House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Dec 1996 (pt 5)

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House. The whole House will welcome the fact that the Government have responded to its demands for a full-day debate on economic and monetary union, which is to take place on Wednesday, in addition to the more general Euro-debate on Thursday. We have no objection to that debate being on the Adjournment. However, will the Leader of the House tell us what is to happen to the documents relevant to that debate which have still not been voted on? Surely it would be appropriate to vote on them at the conclusion of the debate on Wednesday evening.

5 Dec 1996 : Column 1205

We welcome progress on the Protection from Harassment Bill, which is to have all its stages as quickly as possible on the Floor of the House starting on Monday 16 December, and the fact that the Government have taken up our offer of co-operation. As the Bill goes further than the original proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), which the Government blocked earlier this year, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the additional provisions in the Bill are the subject of proper consultation so that the legislation will be workable? To that end, will the Leader of the House reflect that we might need more than one day to consider the Bill properly? That should not materially affect its progress.

Can the Leader of the House say whether, as has become usual practice, we will have the annual fisheries debate in the next few sitting weeks because that involves many important issues that concern both Government and Opposition Members?

Finally, there is today's appalling news about aspects of the Budget statement that were not made clear to the House during the Chancellor's Budget speech or when the Secretary of State for Social Security opened his debate last Thursday: the changes to the benefits of disabled ex-service men and war widows. The Prime Minister made the situation worse a few moments ago by not being able to answer some very basic questions, and today the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has said of one Minister:

"Someone who has so little regard for our war heroes should not be in the Government".

Surely shabby and misleading ministerial actions that provoke such comments warrant a debate in the House.

Mr. Newton: On the debate before the Dublin European Council, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for acquiescing in the idea of a debate on the Adjournment. She asked about the completion of scrutiny. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor still has detailed issues to raise with other Finance Ministers, including points made by hon. Members in the House, we do not intend to seek to complete scrutiny at present. Legislation is not likely to be finally adopted until after the Amsterdam summit next June. Detailed negotiations on the legal text of the stability pact have not even started. Our intention is to return to the House with the revised text next year once it is clearer how the eventual proposals will look. If the proposals are acceptable to the United Kingdom--which, in due course, we believe that they should be--we will then seek scrutiny clearance. In the meantime, at Dublin and on other appropriate occasions, where necessary, we will table a parliamentary reserve. I repeat the assurances that have been given that the Government will not participate in political agreements until scrutiny is cleared.

I note what the hon. Lady said on the Protection from Harassment Bill. One of the reasons why I have not been able to give details for the days following Monday is that discussions are going on through the usual channels. I certainly acknowledge that the point she has raised deserves consideration, and I hope that we will be able to reach an agreement on it.

I can confirm that we intend to have the fisheries debate before the recess.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position on war pensions perfectly clear. The changes that were the principal focus of The Guardian story today rest

5 Dec 1996 : Column 1206

on medical advice, precisely in the same way as the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's proposals, which we have been repeatedly pressed to accept for many months, rest on medical advice. I do not think that it can be reasonable for the Opposition to argue that medical advice should be ignored in some cases and accepted in others.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford): May we have an urgent debate soon in Government time on constitutional developments, given that many of us on the Conservative Benches wish to demonstrate our opposition to proportional representation, the abolition of the House of Lords, the break-up of the United Kingdom and the imposition of regional government on England? Those policies, if enacted, would be a constitutional nightmare for the people of this country.

Mr. Newton: I can readily agree with my hon. Friend that such a debate certainly has much merit, but I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide time for it before Christmas, unless my hon. Friend wishes to be here at Christmas.

Next Section

Index

Home Page