| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: May I first express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for her words of thanks about the date of the summer economic debate, and in return respond by saying that it is my understanding that the summer economic forecast is expected to be published on Tuesday 9 July? One reason for having the debate on 17 July is to allow a little time for study after its publication but also to allow time for the Treasury Select Committee to take evidence from Treasury officials and, indeed, the Chancellor before the debate takes place. I hope that what I have announced will be for the general convenience of everybody concerned.
I remain sympathetic to the hon. Lady's request for debates on Hong Kong and procedure, but I am not in a position to translate sympathy into an announcement at the moment. There is quite a lot of pressure of business between now and the summer recess, but I shall do my best.
On the hon. Lady's question about the Welsh Grand Committee and the debate that her hon. Friends wish to have on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, I am aware
that there has been discussion and correspondence between my right hon. Friend and her hon. Friend about the overall organisation of this particular meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. It is more appropriate for me to leave the discussion to continue between the usual channels than to intervene on the Floor of the House, but I take note of her remarks.
I admire the ingenious way in which the hon. Lady managed to weave a constituency case into business questions, for perfectly good and understandable reasons that I respect. She will understand that I am not in a position to comment in detail, but I shall certainly ensure that her remarks and request are brought to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friends.
Lastly--to be honest I cannot remember the dates of all the royal garden parties--the hon. Lady asked about the date of the summer recess, in which I suspect that there is widespread interest. I have already announced some business for 17 July, and it is only fair that I should tell the House that, although I am not yet in a position to give dates for the recess, I anticipate that the House is likely to sit well into the second half of July.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the time that he has allotted for the Defamation Bill? Does he accept that the clause on the bill of rights--if I may put it that way--is probably the most important parliamentary matter that we will have had to discuss this Parliament and arguably for many years? Does he seriously think that a debate that terminates at 7 o'clock with opposed private business is enough? I know that the debate can resume later, but would it not be better to have an uninterrupted day on that particular subject?
Mr. Newton:
I note my hon. Friend's thoughts. He will have heard it said from a sedentary position--albeit not by me--that it is possible for debate to be interrupted rather than terminated by private business, and there are many examples of such a resumption. Indeed, if I remember rightly, I think that it happened when we last debated the Defamation Bill. I note my hon. Friend's points. Much of the Bill appears to be pretty non-controversial, so there should be quite a significant opportunity for debate on the point about which he is concerned.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire):
May I support the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the need for a debate on procedural reform? The official Opposition have come up with some fairly new and interesting ideas, and the Liberal Democrats are in the process of doing the same.
May I say in passing that it is useful that the House has been given details of two weeks' business, because it allows me an opportunity to say that I am slightly concerned that up to nine orders will have to be considered in a three-hour debate on Thursday 27 June. Perhaps other parties were consulted through the usual channels about this, but I am nervous about the number of structural and boundary orders that will have to be considered during that debate.
Mr. Newton:
I note the hon. Gentleman's support for what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said
Mr. John Sykes (Scarborough):
May we have a debate about the future of the Crown Prosecution Service at some stage? I ask because yesterday a 16-year-old thug appeared in Scarborough magistrates court charged with vicious assault on a 40-year-old gentleman. It was all caught on camera, but when the youth pleaded not guilty the CPS dropped the charges immediately, without consulting the police as it is bound to do. Is it not high time that we sent the CPS packing and handed responsibility for prosecutions back to the police, where it belongs?
Mr. Newton:
My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on such a case off the cuff. As he will understand, I feel that the appropriate course is for me to bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who has responsibility for the CPS.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax):
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the closure of hospitals and accident and emergency departments? He will know that, along with my constituents, I have been fighting the closure of Northowram hospital. My constituents and I are dismayed that the Edgware accident and emergency department is apparently to be kept open in some form because of blackmailing by two local Members of Parliament.
While he is at it, could the right hon. Gentleman please give us the Government's definitions of an accident and emergency department and a casualty department?
Mr. Newton:
I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said not so long ago when he made it clear that he did not accept the line of argument to which the hon. Lady has returned.
Clearly, the difference between a full-scale accident and emergency department and a casualty service of the kind that exists at one hospital in my constituency is largely one of scale. The degree to which all kinds of modern equipment are available is another factor.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight):
When may we have a debate on the competitiveness White Paper that was announced today? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be surprised to learn that, when the Deputy Prime Minister was President of the Board of Trade, he was instrumental in securing regional assistance and a business link for the Isle of Wight--as well as the regional office, which has been very helpful under Gillian Ashworth. Despite all that assistance, we have the lowest percentage of higher-rate taxpayers in the country, and we still have one of the highest levels of seasonal unemployment. We hear all the grizzling and grumps from Opposition Members, but their economies have been transformed with the Government's assistance. I hope that my right
Mr. Newton:
I thank my hon. Friend for acknowledging the importance of the policies that the Government have been pursuing, whose further development was set out by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon. My hon. Friend will realise that his request for a debate is the third that I have received so far this afternoon, against a background of some anxiety about the date of the summer recess. He will appreciate that I may be trying to put a quart into a pint pot unless the House actually wishes to sit well into August.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
The Leader of the House has been very helpful when I have pressed for a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. Will he encourage the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to convene the Committee in the near future--before the recess--so that it can consider the report of the examiner's statutory rules for the past two or three years? I have been speaking to the parties from Northern Ireland that are represented here today, and they are sympathetic to that request.
Mr. Newton:
As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has quite a lot on his mind, and indeed his plate, at present. Much of it will have been vented earlier in Northern Ireland questions. I will, however, remind him of the pressure that the hon. Gentleman is exerting.
Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham):
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on an earlier occasion, I raised in the House the practice of granting legal aid out of public funds to persons who are not ordinarily resident in this country. Can he find time for a debate on that important subject? As I am sure he will know, our constituents consider it entirely wrong that they should be denied legal aid on the ground that there is not enough money in the fund, although they have paid taxes all their lives, while there seems to be enough money to grant legal aid to foreign persons.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |