---

Business of the House

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the future business. Last week, she offered me a non-aggression pact. Of course I am happy to co-operate with her in the interests of the House, as I did with her two predecessors, but pretending to protect the interests of the House to stop me holding the Government to account is not a peace deal—it is an attempt to use hon. Members as a human shield, not to protect the House, but to protect her from scrutiny. Talking of scrutiny, there is a backlog of 109 inquests into the deaths of servicemen and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last October, the right hon. and learned Lady was responsible for the inquests. Then, she said that the backlog was ““unacceptable”” and would be ““sorted out””, but that has not happened, and the backlog has caused considerable distress to bereaved families. Will the Secretary of State for Justice come to the House urgently to make a statement on what he will do to sort out that backlog? The Government are due to respond to the Leitch review of skills, which they commissioned in 2004, and which reported more than six months ago. Will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills comes to the House to make an oral statement when he publishes the Government’s response? Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:"““regeneration… may be…better…than the creation of super-casinos””—[Official Report, 11 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1438.]" and the media were briefed that the Manchester super-casino was dead in the water. That is no way to announce a change in Government policy. If the Prime Minister respects Parliament, will he order the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to come to the House to make a statement? On 23 July the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill will take place, but yesterday the Prime Minister said that he would add the recommendations from the Flanagan review to the Bill in the autumn. How can we give the Bill a Second Reading when part of it is not even written? May we have an urgent statement on that Bill? The conclusions of the Brussels European Council say:"““National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union””." Presumably, ““good functioning”” will be determined by the European Court of Justice. That would constitute a fundamental change in the relationship between our sovereign Parliament and the institutions of the European Union, so may we have a debate in Government time on the need for a referendum on the European treaty? Leaders of the House are, by tradition, Chairmen of the Modernisation Committee, but the Government’s motion to appoint the right hon. and learned Lady as Chairman of the Committee has been withdrawn twice. Why? Failure to move the motion means that the Committee remains in limbo, so may we have a statement on that? Successive Leaders of the House have briefed the Lobby every Thursday about forthcoming House business. The right hon. and learned Lady has refused to do that, but I understand that she will brief the Lobby in her job as chairman of the Labour party. Will she take time from her duties as Labour party chairman to make a statement to the House on the relationship between Parliament and the media? Finally, the right hon. and learned Lady has said that the law that she would most like to pass would mean that"““All jobs must be available part-time””," but as she is unable to take her place as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, and is unable to brief the Lobby, does she not think that being chairman and deputy leader of the Labour party, Minister for Women and Leader of the House is taking part-time working just a little too far?