| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: I have focused on the fact that there appeared to be some difference of opinion about the precise object of that exercise. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, I had better not get involved in that argument beyond pointing once again to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Could we have a debate on this country's relations with Germany? It is bad enough that the Germans get down to the swimming pool first and rubbish our beef, but they have been pinching our balls. Is the Leader of the House aware that the ball with which Geoff Hurst scored a hat-trick at the Wembley world cup final in 1966 was stolen by Herr Haller at the end of the match and conveyed back to Germany? This is a serious point, because that ball is the equivalent of the holy grail to English football supporters and we want it back. In that debate, we could remind our German colleagues that this country went to war over Jenkin's ear, and we are prepared to take action over Hurst's ball.
Mr. Newton: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and I share that splendid moment in our relative youth when that third goal went in.
Mr. Newton: Or did not, as the case may be. On the question of the ball that did or did not go in, I am not sure whose attention I should draw that to--perhaps His Excellency the German ambassador.
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest): Could I too ask for a debate on the BSE crisis, so that my hard-pressed farmers can get an answer to the following question, which I was not able to put during the private notice question? What possible rational criteria could there be for lifting the ban on the export of British beef, given the fact that it was imposed by the European Commission without the slightest scrap of scientific evidence in the first place?
Mr. Newton: I realise that my hon. Friend has, in a sense, asked a frustrated question from previous business.
I shall not attempt to comment beyond what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's concern and the way in which it was expressed is brought to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe): On 16 April, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), the Prime Minister said of Sheffield city council that
- "It does not . . . make its interest payments".--[Official Report, 16 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 509.]
That comment was completely untrue and without foundation. There is not one single example of the city council failing to make its contracted interest payments. Given that the Prime Minister has so far only acknowledged a letter from my hon. Friend on that point, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to withdraw that misleading statement before the House and to apologise unreservedly to the House and to the people of Sheffield for the completely unfair and inaccurate slur that he made against their city?
Mr. Newton:
The hon. Gentleman said in his question that his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) has written to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will respond appropriately.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South):
Will my right hon. Friend consider closely the demand by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) for a debate on the middle east, so that I can point out that Hezbollah has been attacking Israel with rockets for many years and that Hezbollah kamikaze bombers have been going into Israel to kill innocent Israelis? Surely no democratic Government should stand idly by and not react to such a situation, when those guerrillas are supported by the Government of Iran as well.
Mr. Newton:
I shall say almost exactly the same as I said earlier. The right thing for all of us to do is to concentrate on doing the best that we can to bring an end to the situation in the Lebanon.
Mr. David Hanson (Delyn):
May we have an early debate on the impact of the cuts to the reduced earnings allowance, which will mean that up to 20,000 people, who are among the most severely disabled in the United Kingdom, who have earned that allowance as a result of injuries at work, will lose £29 a week? Many of my constituents, including many miners, have now lost that money from 1 April and there has been scant parliamentary discussion on the matter. May we have an early debate?
Mr. Newton:
Parliament agreed in 1988 the principle that compensation for loss of earnings through reduced earnings allowance should continue past pension age only for those who continue in regular employment. People moving from REA to what is called retirement allowance still receive a preferential benefit, which recognises that reduced earnings during their working life may have led to reduced earnings-related pension rights. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acknowledge those points.
As for the notion that at this moment I should be pressed for a debate under the general heading of social security cuts, in view of what Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are suggesting about child benefit, I simply marvel at the nerve.
Mr. Tony Banks:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During business questions, two Conservative Members raised the matter of the Register of Members' Interests. That included an attack by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is not someone I usually leap to defend. If such exchanges are to take place, would it not be appropriate for hon. Members to give notice--it may have been in this case--to hon. Members that such points, which are quite serious, will be raised, which, in this case, have gone unchallenged?
Madam Speaker:
I have made it clear that we now have a structure in the House whereby we have appointed a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and if hon. Members are concerned about matters of finance, resources or visits abroad which have been received and are not properly recorded, or which should not have taken place, the Commissioner is the person to whom the matter should be referred. Such matters should not be raised either in points of order or during business questions across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Paul Flynn presented a Bill to make provision for referendums to be held on the future constitutional status of the Sovereign as Head of State and on the means of electing any future elected Head of State: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 115.]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22,
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94H(1),
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford):
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
We welcome the amendments proposed in the other place and I urge the House to accept them.
Lords amendment No.1 ensures that pitches occupied by caravans or moorings occupied by boats which are part of a larger domestic property, such as a house with a river frontage mooring, will be considered as an appurtenance to the main property. They will therefore be domestic property. Without this amendment, any such pitches or moorings would be non-domestic property and subject to non-domestic rates. Furthermore, new rating lists are required because of local government reorganisation in Wales. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 will enable the Bill's provisions to apply in the same manner in England and in Wales.
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 2nd May, do adjourn till Tuesday 7th May.--[Mr. Streeter.]
That the Order of the House [11th December] be further amended, in paragraph 8, by leaving out the words 'in Scotland on Monday 13th May' and inserting the words 'in the Maryatt Halls, Dundee, on Monday 13th May'.--[Mr. Streeter.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |