Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East): Will the Minister tell the House that he does not intend the six EC VAT directives to be carried by the House simply by a Statutory Instrument? From 1 May, those directives will impose VAT on admission charges to all major zoos in Britain. That will damage attendance and reduce the work that our zoos do for endangered species. Given that, from Bristol to Edinburgh to Belfast, hon. Members have constituency interests, may we have an undertaking that before VAT is imposed on zoo admission charges on 1 May, there will be a full debate, in which all hon. Members who have a constituency interest can take part?

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's representations, but I have no plans for departing from normal procedures for dealing with such matters.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle): With regard to the Family Law Bill, to be discussed next Tuesday, although I thank my right hon. Friends for helping us to draft amendments, it has been a rush. May I protest at the speed at which the Committee of the whole House is sitting--just a week after considering the Bill on Second Reading? On previous occasions--notably the reform of the law on homosexuality--there was a gap of some months. Similarly, many weeks passed after the Bill was considered in the House of Lords, so that constituents could voice their concerns to Members of Parliament and there could be a proper public debate on the most important piece of social legislation for a decade. Is it necessary to have the Committee of the whole House quite so quickly after Second Reading?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for his kind remarks about the assistance that he has received from my right hon. and hon. Friends, will be aware that procedures in another place are somewhat different from those here, not least in the handling of matters in Committee. In my view at least, it is sensible that certain issues should be discussed by the whole House before the rest of the Bill receives more detailed and minute consideration in Committee. The big issues should be discussed and settled first. Although the Bill received Second Reading only at the beginning of this week, there has been a huge amount of time to consider the Bill, which has been around and well known to everybody for many months.

28 Mar 1996 : Column 1171

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North): Has the Leader of the House noted the 1,700 redundancies announced by United Utilities? They follow the 800 previously announced, making 2,500 in all. That, coupled with the sale of three companies, including North Western Electricity's shops, will mean a further 4,400 jobs being put at risk. Does he not realise that that is partly due to the Government's failure to refer the takeover of public utilities to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade, to see whether we can have an early debate on this company's asset-stripping methods?

Mr. Newton: I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, which is what I imagine he would like me to do.

Mr. John Whittingdale (Colchester, South and Maldon): Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate an issue of great concern to my constituents and to his--the decision of Essex county council to withdraw its grant from parish councils for civic amenity sites? Is he aware that that decision is likely to lead to the closure of the Asheldham site in my constituency? As a consequence, there will be fly-tipping all over the Dengie peninsula.

Mr. Newton: Like my hon. Friend, whose constituency borders mine, I certainly regret any action that would tend to diminish the success of recycling in many parts of Essex and bring about the consequences to which he refers.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I, too, am concerned about the haste with which the Family Law Bill is to be debated next Tuesday. As the right hon. Gentleman has announced the business for the week after Easter, can he say when he hopes to announce a debate on the Northern Ireland election law Bill, so that we can debate it in good time for the elections?

Does the right hon. Gentleman share the concern of many in Northern Ireland at the fact that directions have been given to a large minority party there not to contest the election? What sort of signal for democracy does that send out?

Mr. Newton: The Bill is still in preparation, so it would be rash to schedule a debate on legislation that is not yet ready to put before the House. We are trying to get it ready as soon as possible; when it is ready, I shall arrange for a debate as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton): Will my right hon. Friend give us an early opportunity to debate the pride of London? In such a debate, we could discuss the great success of the city as the business centre of Europe, and the enormous progress made in London's infrastructure. None of that would have been possible, I suspect, if,10 years ago next week, we had not abolished the Greater London council.

Mr. Newton: We do of course from time to time look for time for a debate on London. In view of my hon. Friend's trenchant remarks, I shall of course start to look for an opportunity when he might expand on them.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Will the Leader of the House undertake to look carefully

28 Mar 1996 : Column 1172

at the progress of the Noise Bill, which was expected to last for only two sittings but which has suddenly sprouted large numbers of amendments tabled by Conservative Members? Will he give an undertaking that that is not a case of the time taken to discuss a Bill being extended so as to hold up the Public Interest Disclosure Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), which is next in the queue? That would be greatly resented.

Mr. Newton: I am not familiar with every detail of the weekly proceedings in the Committee dealing with private Members' Bills, but I have no doubt that the Noise Bill, which is an important one, merits proper probing and discussion--and, where necessary, amendment.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): May we have a debate on the private finance initiative? During such a debate, we could raise the interesting case of the£100 million hospital project at Darenth Park in north-west Kent, which will be of immense value to people living in that part of the world. We could also highlight the fact that four major consortia have bid to participate and build the hospital, and that two of them have been invited to go forward to tender stage.

We could also draw the attention of the House to the deliberate undermining of the hospital project by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who is doing so merely to score party political points, thereby endangering the hospital project, but simultaneously refusing to pledge that any future mythical Labour Government would provide the £100 million to build the hospital.

Mr. Newton: I am glad to know that my hon. Friend's constituency looks like benefiting from the gathering success of the private finance initiative. I am sure that the whole House would share his regret if playing politics inhibited the project that he mentions.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): May I press the Leader of the House further on the beef crisis? He will be aware of the devastation facing many small farmers who have spent a lifetime building up their herds. They need action now, in looking not so much at who is to blame, as at what is to be done to restore confidence. Can he assure us that, if there is not a comprehensive statement in today's debate, there will be an opportunity for one tomorrow morning? In particular, will he make sure that we do not go away for the Easter recess without the farming industry knowing definitely what is to happen to restore confidence, because the industry could not understand it if we allowed a couple of weeks to go by during which time countless companies might go to the wall?

Mr. Newton: I very much welcome the tone of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. He will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's questions, about the way in which the matter is being addressed, to seek to meet those very concerns. He will also have heard what I said to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the Government's intention to ensure that the House is kept fully and properly informed.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. Friend previously precluded the possibility of regular

28 Mar 1996 : Column 1173

ministerial statements to the House on the progress of the intergovernmental conference, which begins tomorrow. Could he instead allow, during the two weeks of business that lie ahead, an early debate on early-day motion 570, on the European Court compensation ruling and the common fisheries policy?

[That this House deplores the decision of the European Court which overrules, with retrospective effect and at great cost to the taxpayer, the Government's legislation introduced to prevent British fish quotas being caught by Spanish and other foreign owners of British registered vessels; and believes that this judgement confirms the need for the United Kingdom to give notice at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference of its intention to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy and of its determination to re-establish the supremacy of British law.]

The early-day motion was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and myself, and signed by 14 other hon. Members, and is crucial to the IGC, relating as it does to British withdrawal from the common fisheries policy and the restoration of the supremacy of British law.


Next Section

IndexHome Page