HC Deb 17 April 1980 vol 982 cc1469-81
Mr. James Callaghan

Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas)

The business for next week is as follows: MONDAY 21 APRIL—Supply [15th Allotted Day]: Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on the problems of the North-West, and afterwards on Yorkshire, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

TUESDAY 22 APRIL and WEDNESDAY 23 APRIL—Further progress on remaining stages of the Employment Bill.

THURSDAY 24 APRIL—Supply [16th Allotted Day]: Debate on an Opposition motion on the soaring cost of living.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.

FRIDAY 25 APRIL—Second Reading of the Films Bill.

MONDAY 28 APRIL—Completion of remaining stages of the Employment Bill.

Mr. Callaghan

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for not insisting on spending three days on the Employment Bill next week; that would have been too much of a burden for the House. May I ask him about two matters? First, the House needs a formal debate, on a proper day, on the Brandt commission report combined with the policy that the Government intend to follow at the economic summit at which the report will play an important part. Secondly—and this is something on which I press the right hon. Gentleman—we have still not had a debate on the public expenditure White Paper, as we always do before the Budget. I understand that the Finance Bill was published today. May we have an absolute undertaking that we shall have a debate on public expenditure before we debate the Finance Bill, which is intended to raise the taxation to meet that expenditure?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was a debate on the Brandt report on 28 March. We were all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) for raising it. I entirely accept, as I have done all along, that this is a highly important subject, and it is right that in due course it should be debated in Government time.

It is true that the Finance Bill and the public expenditure White Paper are connected, but I have to bear in mind that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is considering the public expenditure White Paper in the general context of its economic review. Therefore, it would not be convenient for the House to have a debate on the White Paper before the Select Committee had concluded its report.

Mr. Callaghan

That is a rationalisation that the right hon. Gentleman could have thought of only recently. He has always given us to understand that there would be a debate on public expenditure in the normal, conventional way. We really cannot postpone debates in the House because Select Committees, however important or influential, are conducting parallel discussions. This is a matter for the House. The right hon. Gentleman might just as well say that we should not discuss the Finance Bill until the Select Committee has completed its considerations.

I must press the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. I believe that he is an honourable man in these matters. I say to the Government very strongly that there will be great dissatisfaction unless there is a debate on public expenditure in the normal way, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman again for that undertaking.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Of course this is the normal way, and the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to suggest that this is a rationalisation. Over the past three years the debate on the public expenditure White Paper has always taken place after the report of the relevant Committee has been published. Therefore, I am following precedent. There is a further point: it is quite normal for a certain number of weeks to elapse between the publication of the White Paper and the debate, so again I am following an established precedent.

Mr. Callaghan

I do not wish to detain the House, Mr. Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman and the House know that this year, for reasons that were well known to them, the Government, postponed the publication of the White Paper literally until Budget day. The House of Commons had no opportunity to examine it beforehand, though we were able to make some reference to it during the Budget debates. The right hon. Gentleman will meet with great resistance to the progress of the Finance Bill unless we have been able, as a House of Commons, to debate the public expenditure provisions that lead to the requirements of the Finance Bill.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Of course the conclusions of that report will be relevant to the debates on the Finance Bill, subject to what Mr. Speaker rules, and it is for the benefit of the House to have these documents which can be referred to.

Mr. Beith

I thank the Leader of the House for his part in ensuring that an answer will not be given on the Council of Europe delegation until further discussion can take place through the usual channels.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of building regulations, referred to in early-day motion 502?

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Building (Prescribed Fees) Regulations 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 286), dated 3rd March 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, be annulled.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is much concern amongst architects, local authorities and people in the building industry that the building regulation charges could come into force as an order without the House having debated it? Will he recognise this concern?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the Council of Europe. I appreciate the point that he raised about building regulations and I will look into the matter further.

Mr. Higgins

Referring to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, is there not a strong case for debating whether we can raise the money before deciding how to spend it? Will my right hon. Friend also accept that one needs the maximum possible time to debate the Finance Bill and that to delay it would be wrong, because there is a deadline by which it must get through the House?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks, and as he is a member of the Select Committee I must attach weight to them.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

I also am a member of the Select Committee. Will the right hon. Gentleman look a little more carefully at the precedent? Does he realise that what actually happened was that the Select Committee reexamined these matters and produced its timetable to meet the timetable of the House, and not the other way round? The Select Committee has to abide by the timetable of the House. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to change the timetable.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

What I have to do as Leader of the House is to balance conflicting demands, requests and interests, and I am endeavouring to do precisely that.

Mr. Callaghan

With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is the Leader of the whole House and I must tell him quite firmly that the Opposition do not intend to be dictated to about the manner in which this Finance Bill is conducted. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that into account.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am also a member of the Select Committee? Is he further aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the fact that the public expenditure White Paper came out at the same time as the Budget this year so that we could see both sides of the national accounts at the same time? Since the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee is taking evidence rapidly, might it not be to the convenience of the House to wait until it reports, if it reports quickly?

