---

Mr. Newton: That is a very helpful question from my hon. Friend, and I should simply like to thank him for it.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) rose--

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): My hon. Friend is always being called these days.

Mr. Faulds: Not often enough.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we must have a debate [Hon. Members: "Prompt him."] I do not need prompting; I am very good at my own words. We must have a debate on foreign affairs before the Government eventually cede to the need for a general election. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of two areas where an international crisis could break out literally at any moment, for both of which the British Government in the past have been responsible? Is he aware that in Cyprus the British Government were guarantor to the constitutional arrangements of 1960, which the Greek Cypriots aborted in 1963 and in which the Turkish forces only intervened 11 years later, as they were entitled to do under the treaty of guarantee, after the Nikos Sampson coup, which tried to bring about enosis with Greece?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other area is Israel--a fake country which was created because of the Balfour declaration promises and because of the immense American pressure under President Truman on Haiti to give the one critical vote needed to create Israel? It has depended entirely on American subvention ever since.

Mr. Newton: I can readily agree that the hon. Gentleman is very good with his own words, but there do seem to be rather a lot of them. I will bear in mind his request.

Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre): Following the Government's decision to provide more opportunities for youngsters to join the cadet movement, will my right hon. Friend seek time for an early debate on the subject so that Conservative Members can reinforce their long-standing commitment to the movement--a commitment that can be contrasted to the attitude of Labour Members, particularly members of the teaching profession who have been hostile to the movement for many years? In such a debate we could also show our resistance to the proposals made by the shadow spokesman on education, the hon. Member

23 Jan 1997 : Column 1079

for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), for a politically correct millennium youth movement, which will doubtless be run by social workers.

Mr. Newton: I shall bear in mind that suggestion for a debate as many important points could be made in it. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent cadet forces in my constituency which I visit from time to time.

Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North): I declare an interest as a member of the GMB. The Leader of the House may be aware that 200 workers at GCHQ have had their jobs privatised and taken over by a company called Vosper Mantech, which is to announce today that it has reached a recognition agreement with the GMB union. In light of the new situation, will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on GCHQ, where double standards now apply? Some 200 engineering workers and others now have the benefit of trade union recognition, which I welcome, while 4,000 other employees of GCHQ are denied that liberty. Will the Leader of the House accept that that is a priority subject and that time should be found for a debate on it?

Mr. Newton: Given the background to which I have already referred a couple of times, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot promise an early debate on the subject. I will, however, ensure that his words are studied by my right hon. Friends involved.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is no more important subject for the House to debate during this Parliament than the future and structure of the United Kingdom? Will he find time, either on one of the three days the week after next, or shortly thereafter, for a full day's debate on a substantive motion affirming the integrity of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Newton: As I rather expected, my hon. Friend's suggestion has widespread support from my hon. Friends and I will give it most careful consideration.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Why is the Leader of the House fighting shy of having a debate or a statement on the funding of political parties prior to a general election? It should be the first item on the agenda before the general election is called so that when people cast their votes they know where the money is coming from. My hon. Friends refused to support the recommendation, not because it was no good, but because it did not go far enough. We are demanding that the Tory party reveals where it gets its funds from and the Tory party refuses to say. It was £19 million in the red last year and now it is suddenly £24 million in the black. Where has the money come from? Overseas. The public should know where the money comes from before the general election. We are prepared to tell everyone where our money comes from and it is time that the Tory Government came clean.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman might be in a stronger position if his party had implemented the recommendations of the report that we have already had.

Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton): Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South

23 Jan 1997 : Column 1080

Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), has it not been an enormously long time since the House had the opportunity of debating whether, if Scotland had its own Parliament, Scottish Members of Parliament would be able to vote and decide on matters of English taxation, but English Members of Parliament would not have the opportunity of voting on Scottish taxation? Is not that matter so important that we should have debate on it very soon--or at least, before the general election?

Mr. Newton: I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire that I shall give that suggestion careful consideration and I anticipate support for such a debate from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): We can discuss political party funding on 12 February. As for next week, should not the Secretary of State for Defence return to the House early next week and explain the circumstances that have now surfaced--that the decision about the royal ship was made four months ago and the only reason for its being announced yesterday was because of the forthcoming election? Is it not unfortunate, to say the least, that the present Government--desperate to win the next election--are willing to bring the Queen into electioneering? Why should the Secretary of State for Defence have made his statement yesterday when that decision, rightly or wrongly, was made immediately after the Tory party conference?

Mr. Newton: I reject, out of hand, the suggestion that the Government are seeking in any way to bring Her Majesty into electioneering.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 432?

[That this House recognises the problem caused to the Teachers' Pension Agency funding by the increasing number of teachers seeking to retire shortly after reaching the age of 50; also recognises that such early retirements are, in many cases, of value to the teacher concerned, the school and its pupils; and believes also that further bipartisan consultation is necessary before any final decision is made on teachers' early retirement.]

This relatively new early-day motion relates to teachers' early retirement and has been signed by distinguished Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. It asks that the consultation period, which officially ended last Friday, be extended. As a result of the responsible and constructive mass lobby of the House by the National Association of Head Teachers, I believe that there are good grounds for permitting further time for consultation. Will my right hon. Friend find time either for a short debate or for a statement from the appropriate Minister?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is due to be in the House on Wednesday next week to answer questions.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): As the Leader of the House found an earlier question from the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) helpful, will he advise the House on whether the Foreign Secretary will

23 Jan 1997 : Column 1081

be making a statement to the House next week? We have all been told that, in the near future, he is going to make various speeches in respect of flexibility in European Community developments, yet the House of Commons is to be denied the opportunity to question him. Of particular interest to me are the issues of structural funds and cohesion funds, because, under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Highlands and Islands Convention will be meeting in Stornoway on 3 March and it would be helpful if we could have some form of discussion about the Government's view of those matters.

Mr. Newton: Going slightly at a tangent, I take this opportunity to assure the hon. Lady that, after the difficulties that she felt were caused on an earlier occasion, I have carefully noted the date of the next meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention. Having said that in a helpful and friendly spirit, I have to say that I do not know of any plans for a statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary next week.

---