---

Mr. Newton: I shall not attempt to add to what I have already said, but I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend's attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Why do the Leader of the House and Ministers make statements on nurses' and teachers' pay in the form of a written question, instead of making a statement in the House, so that hon. Members can make their position clear? If there is enough money to find £60 million-plus for a royal yacht and enough to pay the fat salary increases of generals, Members of Parliament, Ministers and all the rest of them, why cannot the Government say to nurses and teachers that they will immediately pay the money from the pay review in full?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the practice--for as long as I can remember--has been for the information on those very complex matters to be made available by written answer. He will also know that the reports in question, taken together, are about 3 in thick, and require considerable study. I am sure that he will get down to his homework as soon as he possibly can.

Sir John Cope (Northavon): My right hon. Friend will have seen the Procedure Committee's report, which has just been published, on a new streamlined procedure for tax simplification Bills. It is important that we debate that matter as soon as possible, and, if possible, pass the necessary amendments to Standing Orders. There is a great push--in the Treasury, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the Inland Revenue--for simplification of our complicated tax legislation. The House should facilitate that process, and not be seen as a potential difficulty.

Mr. Newton: If I remember rightly, last week, much the same point was made to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Committee. I gave what I described as a "cautiously sympathetic" reply. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), who is a distinguished member of the Committee, will similarly accept both my sympathy and my caution.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): When can the House urgently have an opportunity to debate the continuing misjudgments of the Governor of Hong Kong in chipping away at the international agreements which were brilliantly achieved by Lord Howe, then Foreign Secretary, in 1984 and which this uninformed Governor is immensely damaging? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he managed to educate even an uninformed personality like Lady Thatcher about the realities of what had to develop between China and Hong Kong? Why on earth do HM Government allow this man to persist in damaging those immensely important international relationships?

Mr. Newton: Without in any way accepting for a moment the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument,

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1147

which was ingeniously disguised as a question, I simply point out that the House has recently had opportunities to debate Hong Kong, and I certainly cannot envisage another one in the near future.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): Will my right hon. Friend take further the matters raised by the shadow Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for South Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who asked, respectively, for a Supply day and a debate on constitutional arrangements? Will it be possible in the next two weeks to consider a matter that has been lying around for the past two decades--whether, under some people's proposals, a Scottish Member of Parliament would be able to vote on English education but not on Scottish education?

Mr. Newton: In other words, a debate to see for the umpteenth time whether we can get an answer to the West Lothian question--

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr): Have a debate.

Mr. Newton: Is the hon. Gentleman promising me from a sedentary position that were the Opposition to have a Supply day, they would choose to debate constitutional matters? I should like that in writing.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Would the Leader of the House like to calculate exactly how much European legislation in the form of directives is awaiting scrutiny by European Standing Committee A? Will he then explain why the Government perpetually complain about European interference, but refuse absolutely to deal rapidly with the legislation that is pouring out of Brussels? Dealing with it rapidly would enable the House of Commons to know what was really going on, to comment on the legislation and, if need be, amend it before it became damaging, rather than afterwards.

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position immediately to give the hon. Lady the statistic that she requested, but I shall make some inquiries. On the more general point, she will know that we have made it clear that we ourselves are not satisfied with the fact that the procedures of the European Union, which can involve delays in Brussels and delays in transmission from Brussels, do not always enable us to scrutinise legislation here as effectively as we and the Committee would wish. We shall make every effort to ensure that matters are improved.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover): May we have a debate on unemployment, so that we can get home to people the fact that unemployment in, for example, Dover is half that in Calais, 22 miles away? There are enormous problems in Europe, which must be dealt with; the House must have a proper debate, so that we can explain to the French and Germans that it is because they are following socialist policies, which are being pushed by the Labour party in this country, that they have higher unemployment than us.

Mr. Newton: Not for the first time, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is underlined by something on

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1148

which, to judge from the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time, I am not sure hon. Members have yet focused, that is, the truly astonishing rise in unemployment that was announced in Germany today.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Will the Leader of the House inform the Home Secretary that when the House again debates the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is absolutely essential that the wrecking Lords amendment be overturned? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at an event in my constituency last week, I had the honour to meet Mr. and Mrs. Martyn Dunn, whose daughter Charlotte was one of the infants murdered at Dunblane? Is it not now all the more important that the pledge that effective action would be taken over guns--a pledge that was given after the Dunblane massacre--is carried out and that there is no appeasement by the Government?

Mr. Newton: The Government have made it clear that they are undertaking effective action in the wake of that appalling tragedy. Just as I told my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) that I would bring his points to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, so I shall bring the different points made by the hon. Gentleman to his attention.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): May I support earlier calls for a debate on devolution? Both the main Opposition parties have resolved to set up a rival Parliament in Edinburgh and also, apparently, to set up regional assemblies in England. They would add another tier of bureaucracy in many of our constituencies. As the proposed assembly for the west country would have no defined powers, and we do not know who would sit on it, who would pay for it or which counties would be covered, it would be a fruitful subject for debate and we could learn precisely what the Opposition are planning.

Mr. Newton: I have long held the view that that would indeed be a fruitful subject for debate, although I cannot go beyond what I have said earlier on the matter. I should certainly wish to listen to my right hon. Friend's speech, were it possible for such a debate to take place.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): The thickness or otherwise of a Government report should not be what determines whether it should be launched with a statement in the House. The determining factor should be the importance of the measure. Many documents first launched in the House have been massive, including the report of the Scott inquiry. Should not the public sector pay documents be debated here, because this is the proper place to question whatever is contained in them?

Mr. Newton: I made some reply--I think a reasonable one, as always--to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I cannot add to that.

Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton): When my right hon. Friend considers the many calls so far for a debate on the constitution, will he take into account the fact that that subject is not only worthy of a debate in the Chamber, but is arguably the most important subject that we can debate as the custodians in trust of the future of Britain? Such a debate would reveal the wide differences that exist,

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1149

between the Conservatives, who want to safeguard the unity of the United Kingdom and the sovereignty of Parliament, and the Opposition, who want to destroy them.

Mr. Newton: I endorse what my hon. and learned Friend says about the importance of that matter. Given the range of proposals that the Opposition appear to have made and the uncertainties about the details, I believe that they should consider using an Opposition day for such a debate.

---