| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: I have not read the transcript but I have read a copy of the speech that I found in my box a few nights ago. I read it with some care and I do not regard it as saying what the hon. Gentleman says it says.
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford): Is it possible to arrange for a debate in Government time on the constitutional arrangements by which the country is governed, given that many Conservative Members wish to demonstrate our opposition to any changes affecting the working and composition of the House of Lords, to regional government, to the recreation of the Greater London council and to devolution for Scotland and Wales?
Mr. Newton: In the light of the pressures to which I have referred on our business in the next few weeks, I cannot make an immediate promise of such a debate. However, I congratulate my hon. Friend on making in such crisp and hard-hitting form the speech that he would make if there were to be such a debate.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Will the Leader of the House have a word with the appropriate Minister about the reduction in war pensions for those who were in the far east during the second world war? They received pensions arising from their duty at the time and recently some of them and some widows have had their pensions reduced because at the time the service men were smoking. As the Leader of the House used to be in charge of social security and is a heavy smoker, does not he have a little sympathy for those people who, 50 years ago, were not aware, as people are today, of the consequences of smoking? In any case, they were smoking because of the severe stress under which they were placed. May we have a statement on that and can the matter be reviewed?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that for some time I was the Minister responsible for these matters. I know how difficult they can be and he may be assured that I have great sympathy for those whose war pensions for disablement or death arising from service in the forces are in question. However, I have to underline that that is the basis of the policy. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will look carefully at what has been said about this case. It is important to remember that the scheme provides benefits when disablement or death are attributable to service in the armed forces.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North): May we have a debate next week on the provision of leisure facilities so that I may put before the House the great difficulties that are faced by many riding schools? I am president of the Association of British Riding Schools, but I am not paid for that. The issue should be brought before the
House because many of those admirable institutions are being put out of business, thus denying riding facilities to many poor and ordinary people as well as denying a good and sensible living to those who run them.
Mr. Newton: I would not wish to dismiss my hon. Friend's legitimate concerns. However, it sounds like an appropriate subject for my hon. Friend to pursue on a Wednesday morning or in a daily Adjournment debate, and I am sure that he will seek to enlist your sympathy in that respect, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Why have we not had a statement today from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this morning's European Court judgment on the VAT sixth directive? Hon. Members in all parts of the House and people in business have been telling the Government and the Treasury for some time that their proposals on VAT were unfair, unsound and open to legal challenge. As the potential bill for this and similar cases could run to many billions of pounds and make the Chancellor's predecessor's activities on black Wednesday look small in comparison, is it not high time that a Treasury Minister came to the Dispatch Box to tell us the exact consequences and implications of that court judgment?
Mr. Newton: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman appears to be engaging in a certain amount of hyperbole, but, as with many legal judgments, the first thing to do is to study the terms of this one carefully. I am advised, however--and this is where he was exaggerating--that, at the most extreme, the loss would be around £200 million, not the billions to which he refers, and that back tax would be payable only if traders could substantiate claims going back 23 years.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made on the amount of expenditure on the national health service? He will be aware that, yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said that the last Labour Administration spent more in real terms on the health service than the current Conservative Government. It turns out that House of Commons Library statistics show that the Conservative Government spend in real terms some 40 per cent. more than the last Labour Administration. This matter needs to be put straight, as I am sure that the leader of the Labour party did not mean to mislead the House.
Mr. Newton: The point was very well made in an intervention yesterday afternoon and it was not answered. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's further point will in due course elicit a response from the Leader of the Opposition.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): In the first tranche of Second Reading Bills, will there be one dealing with the decommissioning of weapons, or is the delay since March due to the fact that perhaps both the Irish Government and Her Majesty's Government are not convinced that there will be a genuine ceasefire and do not wish to waste the House's time?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the reasons for giving careful consideration to these matters are not quite as he seeks to suggest. I cannot say that I
expect the decommissioning Bill to be among the first tranche, but he will know that reference was made to it in the Gracious Speech.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): When can the House have an opportunity to debate the increased social damage that the intended bi-weekly Camelot lotteries will cause to poorer members throughout every community in the country, in every constituency in the country?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that this follows a judgment, by the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery, under his responsibilities, that granting this application is consistent with the duties placed on him under the legislation, but both he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will monitor carefully the effect of the introduction of a midweek lottery and they will take into account the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): Can my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to discuss sport, particularly the Prime Minister's excellent proposal in relation to the British academy of sport, to give hon. Members the opportunity to talk about the excellent facilities that might be available in their constituencies? I am especially interested in pressing the case of Portland as the best place for a British academy of sport.
Mr. Newton: I take note, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, of the pressure of the constituency interest, which I well understand. On the main thrust of the question, it is an attractive subject for a debate and I will bear it in mind.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about firearms legislation? Is he aware that the reputation not just of the Government or the Opposition, but of Parliament is at stake? Following the Dunblane massacre, people in Britain were concerned about handguns and they are not giving in--and I hope that we will not--to the gun lobby. It seems inconceivable that Parliament will not have a free vote. Surely on such an issue there is every possible case for such a vote. As the Government have already climbed down on two matters yesterday, why do they not climb down on this issue and allow Members to have a free vote on whether we want a full ban on handguns?
Mr. Newton: I indicated to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I hope courteously, that I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, and I am not going to do so in response to the hon. Gentleman either.
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin): Does the Leader of the House share my astonishment at the Home Secretary's view that the quickest way to get legislation on to the statute book is by means of the private Member's Bill procedure? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on parliamentary procedure and confirm that the majority of the Bills introduced by the 20 hon. Members who are lucky enough to be successful in the ballot never reach the statute book? Even the Bills that do reach the
statute book take several months to do so. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern at the Home Secretary's ignorance of basic parliamentary facts?
Mr. Newton: On the contrary, I have been given some reason for concern in the last 30 seconds about the hon. Gentleman's understanding of parliamentary procedure and what occurs with private Members' Bills.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |