| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): The announcement of forward business is welcome. It seems to me that we will nearly complete business before the summer, and perhaps the Leader of the House will soon be able to go a step further and give fixed dates for the start of the parliamentary year, instead of the nonsense of a three-day spillover, followed by a week off, after which we start all over again.
The Leader of the House has announced the general accelerated slaughter debate next Wednesday. That is welcome, but can he tell us whether we will definitely debate the order during the spillover, whether all the aspects of the scheme will be in the order and be debatable--including compensation--and whether the House will be able to make a decision on the matter, so that the ban can be lifted by the Government's self-imposed deadline of the beginning of November?
Mr. Newton:
As I said, those matters were pretty extensively covered in Agriculture questions. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here, but I followed them from afar, although not very far afar. I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend said or to what I said a moment or two ago, but the debate on Wednesday will provide an opportunity for the Minister to set things out more fully.
Sir Roger Sims (Chislehurst):
What form will the debate on the draft code of conduct take? Will it be on a motion under which the House is expected to approve the code in toto, or will there be an opportunity to table amendments?
Mr. Newton:
The debate will take place on a motion inviting the House to approve the code and the guidelines, and, like other such motions, it will be open to amendment. Whether those amendments are selected is a matter for higher powers than me.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Does the Leader of the House recollect that it was Sir Richard Scott's view, in paragraphs D4.40, D4.42, D6.69 and F4.68 of his report, that, if questions from me on the detail of Lear Fan and Colchester Lathes had been properly and truthfully answered, the whole course of events would have been very different? Therefore, I ask him, why on earth has he put on today's Order Paper "Notice of Motion for an Unopposed Return" in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, "Export of Defence Equipment and Dual Use Goods to Iraq"? Is that about cover for legal challenge, and if so, cover for legal challenge from whom?
Mr. Newton:
As the hon. Gentleman says, the motion was placed on the Order Paper by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and it certainly is connected with the fact that today, what I understand are about 20,000 pages of documentation following on from the Scott committee report are being published in CD-ROM form. I will bring the question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest):
May we have a debate on the planning system as it relates to the accelerated culling programme, and specifically the provision of incinerator plants, so that I can raise with the House the alarm, and despair in many cases, of thousands of my constituents at what are fortunately informal proposals at present to site such an incinerator plant in my constituency at Stourport? Last week, the proposals brought forth a public meeting, attended by 1,000 people, and there will be a further public meeting this weekend, attended by a similar number.
Mr. Newton:
My hon. Friend will understand that I would not wish to be drawn into commenting on a specific local planning controversy, but I will ensure that his remarks are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
Today's amazing news is that, of the 1.5 million people who were robbed by the pensions industry by being missold personal pensions and being persuaded to leave their good-quality occupational pensions and the state earnings-related pension scheme, only 7,000 have been offered any recompense, because of the wicked obstructionist tactics by the pensions industry.
How can anyone propose to privatise more pensions when we know that the story is that private pensions provide very poor value, and that the pensions provided by the state earnings-related pension scheme and national insurance are well run and highly efficient, and provide splendid value?
Mr. Newton:
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point about personal pensions, which is a wild generalisation, but I have no wish to enter into an altercation with him. The Government do support the Securities and Investments Board's initiative to secure redress for the relatively small number--
Mr. Flynn:
One and a half million.
Mr. Newton:
Relatively small in comparison with the number of people who have personal pensions. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman does not acknowledge.
The Government support the SIB's initiative to secure redress for the relatively small number of people who stand to lose as a result of the misselling of personal pensions, and we and the regulators are working together to remove the difficulties. We certainly intend that anyone who is found to have lost financially because of misselling will get redress, and that anyone who wants their case reviewed can have it reviewed.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye):
What opportunities will there be for a debate about the management of budgets by local authorities such as East Sussex, so that we can advise them how to live within their more than generous budgets?
Mr. Newton:
I cannot immediately think of an opportunity for my hon. Friend, but if she were to appear on Wednesday morning, she might be able to put the point to me then. I shall then see whether I have a better answer than I have now.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Does the Leader of the House accept that two reasons in particular would justify recalling Parliament during the long summer recess: first, Northern Ireland, where certain developments could clearly take place; and, secondly, public spending cuts? Will he pledge that, in those circumstances, he would seriously consider a request for the House to return?
Mr. Newton:
The Government have shown several times in recent years that, if we judge it necessary to recall the House, the House is recalled. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to speculate about possible circumstances now. I find his reference to public expenditure a little odd, because the public expenditure round does not conclude until well after the House returns from the recess.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us whose constituencies have a substantial dairy industry are concerned that next week's debate on the selective cull is too short--just one and a half hours? Many of us want to tell the House how seriously our dairy farmers take the selective cull, and about the damaging impact that it will have on the rural economy for a long time.
On the question raised by the shadow Leader of the House on defence procurement, will my right hon. Friend assure me that those of us who are deeply interested in that matter--Avro International is on the periphery of my constituency--and concerned about the Nimrod 2000 package, will be advised as soon as a decision is made? I see that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is on the Front Bench.
Mr. Newton:
I note both my hon. Friend's points. I assure him that his request to the Ministry of Defence has already been heard.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge):
Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the Ministry of Defence contracts, will the Leader of the House tell the Secretary of State for Defence that my constituents are extremely anxious about the replacement of the maritime patrol aircraft and the continuing delays? Will an announcement be made before the recess so that Members of Parliament concerned about that matter may have a chance to respond to those decisions?
Mr. Newton:
I am beginning to think that it might be appropriate if my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement took my place in answering those questions. At any rate, he has clearly heard the questions.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire):
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on Wednesday, I shall present a ten-minute Bill called the Union Flag Bill to promote the flying of the Union Jack. May we have time for a debate on devolution, as some of my hon. Friends say that, given Labour's devolution policies, under a Labour Government we would have no British flag left to fly?
Mr. Newton:
As I have said before, that would be an excellent subject for debate. I merely note with interest that the Opposition have not considered the subject significant enough to use their Supply day next week to discuss it.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray):
I recognise that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement cannot take the place of the Leader of the House, but may I again emphasise the importance of the decision that will be taken on defence procurement? Why have members of the media in this House been running round today saying that British Aerospace has been allocated a contract, and that a statement will be made this afternoon, yet, when hon. Members such as myself contacted the Ministry of Defence, we were told that no such information was available?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |