Business of the House

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 11:31 am on 17 May 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Jack Straw Jack Straw Chair, Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal 11:31, 17 May 2007

The business of the House for the week commencing 21 May will be as follows:

Monday 21 MaySecond Reading of the Further Education and Training Bill [Lords]. There is also expected to be a statement on the planning White Paper.

Tuesday 22 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, followed if necessary by consideration of Lords Amendments.

Wednesday 23 MayOpposition Day [12th Allotted Day], there will be a debate entitled "Independent Inquiry into the Conduct of the Scottish Parliamentary Elections", followed by a debate entitled "Effectiveness of the DTI". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion. There is also expected to be a statement on the energy White Paper.

Thursday 24 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.

Friday 25 MayThe House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 4 June will include:

Monday 4 JuneSecond Reading of the Legal Services Bill [ Lords].

Tuesday 5 June—There will be a debate on Darfur on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

I want to make two brief statements. First, I draw Members' attention to the fact that the House agreed last night the dates appointed for the tabling and answering of written questions and for any written ministerial statements in September. We will remind the House about that in due course, but questions can be tabled on 3, 5 and 10 September for answer on 10, 12 and 17 September respectively.

Last week, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend Mr. Winnick on freedom of information, I made comments in which I said that

"the way that some journalists and the Information Commissioner are acting means that" the intention of the Freedom of Information Act

"is not being met in practice".—[ Hansard, 10 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 298.]

Those remarks reflected a general concern that I have about the scope of some of the decisions interpreting the Act, but my comments were ambiguous and could have implied that the Information Commissioner had made rulings on the issue of MPs' correspondence or that he was acting in some way beyond his statutory responsibilities. He has not done that in any way, and he has made no rulings in respect of MPs' correspondence.

If I may say so, the commissioner, Richard Thomas, does a difficult job very well. I would like to offer my sincere apologies to him.