---

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he has not confused the widespread support in the House for the passage into law of the Protection from Harassment Bill with the idea that all stages should be taken without any proper opportunity being provided between those stages for people to consider what has been agreed at each stage? There is a danger that, as has happened with previous legislation, that Bill will appear speedily on the statute book and will be a muddle.

Given the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time, may we have a debate before Thursday next week, either during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill or the debate on the estimates, on a wide range of pensioner issues, although they should specifically include war pensioners, who are the subject of the concern expressed in today's press reports? That debate could also refer to the fact that many councils, such as Barnsley, do not disregard war pensions from council tax and housing benefit. The Government and the Opposition are making sure that war pensioners are treated differently up and down the country.

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has sought. There is provision for a debate on one aspect of pensions--unfunded pension liabilities--although I accept that that is a fairly narrow issue. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that we recently had a full day allocated to social security during the debate on the Budget.

As for Barnsley, a degree of local discretion in such matters has been exercised for a long time, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been noted in Barnsley.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford): Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the announcement he has just made about the debate that we were expecting and hoping for on the regulations, the stability pact and so forth shows that the Government have now accepted that the opinions of the House as a whole, which come from all parts of

5 Dec 1996 : Column 1207

the political spectrum, have prevailed? The Government have now accepted the fact that they must always take note of what the Select Committee says with regard to debates being taken on the Floor of the House. Will he absolutely guarantee that what happened two weeks ago will never happen again?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, for reasons that I understand, rather stretches his interpretation of what I have said. I have not changed the proposals for the debate. We made it clear long ago that we would provide time for a debate before the Dublin Council. We have now extended that debate to two days, particularly to allow greater time for discussion of EMU. On the other points, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made it clear in two sets of exchanges that we have had during the past fortnight that he understood some of the points and concerns that were raised with him. Those are the ones that he has been pressing and is continuing to discuss with our European partners.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe): I intervene as honorary parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion. Is it not totally unpardonable for the Secretary of State for Social Security to have written to the Chief Secretary about how to divide the ex-service community? When shall we have a statement from him? Will the ministerial correspondence be published in full? And why make a plea to Japanese business men to help the former prisoners of war of their country, when the Secretary of State's letter so blatantly dishonours our war-disabled people?

Mr. Newton: I do not for one moment accept the right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric. I shall bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but he will know that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in another place has this morning met and discussed those matters with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, in the proper and understood way.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North): May we have a debate next week on animal welfare, so that the view held by many hon. Members on both sides of the House that animals should be recognised as sentient beings in European legislation may be put across the Floor of the House; and so that we can investigate the possibility of lottery money being used to assist animal welfare organisations in the valuable work that so many of them do?

Mr. Newton: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's persistent and proper interest in animal welfare matters. Even so, I cannot promise time for a debate. The best opportunity in the next couple of weeks that I can think of would be the morning of Wednesday 18 December, when I will be here for three hours, during which time hon. Members can talk about any subject.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): The Leader of the House has conceded a debate on European monetary union and the stability pact next week, but he

5 Dec 1996 : Column 1208

has denied us a vote. Whatever consideration the Government have given to that--I note with regret that Opposition Front Benchers have not pressed for a vote--surely the Leader of the House realises that he has obligations to Back Benchers and that there are Back Benchers on both sides of the House who feel that sufficient progress has been made on the stability pact and on European monetary union for the House now to make clear how far we are prepared to go. We can indicate those limits to the Government only if there is an amendable motion.

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said, which--perhaps understandably--I thought was extremely reasonable. The possibilities in that field are still under discussion and are not likely to be finally adopted for many months and detailed negotiation on the legal texts in respect of the stability pact has not even started.

Sir Jim Spicer (West Dorset): May I ask for my right hon. Friend's help? The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I are both advisers to the Royal British Legion. I understood that the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions had approved of the changes, either yesterday afternoon or today. In view of what has been said today, it is now my intention to go--with, I hope, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe--to meet the committee. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that, together with the chairman of the committee and a representative of the Royal British Legion, we can then meet the appropriate Social Security Minister?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will look carefully at my hon. Friend's point. I can only confirm that those changes have been discussed this morning, in the usual and proper way, with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions.

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow): May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 302, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)?

[That this House is seriously concerned by the continuing decline of the Merchant Navy; recalls the important role played by the merchant fleet for over a century including two world wars; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to address as a matter of urgency the effects the decline of the Merchant Navy has on the ship building industry, the port transport industry, the British seafarers and the economy as a whole.]

Bearing in mind the fact that we might be one of the only maritime nations in the world that does not have a maritime policy, will the right hon. Gentleman give us a debate on that subject in Government time on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the importance of the subject, but I cannot make an immediate promise along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. We have put in place a range of measures, including simplified procedures, liberalised officers' nationality requirements and many others, including tax incentives to replace aging tonnage. We believe that those measures are making a positive contribution to the industry's position.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to a debate on

5 Dec 1996 : Column 1209

the reform of the House of Lords proposed by the Labour party? Is he aware of the very deep concern felt by my constituents and further afield that there is an arrogant disregard for the constitution of our country, especially when the Labour party plans to flood the House of Lords with 700 life peers? Those important constitutional matters should be debated by all, and rejected.

Mr. Newton: I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) that I regard a debate to examine those aspects of the Opposition's policies as an attractive proposition, and I will bear my hon. Friend's further representations in mind.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston): The Leader of the House may be aware that I was at Hillsborough on the fateful day of the tragedy. Will he arrange to hold a debate in the House as soon as possible? Many people, including the families of the Hillsborough victims, have not had a fair deal in the courts. I invite the Leader of the House to view tonight the film on that subject, or ask the Attorney-General to do so, so that they may better understand what happened that day.

---