INDUSTRY BILL (Hansard, 18 January 1979)

§ Mr. Hordern
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The time is now after a quarter to six and the House is due to consider a very important Bill which authorises the National Enterprise Board to spend, altogether, up to £4,500 million. I submit that any proper debate in the time that is available is now impossible. Ail we should get would be, I regret to say, a rather long speech by the Secretary of State for Industry setting out the matter for debate and most of the remaining time would be taken up by Front Bench speakers.
However much I regard the ability—as do my hon. Friends—of all Front Bench speakers in this House, the fact is that there will be very little time indeed for any Back Benchers to develop their arguments on this most important Bill.
I therefore ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Leader of the House will scrap the debate today and put it off to another occasion.

§ Mr. Henderson
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is reasonable that today we should have dwelt on the statements which we have had, which were more important statements on matters of great concern. It is reasonable that we should be prepared to change our procedures and our systems of working when it is necessary to do so.
The debate on the Industry Bill on which we are about to embark does not cover just the National Enterprise Board. It covers the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency. I shall certainly seek—I hope with more success than previously—to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in this debate, as, I have no doubt, will other parliamentary colleagues from other parties who have Scottish constituencies, and as will Plaid Cymru Members and their parliamentary colleagues from the Welsh constituencies.
There are three very strong interests involved in this matter. Although the Secretary of State for Industry may be the soul of brevity, if not of wit, I hardly think that there will be sufficient time left after the opening speeches, and taking off the time for winding-up speeches, 2006 to allow all of us to express our views on this important matter.
There is no desire on cur part to see the Bill held back. I am sure that if the Lord President were to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and announce that next week he would find time for this Bill, he would find a ready response on the Opposition Benches.

§ Mr. Richard Wainwright
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Only a few minutes ago you reminded the House that, in the event of your granting an evening's debate on Monday under Standing Order No. 9, only one of the subjects that have been drawn to your attention today could be debated. May I respectfully remind you, Mr. Sneaker, that the Bill which we had honed to be debating for the last two hours contains three quite separate and distinct matters relating to three separate statutory bodies—a sum of £3 billion, another sum of £500 million, and yet a third sum for a quite separate statutory body of £250 million.
In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, with respect, your ruling that only one matter can be discussed in an evening seems to me to apply to this evening's proceedings.

§ Mr. Alexander Fletcher
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) and other hon. Members about tonight's business being held over. There are many reasons for this. It would be impossible for you, Mr. Speaker, to arrange the debate so that it dealt with all the local and regional interests in the country and contained discussion of the two Agencies and the NEB.
May I also respectfully suggest that the rail strike today does not help the situation, because there are no sleepers to the North tonight, and there is a threat of a strike at Heathrow airport tomorrow morning, which means that Members wishing to get home urgently for meetings in their constituencies tomorrow will have very little chance of doing so unless they can catch an aircraft later this evening. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you whether you can see about something being done about holding over tonight's business

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall take the points of order of those hon. Members who have been rising, but before doing so perhaps I may say that the arrangement of business is not my concern.
I should like to say to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) that it always grieves me when I cannot call him. But I am not grieved very often.
I have no doubt that the House is anxious to get on to the business.

§ Mr. Michael Marshall
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it would be fair to say that one must have a slight quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern). We expect a very full statement from the Secretary of State. Indeed, the basis of the reasoned amendment which has been tabled by the Opposition is arguing that we are not getting sufficient information. Therefore, a grave responsibility hangs on the shoulders of the Secretary of State this evening.
Further to that, Mr. Speaker, to put some kind of numbers in this matter, if we assume one and a half hours for the Front Benches in opening the debate and one hour for them in closing it, we shall then have one and a half hours for Back-Bench speakers, three from each side, which would make it literally impossible for members of the Liberal Party, Plaid Cymru or the SNP to speak and we would have only three speakers from the Conservative Benches.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
Further to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) has said.
As a House, we look to the Secretary of State to fill out the knowledge which has been so far lacking on why the vast sums of money referred to in the Bill should be needed. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to promise to be brief. This is not an occasion when it is in the public interest for him to be brief. There just will not be enough time for the very large number of hon. Members who will want to put their questions and express their points of view to be heard. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Lord President, through you, to consider 2008 whether the debate today—no one is blaming the Government for the truncation of time today—could be abandoned today and reinstated next week.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)
I really have nothing very much to add to what I said in response to an earlier question on the same subject. I fully appreciate the concern about the truncation of this very important debate. I am not minimising its importance in any sense. But, of course, one of the Government's concerns is that we must get the Bill through before—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That is one of the matters that will come out in the debate. We must get it through before Easter. If we were to hold up the Bill now, there would be further difficulties later.
I certainly think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we could proceed to the Second Reading very soon. without further hold-up.
However, let me say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who is in charge of the Bill for the Opposition, that I think that we shall have to take into account the fact that there has been somewhat less time for the Second Reading than had been previously arranged. and I would hope that if we have normal progress during the Committee stage, that can be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

§ Sir Keith Joseph
That has nothing to do with it.

§ Mr. Foot
It has. [Interruption.] Hon. Members have not heard yet the conclusion of my remarks. Of course, I believe that that should be taken into account on Report. Therefore, I strongly urge the House not to devote any further time now to points of order but to proceed, because every point of order can only take away further time from the debate. I ask hon. Members to see how we proceed with the debate—[HON MEMBERS: "NO."]—and then after-wards to have the normal discussions that take place between the usual channels.

§ Sir Keith Joseph
Perhaps I may put a constructive suggestion to the Lord President. Will he take time to consider whether, if the Government defer this 2009 debate until next week, any day in Committee will be lost, because it is my bellef that the Committee of Selection does not meet until the middle of next week? If the Second Reading is deferred until next week the Bill can proceed to Committee, if it gets a Second Reading, no later than if the Second Reading took place in a totally unsatisfactory form today.
I ask the Lord President to bear in mind that there will he very few opportunities indeed for hon. Members, from both sides of the House and representing vital regional interests, to have their say at all if we embark upon the debate now.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall call another hon. Member in a moment, but I remind hon. Members that, since it is quite clear that we shall he getting down to the business, it will enable me to call additional Members if we are not too long.

§ Mr. Grylls
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, of all people, do not want to cause any financial embarrassment to the NEB, but I should like to ask whether the Government are able to explain why it is essential to have the Bill tonight. Perhaps I may make a suggestion which might help you, Mr. Speaker. You have suggested that one of the Standing Order No. 9 debates referred to earlier might take place on Monday if you so decide. Are you able to give an instant reconsideration of one of the Standing Order No. 9 applications put forward by my hon. Friends and bring one of them forward now? Then we could have a debate on the NEB in a proper length of time 2010 on Monday. Would not that be a happy solution, help you and help the Government to explain their case?

§ Mr. Speaker
It would be a solution. It is a very ingenious suggestion, but I am afraid that I cannot do that.

§ Sir Anthony Meyer
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the Lord President would not wish to put you in the very individious position of having to preside over what will clearly be a farce of a debate in which Back Benchers representing Wales will simply not be able to make any contribution to a debate which is of primary importance to Wales.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether there is some procedure whereby the House could decide itself not to proceed with the debate, bearing in mind that one of the Agencies dealt with in the Bill has been described by the Government as their main instrument for reviving the Scottish economy? It would be a farce if we had a debate with possibly only two Scottish speakers taking part. Under our rules, is the House able to determine that it shall adjourn?

§ Mr. Budgen
Further to that—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We follow the order of business as it is laid down. I think that it is in the interests of the House if I ask the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.

§ Mr. Budgen
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall take the point of order afterwards.