Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): Depending on progre Adv some approximation, will my right hon. Friend say when he expects the vote on the official Opposition's amendment on the social chapter to take place and what is his response to Lord Tebbit's advice yesterday?
Mr. Newton: With regard to the factual question, I am not in a position to provide a clear-cut forecast at the moment because that depends on the progress on the Bill. With regard to the observations of my noble Friend, I shall simply observe that they are the observations of my noble Friend.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Instead of the proposed business for Monday week, would it be possible to have a general debate on Maastricht so that the Government could give us their assessment of the inclusion of the social chapter and its implications? Does not the Cabinet appreciate the advice that Lord Tebbit has given Tory Members of Parliament on how to proceed?
Mr. Newton: Whenever I have been in the Chamber during the first 11 days of debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, people have usually found it possible to make general observations whatever the specific subject under discussion.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill): What point is there in general observations about the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? What chance is there of making progress if the Government intend to drop the entire treaty if the social charter were to be included by a majority of the House? Will the Leader of the House make it clear whether that is the Government's intention?
Mr. Newton: I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on radio. He said:
"We can't ratify a treaty other than the one we negotiated; we don't intend to join Britain into a treaty which includes proposals and ideas which we think are destructive to British jobs".
Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield): Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 1370?
[That this House acknowledges the invaluable work carried out by REUNITE on behalf of those who suffer child abduction; and urges the Government not to terminate its grant to REUNITE on 31st March 1993.]
It is an all-party motion dealing with Reunite, the National Council for Abducted Children. The Government intend to withdraw the organisation's grant, thereby causing the collapse of the only advice service to Government and non-governmental agencies in Britain on the 1,200 children a year who are abducted illegally from Great Britain and held hostage in many countries throughout the world. More than 100 hon. Members have been assisted by Reunite to trace and identify children who have been stolen from their constituencies. Would not it be outrageous if the Government's decision were carried out because it would mean the demise of an organisation committed to the return of the children of British citizens who have been abducted illegally?
Mr. Newton: As I am not familiar with the exact state of play in any negotiations that might be taking place. I shall confine myself to saying that it is not uncommon for the Government-I have been involved in this work in various ministerial capacities-to provide funds on a start-up or pump-priming basis. I understand that, in 1989, the Home Office voluntary service unit agreed to fund Reunite temporarily to help it establish itself and find other sources of support.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.