| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Prime Minister: We have made a specific commitment here to try to keep them as low as possible, and that is precisely what we will do.
Mr. Hugh Bayley (City of York): Does my right hon. Friend share my feeling of dismay that when he comes to the House to make a statement about what this Government and other Governments in Europe are doing to create job opportunities for young unemployed people, the Opposition resort to howls of derision and jeers? Does he agree that every time an hon. Member crosses the Floor of the House from the Opposition side to our Benches, he leaves behind a Tory rump both leaner and meaner?
Does my right hon. Friend further agree that an economy the size of Europe has the potential to be as successful an engine for creating jobs as the economy of the United States of America, which, under President Clinton and with a minimum wage, has created so very many more jobs than have been created in Europe, with Europe not pulling together? Now that we are pulling together, will we see the benefits in Europe?
The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description of what happens with the Opposition. I find it extraordinary that they should disparage the idea of a European jobs summit that focuses on some of the issues of long-term youth unemployment. If they look at the figures, they will realise that it is not
It is tremendously important that we are in Europe, able to play a constructive role and able to provide leadership and direction, not just for our own country, but for Europe. The single market is tremendously important for British business and British jobs. It is in our interests to be able to complete that single market and to be able to play a leading role and influence the rest of Europe in our own direction--but we cannot do that if the country is represented by people who simply continue shrilly and irrelevantly to shout against Europe rather than get in and make it work.
Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks):
How can the Prime Minister boast in Luxembourg about ending burdensome regulation when he is sentencing British companies to compulsory new laws under the social chapter? Does his earlier answer suggest that neither of the existing directives nor any of the four proposed directives under the social chapter will impose any cost on British business?
The Prime Minister:
What the directives do is allow a perfectly fair framework of employment regulations in this country.
Mr. Fallon:
They impose costs.
The Prime Minister:
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the unpaid parental leave directive, which gives people a bit of unpaid parental leave, will destroy British industry?
The hon. Gentleman also refers to a directive that allows consultation with people in companies with 1,000 or more employees operating on a Europewide basis. Before the election, when the Conservative Government had opted out of the social chapter, British companies were joining it because they found it sensible to do so. I remember that, during the election campaign, the hon. Member and other Conservative Members said that if we signed the social chapter 500,000 jobs would leave Britain. That was nonsense. However, he and his hon. Friends continue to say that with all the certainty and conviction of mediaeval school men, which is precisely what they are becoming.
Dr. Howard Stoate (Dartford):
Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that the new Labour Government's attitude towards training and education will help to inspire employers to create the 50,000 new jobs expected in Kent's Thamesside, which includes my constituency?
The Prime Minister:
Yes, that is absolutely right. By focusing on raising education standards, we raise the value of human capital, thereby raising the performance of the overall economy.
Mr. David Prior (North Norfolk):
Does the Prime Minister accept that joining a European single currency will inevitably lead to high levels of regional unemployment? Was that discussed at the summit?
The Prime Minister:
No, I do not accept that. It will depend on whether a single currency is successful. If it is successful, I do not believe that what the hon. Gentleman describes will occur.
Madam Speaker:
Thank you, Prime Minister. We will bring the statement to an end now.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury):
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
Since 1984, the BBFC has had absolute power to determine which videos are or are not legal to watch in the United Kingdom, yet it is accountable to no one, other than furnishing the occasional opaque and bland report. Lately, its director, James Ferman, has passed a series of extremely violent and unpleasant videos, including one depicting people gaining sexual gratification from serious motor accidents. Certification for that film was given against the advice of the child psychologist whom the board itself had consulted.
It has been widely leaked that, as a consequence of the passing of such films, the Home Secretary is contemplating sensible measures to appoint a stronger chairman to replace Lord Harewood and to take action to make the organisation more accountable.
I ask for a debate today because it appears that Mr. Ferman and his cronies are using what may be their last few weeks of freedom to rush through certification of a series of films that a Customs official has described as "hard-core pornography", undermining Government action to prevent pornography.
This is not simply a matter of taste. Such films are widely used by paedophiles not only to cultivate their own tastes but to corrupt children. As I have one of the United Kingdom's best special investigation units in my local police force, I am very conscious of that fact. Once a video has been classified as acceptable, we have removed the statutory power to prevent it from being shown.
The British Board of Film Classification exists to protect vulnerable people, particularly children, from becoming victims of those who swallow a diet of mindless violence and filth. The board is manifestly failing in its duty. The Government need quickly to appoint a new chairman, and Parliament needs an urgent debate on the matter.
Madam Speaker:
I have listened very carefully to what has been said, and I have to give my decision without stating a reason. I do not consider that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today is the second day of the Bill's Committee stage, as you--
Madam Speaker:
Order. If this is a point of order on the Committee stage, it is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Hughes:
It deals with the Bill's Report stage and Third Reading.
Today is the Bill's Committee stage. At last Thursday's business questions, the Leader of the House, in the conventional way, announced this week's business. She said that, this Wednesday, the Bill would have its Third Reading. No provision has been made for a Report stage. No one can know--not even the Government, in their arrogance, can presume--that no amendments will be agreed in Committee.
I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, to make it absolutely clear that the House is entirely free to amend the Bill in Committee; that, if it is amended, there will be a Report stage; that time will have to be found for the Report stage; and that time will have be found to table amendments between the end of the Committee stage and the Report stage.
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Hon. Members must be given ample opportunity to table further amendments on Report, if we have a Report stage. That is the normal way to proceed, and it will be the way that we deal with this Bill.
Considered in Committee [Progress, 19 November.]
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 16, page 1, line 10, leave out 'separately' and insert 'directly'.
No. 17, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'an' and insert 'a directly'.
No. 28, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'a separately elected assembly' and insert
4.15 pm
the conduct of the British Board of Film Classification.
I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, and for the support of the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and of some Conservative Members.
4.18 pm
Amendment moved [19 November]: No. 15, page 1, line 9, leave out 'an elected assembly' and insert
'an assembly of leaders of London boroughs'.--[Mr. Ottaway.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |