| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Is he a friend of yours?
Mr. Newton: He is my constituency neighbour, although one might not have thought it from his question.
In many ways, my hon. Friend is introducing an argument that he might make when he attends the debate, but I shall, of course, bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What is happening demonstrates the importance of the United Kingdom continuing to take a close interest in those matters, because while none of provisions will apply to the UK if we decide not to participate in stage 3, we clearly would be affected by them.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South):
Does the Leader of the House agree that European Standing Committee B comprises the extremities of views on the merits of the European Union; that the tabling of such a motion is unprecedented; that a few years ago, it would have been within the powers of the Committee to decide whether the matter should be debated on the Floor; and that it was Government action that prevented that power of the Committee from being continued? In view of the country's concern at the encroachment of Government views on the procedures of the House, is it not wrong that a Committee that is entirely concerned with procedure, and not the merits of a case, should be overridden in that way?
Mr. Newton:
On the spread of views in the Committee, the answer is clearly yes. I am not in a position to give quite such clear-cut answers to the hon. Gentleman's other questions. However, I shall make a point that I could have made earlier but did not in case it was thought inflammatory. Since 1990, the House has voted for extensive changes to its procedures to reduce the amount of business done on the Floor of the House and to remit more business to Standing Committees.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I am sure that the Leader of the House spoke in good faith when he said that he would report from time to time on Zaire. However, there are some urgent problems about which there should be a report on Monday. What about the millions, perhaps billions, of pounds that President Mobutu has stacked away? What is the position on arms manufacturers? Are British troops to be subject--
Madam Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman rightly put his question on that to the Secretary of State for Defence. If he is now asking for a statement next week, that is one thing, but he cannot go into such detail with the Leader of the House, who is concerned with next week's business.
Mr. Dalyell:
I am concerned about a statement next week as to whether--
Madam Speaker:
I understand that. The hon. Gentleman saw me earlier today about a statement, which
14 Nov 1996 : Column 510
Mr. Dalyell:
I hope that there will be a statement on Monday on injections to troops, on the Gurkhas and on whether there will be a report back on the crucial matter of the reconnaissance unit, which was raised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Is Parliament to be told what that unit discovers, especially in relation to the warlords and governors?
Mr. Newton:
I did not say that I would report to the House from time to time because I am not in a position to do so. I said that I would seek to arrange appropriate reports. It has to be a matter of judgment as to when it is appropriate to make further reports. I shall bear in mind the sort of factors that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I cannot make a commitment now to another statement on Monday.
Mr. Tony Banks:
May I reiterate last week's request for a debate on London? Last week, I mentioned the London Research Centre report, "The Capital Divided". This week we have heard that the London Pride Partnership is to publish a manifesto for London and to ask hon. Members to back it in the run-up to the general election. Yesterday, Sir Norman Foster's master plan for London, involving Trafalgar square, Whitehall and Parliament square was announced. When will London Members have an opportunity to say something and get involved in the big issues that affect the capital city? The Leader of the House announced that there would be an Adjournment debate on 29 November, for which no subject has been announced. Can he say that that debate will be on London affairs?
Mr. Newton:
I cannot say that. Although we have not yet made a final decision, that debate is likely to be on another matter. I shall bear in mind the continued pressure for a debate on London.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
What will happen on Wednesday in European Standing Committee B if enough hon. Members turn up, so that there are not enough seats for us all to participate in the debate on the documents mentioned in notice of motion No. 23? Would the debate have to be transferred to the Floor, whether the House was sitting as a Standing Committee or, more sensibly, as normal?
Mr. Newton:
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has in mind some plan of that sort, but despite his blandishments, I cannot add to what I have said several times already.
Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North):
Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to explain why yesterday he announced a White Paper not to the House, but to a press conference? Will he confirm that there are no legislative proposals in the White Paper? If there are not, what is its purpose other than to use civil servants to put forward Tory party propaganda?
Mr. Newton:
I saw that point trailed in one of the Sunday papers. The notion that a White Paper is not a
14 Nov 1996 : Column 511
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley):
May I tell the Leader of the House that he cannot dodge the question of the whipped vote on handguns? There is outrage throughout Scotland and, probably, the whole United Kingdom, that the Government are imposing a three-line Whip on a matter of conscience. Will he explain what is the difference between having a free vote on caning and not having one on handguns? It is outrageous and I do not think that the Government will get away with it.
Mr. Newton:
I did not dodge the question at all; I simply referred back to the clear answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had given.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
Can we have a debate before 12 December on the World Trade Organisation and child labour? On that day, the WTO will meet in Singapore and the British Government will seek to veto the efforts of America and other nations to place child labour on the WTO agenda. The Leader of the House will know that this week the International Labour Organisation published a report that shows that 250 million children--double previous estimates--work around the world in the most disgusting conditions. They often produce goods that are sold in our high streets. If we are to combat child labour, the House would like to be involved. The debate should take place before Britain shames itself by vetoing the placing of child labour on the agenda.
Mr. Newton:
The position, which I imagine the hon. Gentleman understands--although one might not have thought it from his question--is that we fully support action to combat child labour, but that the issue is, and should remain, outside the remit of the World Trade Organisation. We consider international labour standards to be a matter for the International Labour Organisation and we support its proposal to hold a convention to tackle the problem.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
When can wedebate an unbelievable situation that does great discredit to the Government, and which is described in early-day motion 171?
14 Nov 1996 : Column 512
[That this House notes that, since 21st October 1996 when the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations (S.I., 1996, No. 2450) came into force, appeals to social security, disability and child support appeal tribunals, which in the past could be made by letter, must be lodged on an official form which, three weeks later, still does not exist; notes that appellants are required to include in their appeal a summary of their arguments, which will deter many from appealing; further notes that an oral hearing will be held only if specifically requested, despite the fact that appeals heard in the appellant's absence are much less likely to succeed and that the recommendation of the Council on Tribunals that the importance of seeking an oral hearing should be emphasised in the information provided to appellants has been ignored, with the result that many more appeals will be heard in the absence of the appellant and most of them will fail; notes that, contrary to the advice of the Council on Tribunals, the minimum period of notice of an oral hearing has been reduced from 10 to seven days, making it more difficult for voluntary bodies to provide representation and further reducing the likelihood of success; and calls for the immediate suspension of the regulations, followed by a period of consultation on ways of combining justice and efficiency in the operation of the tribunal service.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |