| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady was perhaps more political than she usually is on these occasions, and I shall not reply in quite those terms. I cannot give any commitment to provide time for debates on any of the matters that she has raised although, as always, I shall consider what she says. I have no doubt that there will be opportunities to raise those matters in various ways in the next few weeks.
In response to the hon. Lady's comments on the first subject, I would have thought that it would probably be in order to raise that matter during the Budget debate, since it arises from what she attributes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on Tuesday. I shall bring all of the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends who have responsibility in those areas.
I thought that the Prime Minister made a perfectly sensible point at Prime Minister's Question Time today when he simply stated the fact that Yorkshire Water will, we understand, be investing more than £200 million this year--more than double its half-year profits. The fact is that money for investment clearly must come from somewhere, and the Opposition are always demanding more investment.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye):
In view of today's statement on the revenue support grant, would it be in order to debate education in the Budget debate? We could then put under the microscope the behaviour of local education authorities such as East Sussex, which are scaring parents, teachers and governors into unnecessary concerns about potential cuts which prove to be totally wrong.
Mr. Newton:
It is not for me to advise my hon. Friend about what is or is not in order during the Budget debate. But I understand that it would be in order to refer to the expenditure side of the Budget under the arrangements that we now have. I am sure that even if my hon. Friend is unable to participate in the debate, her remarks will be carefully studied.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
May I commend the Leader of the House for his noble efforts to give us as much information as possible as early as possible? Close study of the Order Paper makes it very clear that the fruit and vegetable document--a very important piece of European legislation that will have a direct effect upon a great many fruit and vegetable growers and customers in this country--is to be debated on Wednesday morning and immediately voted upon on Wednesday evening.
I did hope that the Government had got away from this cavalier attitude, which assumes two things--first, that European Standing Committee A will totally accept whatever it is told on Wednesday morning, and secondly, that there will be no dissenting amendment. I hope that this will not become a habit. If it does, Parliament will get a reputation for ignoring the interests of its constituents.
Mr. Newton:
I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said at the start of her question. I am not absolutely sure of the background to the point that she then went on to raise,
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford):
Will the Leader of the House provide time for an urgent and early debate on the future of selective schools in England? If those schools are not allowed to select their pupils--either by examination or by interview--they will become comprehensive schools. That is an important fact to advertise in the House and elsewhere in the nation.
Mr. Newton:
My hon. Friend has raised an important point, but I do not think that I can promise time for a dedicated debate, as it were. But it was clear from the Gracious Speech that there will be a number of opportunities to debate education matters during this Session.
Mr.ghes (Southwark and Bermondsey):
Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), will the Leader of the House confirm that there will as usual be a debate before we rise for Christmas on the local government settlement pursuant to today's statement? Can he give an indication as to the dates of the specific supplementary legislative proposals to implement the Scottish and Welsh procedural changes announced by the two Secretaries of State yesterday and today?
Mr. Newton:
On the latter point, I cannot at present give a specific time for the debates. We would like to get the changes agreed by the House as soon as possible in order that their beneficial effects should be felt as soon as possible. I have forgotten the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Hughes:
The local government settlement.
Mr. Newton:
I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is normally a debate before Christmas. I shall look into it, but my recollection is that the matter is normally debated when the orders are brought before the House in the early part of the new year.
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest):
May we have a debate next week on race relations, so that we can investigate the deplorable remarks apparently made by a prominent member of the Labour party from Leicester on
"Dispatches" only last night? Regarding the deputy leadership of Leicester city council, he asked:
Mr. Newton:
I did not see the programme, but I am aware of reports of it. In view of the serious nature of the allegations that have been made, I am sure that they will be carefully examined, not only by the hon. Gentleman himself but by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
In view of the excellent work being carried out by President Clinton, be it now in Northern Ireland or what he has done in Bosnia, and the excellent speech that he gave to us yesterday, will the Prime Minister make some sort of apology next week for how the Conservative party actively tried to stop
Mr. Newton:
Such a question contributes nothing to what we would all like to achieve. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the quality of the President's address yesterday. Having been present at that speech and at some more informal exchanges between the President and the Prime Minister, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the relationship between them is very warm.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
May I support the call for a debate on the funding of the BBC World Service because it has an immensely high standing around the world, giving intensified stature to this country among listeners around the world? I would differentiate strictly between the World Service and the BBC's domestic service which is not of such a high standard. The advantage of such a debate is that it would show that Ministers have paid careful attention to the funding of the World Service. They could explain the split funding between grant through the Foreign Office vote and the possibilities for commercial income for the BBC.
Mr. Newton:
I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. Like the representation of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
As a debate on the local government settlement has been called for, would not it be a good idea, as Ministers have lessons in French and German on the all-party Whip--I have never been-- to hold arithmetic lessons for Ministers? We heard the story about £870 million extra for education. Along comes a Minister today and we find out that it is all made up of wage increases and inflation. The result in Derbyshire and many other authorities is that schools will be about £40 per pupil worse off this year than last. It is all a mirage. Let us get the sums done properly.
Mr. Newton:
I do not, of course, accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. This is a substantial additional sum for education. One thing at least is clear: the hon. Gentleman needs no lessons in English.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South):
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an urgent debate on early-day motion 3?
"Why should we have a white person?"
May we have a debate so that we can discuss whether such overt racist language is Labour party policy?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |