| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: I take that as an advertisement to the House by my right hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and I am happy to endorse it.I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to my right hon. Friend's comments, as I know that my hon. Friend has a strong interest in those matters.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): The Leader of the House has tried his level best during the past few months to give the House advance information, and he has given us the dates for the Easter recess and various other dates. But somehow in the past six or nine months, he has not been able to provide us with the date of publication of the Scott report or the date for a debate on the report in the House. I am beginning to realise that he has not done that because the heads of four Cabinet Ministers are on the block. It is high time that the public out there were given a chance to see what is happening and how much fiddling has been taking place. Are the Government screwing Scott's arms up his back? Why has the report not been published, to let us get to know the truth?
Mr. Newton: There are two reasons. One is that I have not hitherto been asked--[Interruption.]--so far as I can recall. The other is that it is not for me to set the date, as the publication of the report is a matter for Sir Richard Scott.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Given the surprising information vouchsafed to us yesterday that thehon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) learnt more from being underground than in grammar school, could we have a debate that would allow us to discuss whether underground tests are thoroughly satisfactory?
Mr. Newton: I have no answer to that, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): As the Leader of the House was unable to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), perhaps he can make some inquiries, because Lord Howe seems to know the date--he was certainly attacking it in the press today, anyway. While we wait for Scott, could not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the Ordtech appeal, which I raised with him a little while ago, and the principles involved in that case, in which innocent men stood the risk of going to prison while documents were hidden from them? Should not that be a matter for an early debate before Scott?
Mr. Newton: I certainly do not have any plans for an early debate before Scott. It would seem right that matters of that sort should await the publication of the report, on whatever date that turns out to be.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): I know that my right hon. Friend is very concerned that there should
be good relationships throughout the House. I wonder whether he might feel that we should have an early debate on the subject, particularly given the bad blood that has recently developed between the Leader and the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the whole Labour party. Is he aware of an article in The Independent yesterday headed, "Tony, Gordon and no Joy", which sets out the growing chasm, I fear, between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor? There is an incipient tragedy of Cain and Abel proportions and perhaps my right hon. Friend can pour some oil on troubled waters in that debate.
Mr. Newton: Having seen the interesting article to which my hon. Friend refers, I would observe merely that, judging from the faces behind him during the last two sessions of Prime Minister's questions, there is a chasm between the Leader of the Opposition and almost everyone behind him.
Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South-East): Bearing in mind the fact that it is just over 12 months since a serious air crash at Baginton airport in Coventry, will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government are prepared to produce proposals to deal with small airports outside London? Will he also direct his attention to the fact that the Government produced a report on the crash--when will we have a debate in the House on that?
Mr. Newton: I recall the hon. Gentleman raising related matters with me some time ago. I am sorry that I did not get back to him earlier. I dropped him a note this afternoon saying that I continue to bear his thoughts in mind, but pointing out--I hope that this will not be offensive to you, Madam Speaker--that that sounds like a good subject for a Wednesday morning debate, if the hon. Gentleman applies for one.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): May I endorse the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North(Mr. Greenway) for a debate on choice in education, perhaps with the theme, "Don't do as I do, do as I tell you"? That will give me the opportunity to mention Michael Hindley, the Labour Member of the European Parliament who lives in a neighbouring constituency to mine, who sends his child more than 10 miles to a grant-maintained selective school in my constituency. That would allow us to point out to the public that the stench of hypocrisy runs far deeper than the Opposition Benches in Westminster--to the European Parliament.
Mr. Newton: It is certainly becoming clear that, across a range of matters, Opposition policy is to say one thing, but do another.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): I met executives of Campbell Soups of Camden, New Jersey in my office this morning and they were as intransigent as ever, despite the fact that 340 Members of Parliament--the majority of the House--have asked them to keep their factory open. Can we debate those matters in Government time and will the Leader of the House further strengthen my campaign, calling on the wider public to boycott Fray Bentos products and Campbell Soups products, so that the company learns the feeling of the British people?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the policy, within the law, of commercial companies is a matter for those companies, not for the Government.I would not expect to provide Government time for such a debate. I have already suggested the possibility of a Wednesday morning debate to him. Having seen thehon. Gentleman in operation in various forums, I am glad that I was not one of the directors of the company at the meeting with him.
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton): While my righthon. Friend is considering the request for a debate on education, will he consider broadening the debate to include the subject of grammar schools, so that the many Labour Members who went to grammar school can explain to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) why they are against grammar schools so fiercely and so that she can explain to them why she has privately chosen one for her son? It may be because the school is in a well-run Conservative local education authority.
Mr. Newton: I am always glad to consider opportunities for the inexplicable to be explained, but I think that the debate would reveal that it remains inexplicable.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 335 on home workers, which is supported byhon. Members of all parties?
[That this House recognises that many homeworkers are failing to secure protection in law to which they are at present entitled, but on which they frequently miss out because of loopholes in legislation; further recognises that the Treasury is losing hundreds of millions of pounds of national insurance contributions arising from the same loopholes; and calls on Government to allow progress on the Employment (Homeworkers) Bill.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are1 million home workers, the rights of many of whom, which should have been established by legislation, are not being observed because of loopholes in the law that also deny the Treasury many millions of pounds? Will he ensure that the Government take a positive attitude to the Employment (Homeworkers) Bill, which is currently before the House?
Mr. Newton:
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Employment (Homeworkers) Bill is before the House.I am sure that my hon. Friends will indicate the Government's approach to the Bill if it is debated. I also understand that home workers have the same employment rights as other workers.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford):
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 295, which concerns replacement medals for war veterans?
[That this House urges the Ministry of Defence to accept the petition of Mr. Jack Conn, dated19th December 1995, to allow him and other pensioners, who were awarded medals in recognition of service in the armed forces of Her Majesty the Queen or her predecessors and who have had these either stolen or lost through misadventure, to have them replaced, recognising the debt we owe them 50 years after the end of the Second World War.]
Could my right hon. Friend prevail upon my righthon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to have a debate on the matter? The 50th anniversaries of VE and VJ day took place last year and many veterans were unable to parade with their medals.
Mr. Newton:
There have been many requests for replacement medals in recent years and a great deal of effort is being made to meet them. I am sure that we all want them to be met wherever possible, because we owe those people a great debt of gratitude. I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary the way in which my hon. Friend raised the matter this afternoon.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |