| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: I have now commented, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, several times on this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on whether he would find it acceptable, if medical advice produced an extended entitlement to benefits, for the Government to reject that medical advice. We really must consider whether we are going to rest on medical advice or not.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): Since the Leader of the House has declined the suggestion of a debate and vote forthwith next Wednesday on the important stability pact regulations, will he consider, when further documents have been laid and further discussions have taken place, tabling the motion after such a debate?
As full official texts of the treaty that will be discussed in Dublin next weekend will not be available, will the Leader of the House ensure that at least a summary of what is proposed is before the House next Thursday?
Mr. Newton:
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have made the position clear in what I said at the outset. We will return to the House with a revised text next year once it is clearer how the eventual proposals will look. If the proposals are acceptable to the United Kingdom--we think that they should be in due course--we will seek scrutiny clearance. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
On the second point, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the Scrutiny Committee earlier this year, we shall make the draft treaty document available to the
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1213
Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge):
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on today's statement by a senior health service manager from Newcastle, who said that national health service competition is not working and that it is being
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside):
Is not the Government's position on the working hours directive disgraceful? When will the Leader of the House organise a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House? The directive is appropriate to industrial society at the end of this century.
Mr. Newton:
I often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but not on this occasion. His description of the Government's attitude to the directive is unreasonable. The Government are seeking to ensure that as many of his constituents as possible are employed, not unemployed.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
Why must we wait until June next year, after the general election, before we can seek scrutiny clearance on the three important European Union documents? They were considered to be so important that they were pushed into European Standing Committee B, and if they had been carried there, they would have been taken forthwith on the Floor of the House. Why have the Government changed their position so dramatically?
Mr. Newton:
I can make an additional point. At the time when the documents were sent for scrutiny in Committee, we expected interim political agreements at ECOFIN on 2 December, with subsequent endorsement from the Council in Dublin. In the event, negotiations proceeded more slowly, and agreement was not reached at ECOFIN on 2 December. The position with which we were dealing has now changed.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
Has the Leader of the House studied the report of the Office of the National Lottery on the sale of scratch cards to under-age persons? I have come to the conclusion that scratch cards are a curse. They were not properly discussed when the legislation to set up the lottery went through the House. The second weekly draw is coming along. We were promised that the lottery would be monitored, and that we
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1214
Mr. Newton:
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I cannot promise a debate. I draw his attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is due to answer questions before Christmas--on Monday 16 December.
Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South):
I refer the Leader of the House to the earlier questions about war pensions. My father, Thomas Hall, served in the Fleet Air Arm from 1942 to 1945, and suffered perforated eardrums when his ship was bombed. In later life, he had a hearing loss of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent., but because of the Government's changes to the regulations he was not entitled to a weekly war pension. His hearing deteriorated, and he was later assessed as having a hearing loss of more than 20 per cent. He could not claim his war pension until October 1997. Sadly, my father died a week last Saturday, so he will not be able to claim that pension.
The Government are now changing the threshold from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. That has nothing to do with doctors' advice: they are cheating pensioners of their entitlement. We deserve a debate on this issue soon.
Mr. Newton:
As I cannot add to what I have said, I shall confine my response to expressing my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman for the family circumstances to which he referred.
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North):
I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for more reasons than one!
I remind the Leader of the House that 1997 is an important year for global environmental policy and sustainable development. The Commission for Sustainable Development will meet in New York in April, and Earth summit II will be held at the General Assembly of the United Nations in June. Would it be appropriate for us to have a full debate in Government time on the Government's position on the important issues that will be discussed next year? We should have a statement from the Prime Minister on the Government's approach to the key themes, including an undertaking that he or his successor will attend the session at the United Nations in June.
Mr. Newton:
It might be appropriate to have such a debate. That is an important subject. No one is in serious doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, with the full backing of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has played an important and leading role in such matters throughout the international negotiations.
5 Dec 1996 : Column 1215
Mr. Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Portillo, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 49].
Madam Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation,
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young):
I beg to move,
I shall start by briefly setting the order in the context of the Government's policy on ports. Our objective for the ports industry has been that it should be capable, innovative and self-sufficient. The Government have done that by removing subsidies, by deregulation--abolishing the dock labour scheme--and by privatisation. They have sought to improve performance by promoting competition.
As a result, the efficiency of operations has been improved, efficiency gains have been made in the use of manpower, labour relations have improved, and substantial investments have been made. Our policies have succeeded and the benefits have not stopped at the ports. They have been to the advantage of all who depend on them and, to some extent, that means everyone in the country and many abroad.
The Ports Act 1991 is part of that story. It was introduced as an enabling measure, to provide a simpler and quicker mechanism than the private Bill procedure for trust ports to privatise themselves and take advantage of private sector input and practice, such as the investment of private capital. We introduced the measure because that is what a number of ports wanted to do. They were right to do so.
"pushed to deal in commodities and not patient care"?
Mr. Newton:
The hon. Gentleman might acknowledge the support that there is around the country, for example for GP fundholding. He might choose to describe it in that way, but the fact is that most people are finding that it is producing a better service.
That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 2843), dated 12th November 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
That the draft European Police Office (Legal Capacities) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
That the draft Scottish Enterprise (Aggregate Amount Outstanding) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.--[Mr. Knapman.]
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9651/96 relating to waste management strategy; and endorses the Government's objective of broadly supporting the review so that future waste management strategy balances the need for a high level of environmental protection with the need for an appropriate level of regulation to ensure the functioning of the internal market.--[Mr. Knapman.]
Question agreed to.
That the draft Port of Tyne Authority (Transfer of Undertaking) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.
The order will enable me to effect the transfer of the assets, rights, liabilities and duties of the Port of Tyne Authority to a company, which will be offered for sale. All property, rights and liabilities of the authority and all functions conferred or imposed on the authority by any local statutory provision will be transferred to the successor company already set up by the authority when the order comes into force. The most important such obligation is that of continuing to run a port on the Tyne.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |