| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that, in response to such a question I shall say--I will, and it is what I believe--that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. It seems that his remarks imply--I hope that they do-- support for the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for enhancing the role of the Welsh Grand Committee. His remarks seem to strengthen the case for that.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): Will my right hon. Friend consider having an early and urgent debate on local government in London? Is he aware that 120 officers of Lambeth council face the sack because they are being accused of corruption and fraud? Does that not underline the fact that, for many, new Labour and old Labour have merely become hard Labour?
Mr. Newton: Without attempting to meet the neatness of my hon. Friend's phrase, I would observe that, since the appointment of the new chief executive in 1993 and the change of political control--perhaps what my hon. Friend has said is some reflection--Lambeth at last seems to be taking some steps to put its house in order.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): The Leader of the House will have heard the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) about the activities of Scottish and Newcastle. Again, it is an example of a predator company operating in the marketplace and taking over another company without any consideration of local communities, as has happened in the case of Campbell Soups in my constituency. Is it not time that we had a major debate in Government time, so that we can perhaps consider a new framework for takeover policy? Are things not getting quite out of hand?
Mr. Newton: I suppose that I can say--yes, I can-- that the hon. Gentleman puts his point in a reasonable way. Given the obvious strength of his feeling about such matters, it might well be worth his considering, if he has not already done so, seeking some time on a Wednesday morning.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): May we have a debate next week on stakeholding, which would allow the
House to probe the warm word "smokescreen" that is involved, and perhaps consider the measures that would be involved, such as the restoration of trade union powers, the robbing of savers of the income that they derive, joining the ERM, and, above all, interference in the proper management of British companies?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can improve on the way in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister responded to a similar question about half an hour ago.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Has the Leader of the House had time to reflect on the views expressed by Lord Howe, the former Deputy Prime Minister, who said in an interview on London Radio earlier this week that he thought that the abolition of the Greater London council was a mistake, and that a voice for London should be restored? May we have a debate on the governance of London? Among other things, we could discuss the possibility of having an elected mayor for London. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Yes, it is a proposal dear to my heart. It is supported also by the present Deputy Prime Minister and by the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor).
Mr. Newton: The straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I have not had time to reflect on the remarks that he attributes to my right hon. and noble Friend. I am tempted to say that I might see some merit in the proposal if it led to what I shall loosely call the translation of the hon. Gentleman from this side of the river back to the other.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for yet another debate on procedures in the House? Is he aware that a Labour Member representing a Glasgow constituency--I cannot name him, because I did not have a chance to mention to him in advance that I would be raising the matter--is starting a campaign on behalf of Muhammad Al-Masari? That campaign will jeopardise not only thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom but money that is going to the Exchequer which could otherwise be spent on education and the health service. He makes the matter worse by using House of Commons postage-paid envelopes. Is that not a disgrace?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented on this matter on Tuesday, and I would not want to add to what he said.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): Does the Leader of the House agree that hardly an hon. Member would not agree with the extension of nursery education for parents who wish it, but that the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, which we are to debate on Monday, is controversial, particularly in respect of financing, administration, inspection and, indeed, the very definition of nursery education? Has the Leader of the House observed that, despite the usual practice of giving powers to Secretaries of State to make regulations, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make only "arrangements"? Can he let us know before that debate whether this has precedent, and, if so, where?
Mr. Newton: This is very much a point that should be raised in the Second Reading debate on Monday, and no doubt it will be. I am sure that it will be helpful to my right hon. Friend to have advance notice of it.
Mr. Mike O'Brien (North Warwickshire): May we have an urgent debate on the operation of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which seems on occasion to deny courts evidence that they should properly have, and citizens access to justice? I use as an example my constituent, Mr. John Dennis, of Bedworth, who is in a coma. His family are seeking to interview a former lieutenant colonel in the Army who controlled ambulances during the ambulance strike, and they have been told that it would breach the Official Secrets Act to do so. That seems to me to be a denial of justice, which we cannot properly sustain. The House should debate the Act.
Mr. Newton: I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton): Will the Leader of the House read and perhaps discuss with his ministerial colleagues early-day motion 275, which is about the chief medical officer and Parliament?
[That this House, whilst understanding the long-standing convention of the House that honourable Members are unable to table parliamentary questions on the internal working of government, considers that it has been extended unreasonably by not allowing honourable Members to obtain the view of the Chief Medical Officer on important public health issues of the day by asking parliamentary questions; considers that the Chief Medical Officer has wider responsibilities to the public than other civil servants; and therefore asks in the interests of public health and open government that the Government remove the block on parliamentary questions relating to the expert opinions of the Chief Medical Officer.]
Is it not appalling that hon. Members cannot get the clear opinion of the chief medical officer on public health matters without it being filtered through a Minister--or perhaps denied by a Minister? As the chief medical officer has wider responsibilities than other civil servants in relation to public health matters, should there not be a clear line to hon. Members who want his opinion?
Mr. Newton:
The code of practice on access to Government information confirmed that the advice that the chief medical officer provides to Ministers to assist in the development of their policies is confidential. As far as I am aware, there is nothing new in that, and that is very much the position with advice that is provided to or within Government, including that of the Law Officers.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
In order to dampen down the speculation fever regarding the Tory
Mr. Newton:
I noted my right hon. Friend's comments at Prime Minister's questions, as no doubt did the hon. Gentleman. I can only say that there is no need to dampen down a fire that has never been started.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
May we have a debate on transport, so that we can congratulate hon. Members on the remarkable change that has taken place in our car park? Last January, 26 vehicles in the car park were fitted with bull bars; this week, there has been none. May we also discuss early-day motion 1?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |