| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): The Leader of the House will remember that last week he trailed the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Time did not allow it to be dealt with today. May I therefore press the Leader of the House for a statement next week from the Secretary of State on greater use of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which would create greater democracy and allow greater use of parliamentary time?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that oral questions that are not reached are answered in writing. He may have noticed that, just before the end of Northern Ireland questions, I was looking at the file of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which contained the answer to that question. I have an interest in the matter that was generated, in part but not wholly, by the hon. Gentleman's previous questions to me. I think that I can assure him that he will welcome the positive spirit of the answer that will be given.
Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove): Will my righthon. Friend find time to debate the millennium exhibition, so that the overwhelming advantages of Birmingham's national exhibition centre over Greenwich as a venue can be clearly put on record and the importance of the west midlands at the heart of this country can be stated?
Mr. Newton: I can safely assure my hon. Friend that even though it is not in the normal sense a Government body, the Millennium Commission is well aware of the cases being made from a number of directions.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on his Department's breaches of central Government conventions on publicity and advertising? Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that we now know that last Wednesday there were at least two breaches of the conventions in two separate press statements advertising a single speech? Is not it time that the Secretary of State for Scotland came and made a statement to apologise to the House and to the people of Scotland, instead of making unfortunate civil servants apologise to him?
Mr. Newton: I have nothing to add to what I said last week. It is clear that an error was made and that the Secretary of State for Scotland had every intention of observing the guidelines and did not intend to breach them. I see no reason why he should make a statement to repeat what has already been said in other ways.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Will my right hon. Friend seek to arrange at an early date a general debate on crime and vandalism, and the problems that they create for the citizens of this country? Both sides of the House can then explore the exciting initiatives that the Government have taken, not least the provision of funds for closed circuit television, and also I, as the representative for Macclesfield, can support the application being made by the borough and police of Macclesfield for assistance under that scheme to install closed circuit television in Macclesfield town centre.
Mr. Newton: I must confess that my hon. Friend has caught me out as I have before me a brief on the Poynton bypass.
Mr. Newton: Although I recognise that Macclesfield is some way from London, in a general sense some of the points that my hon. Friend seeks to make might be relevant to the debate on policing in London, which I have announced for Monday week.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): The Leader of the House seems strangely reluctant to arrange debates about the European Union. One European item has already been discussed, but six items, some of which date back to 1994, are waiting to go into European Standing Committee A and 11 are waiting to go into European Standing Committee B. Should not the scrutiny of European matters be speeded up by holding more discussions on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I have shown any such reluctance. I have tried to answer questions put to me as straightforwardly as I can. I shall look into thehon. Gentleman's specific point about outstanding European matters.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): May I ask my right hon. Friend for an urgent debate on early-day motion 3?
[That this House calls on the Government to acknowledge that over 3,000 people with haemophilia have been infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as a result of NHS treatment with contaminated blood products; recognises that over 50 people with haemophilia are now understood to have died from liver disease contracted as a result; and considers giving similar financial assistance to those infected with HCV, who currently receive no additional help, as for those infected in the same way with HIV who have been compensated by the Government.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Haemophilia Society has produced a publication that shows that haemophiliacs with hepatitis C are suffering great hardship? Is it not illogical that haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C who have then died should have received no compensation, while those infected with HIV received compensation? The cause was the same; the consequences have been the same; the reaction has been different. Is not that unfair?
Mr. Newton:
I know my hon. Friend well and I understand his reasons for raising the matter once again.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
When will we debate the Government's undemocratic and inexplicable opposition to the call to declare St. David's day a bank holiday in Wales? Is the Leader of the House aware that last year Wales and England had fewer bank holidays than any other country in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe? As all the Welsh county councils, which represent every voter in Wales, have signalled their support for that call, how dare the Government, who managed to secure only 4 per cent. of councillors in the last measure of opinion in Wales, continue their opposition to making Dydd Gwyl Dewi a bank holiday?
Mr. Newton:
I was not aware that England and Wales were so deprived in that respect. It may be part of the reason why our economy is doing the best in Europe.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
My righthon. Friend will remember that on Monday we voted for an imaginative Conservative measure that provides exciting opportunities for grant-maintained schools to finance their capital projects. May we have a debate next week during which we may express great sympathy for some headmasters of grant-maintained schools, such asSt. Olave's school in Orpington, about why in one week parents may gain admission for their children to their school and, in the following week, the same parents may vote against a measure to allow them to develop that school effectively?
Mr. Newton:
As I have said several times this afternoon, I very much hope that it will be possible to find an opportunity for the answers to those questions to be given, but I remain very unhopeful that any answers will be forthcoming.
Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East):
Does the Leader of the House recall the Prime Minister telling the Tory party conference that, while he lived and breathed, the NHS would never be privatised? Will he therefore arrange for the Prime Minister to attend the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Stirling on Monday29 January, so that he can attempt to explain away the fact that this week, three private consortia were short-listed for the contract to provide NHS hospital services at Stonehaven, near Aberdeen? As well as making allegations about hypocrisy, the Tory party should be prepared to answer those self-same allegations.
Mr. Newton:
I do not believe that thehon. Gentleman's argument in any way fits in with the suggestion that the national health service is being privatised. The health service remains a publicly funded service, as it has been. The issue of the way in which those services are provided is, as in the case of many other services, a separate one.
Finance Bill
(Clauses Nos. 36, 105, 112 and 139 and Schedule No. 15)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): The purpose of the clause is to exempt from income tax and capital gains tax compensation paid in respect of certain mis-sold personal pensions, buy-out contracts and retirement annuity contracts. The exemption applies where, between 29 April 1988 and 30 June 1994 inclusive, an individual was wrongly advised to transfer from, opt out of or not to join an occupational pension scheme and instead to take out a personal pension scheme, buy-out contract or retirement annuity contract. It may be helpful if I briefly define the terms to which I have referred.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |