House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 May 1996 (pt 8)

Mr. Newton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for such a debate. I should like to confine my remarks to expressing regret at the deaths that took place there, and--with all hon. Members--pleasure at the successful release of the British hostages.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): How about the Crown Office question? Does the Leader of the House recollect that one of the attractions of and reasons given for the peripatetic Scottish Grand Committee, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), was that the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office would become in some way accountable to Parliament? In the circumstances of Lockerbie and what has happened in Kent--with those extraordinary findings at the laboratories responsible for the crucial so-called "evidence" on Lockerbie, the work of Dr. Faraday and Dr. Thomas Hayes--would it not be highly desirable that, at Dunfermline on Monday, there should be a statement from the Lord Advocate, and, indeed, that he should answer Question 2 to the Prime Minister on Tuesday?

With respect to the Minister of State, Scottish Office, he may say that he answers the questions--I do not want to be rude to him--but he is a messenger in these matters. The Lord Advocate is the Minister. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and more or less said in answer to my question, "Over to the Lord Advocate." It really flies in the face of accountability that the Minister of State should be a messenger in these affairs, without any detailed knowledge of the background of the issues.

Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker, you will appreciate that I am not in a position to make changes to the procedures between now and next week, and that I cannot give any guarantee of further changes at any time. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is in the Chamber, and that he has heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 889?

[That this House deplores the decision by the Norwegian Fisheries Department to allow the slaughter of 425 Minke Whales plus an unspecified number to be slaughtered in the name of 'scientific' whaling; accuses the Norwegian Government and in particular Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland of rank hypocrisy in parading green credentials whilst at the same time defying both the International Whaling Commission and public opinion throughout Europe; and demands that the Norwegian Government ends the smuggling of whale meat and blubber into Japan and calls off the Minke Whale slaughter due to commence on 21st May.]

That relates to the Norwegian slaughter of minke whales in the north Atlantic. The Norwegians are due to slaughter about 425 minke whales, plus an unspecified number of them for so-called "scientific whaling", starting on 21 May.

I am sick and tired of Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Norwegian Prime Minister--who calls herself a socialist and goes around the world, including to the United Nations, parading her green credentials--flouting the rules and agreements of the International Whaling

16 May 1996 : Column 1085

Commission. As the IWC is due to meet in Scotland on 24 June, can we please have a debate in the House, so that the anger of hon. Members on both sides of the House can be clearly demonstrated to the Norwegians? If we cannot have such a debate in the House, how about in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the suggestion for the work of the Scottish Grand Committee will be borne in mind by those who determine those matters. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Government have consistently made clear their very strong opposition to Norway's decision to resume commercial whaling. We very much regret Norway's announcement that it will raise its minke whale quota this year. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Scottish Office Fisheries Minister will meet his Norwegian opposite number, and that he will make very clear our view on the matter.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Next week can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for National Heritage on the question of small credit unions' entitlement to receive lottery funding? As the Leader of the House may be aware, there are five small credit unions in Scotland. They are non-profit-making organisations that are on the point of receiving grants from the National Lottery Charities Board. Those grants have been held up because of a legal technicality--some lack of clarity as to their entitlement. I know that the Leader of the House has a good nature. I appeal to his good nature, because I know that it is there. Can this matter be clarified, because those organisations perform a vital function in some of the more socially deprived areas of Scotland?

Mr. Newton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, who is sometimes a bit acerbic, has noticed how good natured I am. So I shall smile at him and say: I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for National Heritage knows of his concern.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North): Is the Minister aware that I received a reply yesterday from the Secretary of State for National Heritage that makes no comment on the problems of the law, saying simply that it is up to the National Lottery Charities Board to determine whether it is legal? The reply went on to state that there are no plans to change the law. Will the Leader of the House use his best endeavours to facilitate a meeting between me and other colleagues who wish to see the Minister to discuss the matter?

Mr. Newton: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has already made such a request. If not, he has now made it publicly on the Floor of the House, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider it carefully.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On numerous occasions, you and your predecessors have pointed out that, while we have privilege in the House, it should be used with the recognition that we should exercise it in a way which is not an abuse. I hope that you agree that it is important that we should continue to have privilege, but that it should not be exercised in a way that leads to abuse.

16 May 1996 : Column 1086

Do you consider that it is right and proper for the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to make the remarks he did? As the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated time and time again, he is undoubtedly the No. 1 smear merchant in the House of Commons. Is there no way in which we can rectify the way in which he abuses privilege time and time again?

Mr. David Shaw: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Conservative Members have had to take a lot of stick from the Opposition. On Tuesday, people--

Madam Speaker: Order. There was a properly ordered debate on Tuesday. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order for me, I will listen to it. I have something to say and I am ready to say it, so he had better get what he has to say off his chest quickly.

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. On Tuesday, certain Westminster Conservative councillors were called serial killers by Labour Members in the House. I have raised factual information that anyone can see in the register of companies at Companies house. That information points the finger at a Labour councillor. It is disgraceful that Labour Members are not prepared to have a situation pointed out to them, and want to cover up corruption. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Far too many Members of this House too eagerly make accusations and allegations against each other and against persons outside the House, and do so under the cloak of privilege. I deprecate the way in which they use that privilege without tempering it with responsibility. I have said so before, and I hope that those Members, who are well known to me, will take to heart what I have said, and that we shall have better conduct of debate that deals with policy matters rather than personalities.

BILL PRESENTED

BILL PRESENTED

Stalking (Scotland)

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Social Security

Common Agricultural Policy