| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: I do not recall whether the right hon. Gentleman was present when the matter was debated on
the Floor of the House earlier this year, but ministerial comments were made during that debate. The Government believe that the creation of a Department that is specifically responsible for former service people in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests would simply add another tier of administration without improving the present arrangements. We believe that the provision for former service personnel is best integrated with that for the community as a whole.
Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood): Will my right hon. Friend enlighten us about the debate on Scottish Standing Orders to which he referred? Will that debate provide an opportunity for all hon. Members to discuss the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, in his recent interview and during his visits to Scotland, wholly repudiated the claim of right and personally humiliated the shadow Secretary of State?
Mr. Newton: It is not for me to pre-empt your views, Madam Speaker, as to what would or would not be in order during a debate on the Standing Orders, which are concerned principally with the role of the Scottish Grand Committee--but no doubt my hon. Friend will have a try.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton): Although I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) during Prime Minister's questions objecting to the violence in Brixton, it would be very foolish for hon. Members to believe that there was no just cause for it-- yet another death of a black person in police custody. There have been more than 70 such deaths in the past decade and the families involved cannot get justice or even evidence of what has occurred. They believe that the system is rigged and if they cannot have the matter heard in the House they will take to the streets. When will Parliament debate black deaths in custody so that the system may be changed properly?
Mr. Newton: In view of the implications of what the hon. Gentleman has said, perhaps he should discuss them first with his hon. Friends who were sitting two Benches in front of him not long ago. They clearly stated that they considered that a small criminal element had been responsible for those activities, and did not attempt to justify them as the hon. Gentleman has. In my view they were right, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to reconsider what he has said.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is considerable concern among Members on both sides of the House--particularly Conservative Members--about the on-going influence and authority of the BBC's overseas service? While there might be grounds for adjusting its capital budget, many of us feel that there is no justification for reducing its operating budget. Will my right hon. Friend try to find time for a short debate on the subject?
Many of us are also concerned about cuts in capital spending, especially when they affect the future economic progress of our constituencies. Will my right hon. Friend try to find time for a debate on infrastructure capital spending? My constituency will be affected if urgent road projects do not proceed in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Newton:
I shall always consider suggestions such as those made by my hon. Friend. I should point out, however, that funds for the World Service have increased by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1980. The current
I think my hon. Friend will acknowledge that, in this context as in others, there is significant scope for private funding under the increasingly successful private finance initiative.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
The Leader of the House will know that we have heard statements on Scottish and Welsh expenditure. Northern Ireland, however, has again had to be content with a press release. I understand that the House, not the press, votes Supply. In future, will it be possible for a statement on public expenditure in Northern Ireland to be made in the House rather than in a press release?
Mr. Newton:
That question is linked with one that the hon. Gentleman asked me last week, to which I undertook to give further consideration. Let me answer them both at once. This year, the Secretary of State for Scotland made his statement about local government expenditure to the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham):
As to next Wednesday's debate on the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill, I was the defeated Conservative candidate in the Hull, North by-election in January 1966, nearly 30 years ago. In the course of the by-election, Mrs. Barbara Castle promised to build a Humber bridge, which has already cost public funds well over £400 million--perhaps not far short of £500 million--which kept me out of the House for four years and which costs the taxpayer £100 million a year. Will there be time in Wednesday's debate for us to discuss whether that amount--nearly £500 million-- should be charged to the Labour party and not to the unfortunate taxpayer, as a consequence of Labour's disgraceful electoral bribe?
Mr. Newton:
I profoundly hope that there will be time for the matter to be discussed.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East):
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an article in today's Glasgow Herald about the transfer of media monitoring from the Scottish Office to a private company, and the dangers of funding party political propaganda from the public purse? That directly contradicts the statement made to me by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Scottish Grand Committee that he knew nothing about the matter.
I am sure that the Leader of the House did not intend misleading the Scottish Grand Committee to be one of the new Scottish procedures. Will he arrange for a statement to be made to clarify the matter?
Mr. Newton:
I shall arrange to be better informed about it before next week's debate on the Standing Orders.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
May I support the earlier call for a debate on the imposition of candidates? During such a debate I would be able to highlight the plight of Gravesham Labour party, which has had a women-only short-list imposed upon it. That constituency party has responded with an overwhelming majority against the imposition. It sent a resolution to the Labour party head office in Walworth road opposing
Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
Order. My attention is distracted at the moment. I have a point of order, but I have not heard it. I shall take points of order afterwards. The point of order obviously relates to what the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is saying so I shall caution him so that I do not have a point of order later.
Mr. Arnold:
May I point out that the reaction of the local Labour spokesman was to say that, despite the fact that there had been an overwhelming majority vote against the imposition in the constituency, this is new Labour democracy?
Mr. Newton:
I hope that I will not tempt any hon. Member to make a point of order. I shall merely repeat my earlier observation that, to Conservatives, the way in which the Labour party proceeds in these matters seems quite extraordinary and indefensible.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington):
The Leader of the House may recall that Madam Speaker kindly afforded me an Adjournment debate on the activities of Campbell's Soups in my constituency. He may know that I am campaigning throughout the country to advise the wider public not to buy Fray Bentos or Campbell's Soups products. I wish to teach Campbell's Soups a lesson: that it should reconsider its disgraceful decision to close a highly profitable plant in my constituency. In light of the fact that an American multinational company, in which the majority of shares are held by one family, took such a decision through its British subsidiary, is not there now a need to debate how multinational companies are able to operate within the free market system?
Mr. Newton:
The United Kingdom has gained enormously over the past few years from investment by a wide variety of companies, many of which could no doubt be described as multinationals. They have provided many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of jobs. One of the reasons why they come here is that they feel that our business environment is one in which they can take decisions on a commercial basis. We would be very unwise to tamper with that environment.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to have a debate on education so that I can draw the House's attention to the success of the application made by Beauchamp college in my constituency to become a technology college, as announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? May I also invite him to schedule such a debate so that we can draw to the attention of the parents of children attending the Robert Smythe school in Market Harborough in my constituency the benefits of grant-maintained status, a status already enjoyed by three other schools in my constituency and which I am sure will also be enjoyed by the parents, teachers and governors of the Robert Smythe school?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |