country, including those in Swindon, and, additionally, sky-high council tax bills after they had cut local government budgets.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |