| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: That is request for debate No. 4. In the event of future requests, I shall want a signed piece of paper offering me an undertaking that the hon. Member concerned will be here in August. Meanwhile, I can tell my hon. Friend--perhaps more helpfully, although my first remark was also intended in a friendly spirit--that the Lord Chancellor intends to issue a White Paper on the future of legal aid before the summer recess, although whether there will be time for it to be debated before the summer recess is a more questionable proposition.
Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North): Has the Leader of the House seen my early-day motion 972?
[That this house is concerned about the recent change of legal interpretation of regulations by Television Licensing, whereby it was previously accepted that, providing there was no simultaneous use, a television licence for the main home would also cover the use of a
television at a second home (including static caravans); observes that this change of interpretation now means that even where it is proven that there is no simultaneous use of a television a second licence will need to be purchased; recognises that many retired people have static caravans and could not afford two television licences; and urges the Government to change the Consolidated Television Licence Fee Regulations 1991 in order that Television Licensing can reinstate its original interpretation in particular for retired people.]
The motion concerns people who are forced to buy two television licences, although there is no simultaneous viewing. The situation has been caused not by any change of regulations by the Government, but by a change in legal interpretation. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to make a statement in the House about how she intends to redress the position? It is clearly unfair: people cannot be in two places at once, so why should they be charged twice for one service?
Mr. Newton:
I will certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 981?
[That this House notes the statement of the honourable Member for Falkirk West, when referring to the Leader of the Opposition, that it ill becomes the product of an elitist school who has rejected the local education authority system for his own offspring to pontificate on teaching methods in comprehensives; admires his courage in defying the party spin-doctors; and finds his comments revealing in highlighting the real opinions of Labour backbenchers.]
My right hon. Friend will recall that the motion highlights a particularly vicious attack on the Leader of the Opposition by a senior Labour Back Bencher. Such a debate would allow that hon. Member, and a long string others who have indulged in similar practices, to defy the spin doctors and come to the House to articulate their views on the leader of their own party.
Mr. Newton:
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the scale and extent of divisions in the Labour party on education policy, which were no doubt also visible during the debate earlier this week. If I can find further opportunities to make them even more visible, I shall of course do my best.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
The Leader of the House will be pleased to know that he can count on my support for the structural order relating to Essex. I ask him, however, to consider the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). If so many orders are to be debated in only two or three hours, 80 or 90 hon. Members may legitimately wish to have their say. I feel that we need more parliamentary time to discuss such a long list of orders.
May we have a statement about lindane getting into the food chain? A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned about that. One of your distinguished deputies, Madam Speaker, before being elevated, initiated a powerful Adjournment debate about it some time ago. We do not want to encounter the same
problems that we have encountered in relation to other aspects of the food chain. The matter requires urgent consideration and debate, and a statement from a Minister.
Mr. Newton:
I will bring that last request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, it was not actually a request for another debate, but it was close to being one, which would make it No. 5. I take note of it--in addition to the points raised by one or two hon. Members--but some judgment really must be made about how long the House wants to go on sitting.
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East):
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the need for a debate on adoption? The Government have published a draft Bill on the subject, and the end of the consultation period in relation to it is 28 June. It would be very helpful if we could have a debate, if not before that date, very shortly after it.
Mr. Newton:
That is request No. 6. The list grows by the minute--but once again, in my usual spirit of friendly co-operation, I will add it to what I have come to call my little list.
Mr. Barry Field:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you and Madam Speaker--who is the guardian of Back Benchers' rights in the House--are privy to the recess dates for the summer recess, if we are likely to be sitting into August, may I ask that you put in a kind word on behalf of the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight? The royal yacht will be visiting Cowes week in the first week of August--for the very last time, because it will be going off to Hong Kong--and I am sure that all my constituents will wish me to be there, as I have fought so valiantly to retain it. It will be a very historic occasion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Being a kind man, I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler):
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.
Sir John Wheeler:
Clauses 52 and 54 re-enact in part section 61 of the current Act. They place a duty on the Secretary of State to make codes of practice in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons who are detained under the terrorism provisions. However, the Bill was drafted against the backdrop of a prevailing ceasefire situation, and it omits that part of the existing provision that confers on the Secretary of State a discretionary power to make codes of practice in connection with the police and Army's powers of arrest, search and seizure known as "part II powers".
No such codes were made during the lifetime of the current Act, and the ceasefires had seen a significant downturn in the use of the part II powers. In those circumstances, it was decided that the provision could lapse.
The Bill has been overshadowed by the provisional IRA's decision to end its ceasefire. We have seen a return to violence in the form of the bombings in London, and we cannot rule out the possibility that the security forces' part II powers will be needed for some time to come.
It seems sensible, therefore, to re-enact the power to create as necessary that type of additional safeguard, which codes of practice would provide.
Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie):
We welcome these amendments. Memory tells me that, during discussion of the Bill in Committee, we urged the Government not to drop this provision. It is regrettable
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |