Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): Will the Government make time available before the summer recess to debate our options should the European Court of Justice find against us regarding the 48-hour working week directive? That is the banning or limitation of overtime directive, and we may have to implement it before the intergovernmental conference completes its deliberations. Will the Government make time available to discuss contingency plans?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend will have heard the very firm words that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister uttered from this Dispatch Box less than 15 minutes ago, which I am sure he welcomed. I cannot add to them at this stage.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North): The Prime Minister mentioned during Question Time that the review body report on the pay of Members of Parliament will be published today. Is the Leader of the House aware that the Vote Office is refusing to issue that report, on the grounds that it is not authorised to do so and has not been told when it should be published? As the report has been made available to the press, is it not common courtesy to make it available also to hon. Members?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will have been noted, and that inquiries will be made--I shall investigate the matter as soon as I have an opportunity. I understand that it was intended to make the report available at 4 pm, as is usual with review body reports.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): Further to the discussion about the European directive on the 48-hour week, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he expects the European Court to give its judgment some time this week? However, it is likely that the deliberations of the IGC will not be concluded for about 18 months. If the European Court attempts to enforce any adverse judgment against Britain, will my hon. Friend confirm that the British Government intend to reactivate their successful policy of non-co-operation, and determinedly uphold the sovereignty of the House?

Mr. Newton: I note the comments of my hon. Friend, following those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and I must return the same answer.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House strongly support the amendments to the Immigration and Asylum Bill made recently in the other place? Will the Government make an early statement on whether they intend to reverse those amendments, so that right hon. and hon. Members can prepare better for that Bill's important remaining stages when it returns to this House on 15 July?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is an old hand, and knows that the Government always undertake to consider changes made in the other place. I could comment on the disadvantages of those changes, but I rest on the remark that they are being examined.

4 Jul 1996 : Column 1057

Sir John Cope (Northavon): Now that my right hon. Friend extends the courtesy of informing the House of Government business two weeks ahead, why is it that the Opposition consistently refuse to do the same, with Supply days for the second week left blank? Is that because the Opposition are indecisive, or because they are secretive?

Mr. Newton: Judging by many of the exchanges in the ranks of the Opposition over the past week or two, that omission is because they do not know what is their policy.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): As the Leader of the House has announced that business for the week after next is provisional, and given that, in the week following, only a few days remain before the summer recess, will the right hon. Gentleman adjust business to allow a debate on the situation in Manchester following the bombing there?

Yesterday, the House spent 17 minutes discussing the Stone of Scone, but it has not spent one minute debating the Manchester bombing in the three weeks since that disaster occurred. We appreciate the letters that the Deputy Prime Minister has been sending to Members of Parliament representing Manchester constituencies and the allocation of money towards rebuilding. However, the city's Members of Parliament are anxious to have the opportunity to raise individual cases on the Floor of the House, such as that of a constituent of mine who was a security guard at the Royal Exchange theatre, but who has been thrown out of his job and had all his employment rights voided.

Mr. Newton: I well understand why the right hon. Gentleman raises such matters on behalf of his constituents, and I respect his efforts. Perhaps I may point the right hon. Gentleman in the direction of the opportunities that can arise on Wednesday mornings. As to his implication that a statement should have been made on the Manchester bombing, it has been established practice for some time not to make statements in the House whenever such an atrocity occurs. The reasons are well understood on both sides of the House.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): In view of the European Commission's edict earlier this week that the quota for the herring catch in the North sea should be reduced by 50 per cent., will the Minister of Agriculture make a statement to the House next week on the common fisheries policy? Clearly the CFP is not conserving fish stocks, safeguarding livelihoods or protecting the economies of fishing communities around our coasts.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands the difficult background to that issue, given the need to conserve fish stocks in the interests of the industry's future. I will bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, who will be answering questions in the House within the period that my business statement covered.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe): Speaking as chairman both of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund and of the House of Commons Members fund, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for having kept us informed of

4 Jul 1996 : Column 1058

developments in relation to the Government's decision to refer to the Senior Salaries Review Body the questions of right hon. and hon. Members' pay and pensions. I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to respond in the same spirit to the widespread interest in the Prime Minister's response to the question for written answer that appears on the Order Paper the first time today, about the Government's attitude to the review body's report. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it would also be helpful to right hon. and hon. Members if he can say anything about the procedure to be followed by the Government in next Wednesday's debate?

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to pre-empt the written answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will give, but of course I shall seek to make the Government's intentions clear to the House as soon as I sensibly can.

Sir Michael Spicer (South Worcestershire): Further to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's very interesting comments on the 48-hour week, to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred, surely there will be some extremely complex matters to be considered relating to the potential reform of the European Court of Justice? Do not those matters merit further discussion by the House before the House rises?

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request, and, as ever, I shall bear it in mind. However, it will be obvious to anyone who has listened to my statements in the past couple of weeks or who has watched the progress of the House's business on Monday or Tuesday of this week, for example, that there is considerable pressure on our time before the recess.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): I wonder whether the Leader of the House will have a word with the Home Secretary about a matter that I raised with him, so that he can make a statement at the appropriate time. The firefighters in Derbyshire are engaged in an industrial dispute, and, a few weeks ago, the three Members of Parliament for Derbyshire--myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)--requested to meet the Home Secretary to try to resolve the dispute. As yet, we have not had an answer, although I challenged him about it in the House. Will the Leader of the House convey to him the need to resolve this matter, so that we can try to get the show back on the road?

Mr. Newton: I shall, of course, convey the gist of the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Sir James Hill (Southampton, Test): My right hon. Friend will probably know of events in the island of Sri Lanka over the past few months, and that the People's Alliance Government have defeated the Tamil Tigers. Meanwhile, however, the Tamil Tigers have stripped hospitals, schools and every scrap of equipment in the occupied area. A small delegation from the House will go there at the end of this month, and they will be

4 Jul 1996 : Column 1059

questioning us about medical supplies and food. I wonder whether we could have a statement next week, of whatever length, on this very important matter?


Next Section

IndexHome Page