The Leader of the House said some months ago that before we rise for the Summer Recess we shall have the opportunity of discussing further recommendations by the Select Committee on procedure, particularly those dealing with Public Bills. When will the House be given the opportunity to discuss those matters?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, because it gives substance to the point that I was endeavouring to make.

Mr. Callaghan

It does not.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Yes, it does. The Leader of the Opposition is important, but other hon. Members are also important, and they have a right to be considered.

We shall have a further debate on procedure before the end of the Session. I am conducting discussions on the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) wishes to be discussed and the Government will be in a position to put proposals to the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Will the Leader of the House ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland explains to the House as early as possible next week why a statement of Government policy made at noon today outside the United Kingdom has not been made available to hon. Members or placed in the Library?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I shall draw that important point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Cryer

Will the Leader of the House find time to debate the refreshment arrangements in the House, in particular the allegations contained in a Daily Mirror article earlier this week? If we had a debate, he could explain to the House how allegations have been made—in letters since at least November last year. Will he also explain why he is trying to shove one more refreshment cost on to the taxpayer instead of allowing the newspaper employers to make a contribution, which some of them are apparently desperate to do?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in reducing each question to the subject of the payment by the Press Gallery for meals. The allegations in the article that appeared in the Daily Mirror were thoroughly investigated by my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee last November. The allegations were withdrawn. Therefore, that article is not only inaccurate but out of date. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work as Chairman of the Committee. It is a singularly thankless task and he is doing an excellent job.

Mr. Stokes

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on the serious outbreak of riots and disturbances at Bristol, Neasden and seaside towns, and on the whole question of law and order?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement on the regrettable disturbances in Bristol when they occurred. The position is being kept under review by my right hon. Friend. I cannot promise an early debate.

Dr. Bray

May I refer to the date of the debate on the public expenditure White Paper? Has the Leader of the House consulted the Select Committee? I am not aware of its being consulted in any way. Is he aware that it is not the Select Committee's wish to delay debate in the House?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Of course I have taken soundings on the Select Committee's view. I have received indications more in accord with what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) says than with what the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) says.

Mr. Costain

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the proposition by the Leader of the Opposition breaks a tradition of the House under which we never discuss a Select Committee report until that Committee has reported to the House? Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we adopted the right hon. Gentleman's proposition we should alter the procedure of the House?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

The discussion has shown that there is a variety of views on different sides of the House. I have to try to do justice to the conflicting views.

Mr. Callaghan

Does the Leader of the House accept that the Opposition also have a view, irrespective of the views of the majority of the Select Committee? The Opposition are telling the right hon. Gentleman that in accordance with precedent we should have a debate on public expenditure before we debate the Finance Bill. If the Leader of the House is saying, for whatever reasons expressed by his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Select Committee, that they wish to produce their report before a debate, I have no objection to that. In that case the Opposition believe that the right hon. Gentleman should postpone the Finance Bill for a week. No date has been fixed. I warn the Leader of the House that progress on the Finance Bill will depend upon whether we have a debate on public expenditure first.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Callaghan

He had better be.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

The right hon. Gentleman may say that. Of course, he is the Leader of the Opposition, but we are the Government and we have some rights as well. My job is to try to accommodate conflicting views. It is gracious of the Leader of the Opposition to give me an early warning. However, we are discussing next week's business, and not the business for the week after.

Mr. Callaghan

The right hon. Gentleman may have a majority and he may be able to grind the Opposition down on such a matter if he wishes. However, the Finance Bill involves securing co-operation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that if he wishes co-operation in getting the Bill through.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am not trying to grind anyone down. The only grinding that I have heard is from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

I do not wish to intervene in the private battle between the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House. However, will the Leader of the House look again at the words with which he replied to the Leader of the Opposition earlier? He said that we should be unable to discuss the public expenditure White Paper be- cause the Select Committee wished to take evidence on it. Does he agree that that is a dangerous constitutional precedent? Does he agree that the House has not asked the Select Committee to do that, so why should the House be impeded in doing its duty?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

It is possible to discuss the matter in relation to other financial subjects, but we are discussing the timing of the debate. There is no doubt that a debate will take place, but we must decide on the timing that is most convenient to the House and its Members.

Mr. Latham

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the debate on the Easter Adjournment there was support from the Government side for the idea of having a debate on the building regulations, about which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked earlier? Will my right hon. Friend examine that possibility? It is causing anxiety.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I give that undertaking.

Mr. Stoddart

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 567 about the ordering of foreign radar equipment by the Civil Aviation Authority?

[That this House notes with the utmost concern that the Civil Aviation Authority proposes to purchase a foreign-produced air traffic control radar system although a British system developed to the specification laid down by the Civil Aviation Authority is available and is faster in operation than foreign systems; deplores the fact that in consequence employment and export opportunities will be lost; and therefore urges Her Majesty's Government to use every endeavour to persuade the Civil Aviation Authority to order the British system.]

May we have a debate on that issue, since it affects the employment and future export prospects of our industry? Is it not deplorable that the CAA should order foreign equipment when British equipment at a similar price and better quality is available?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

That is for the CAA to determine. I shall draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the existence of the motion and what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If hon. Members ask brief questions I shall do my best to call all those who have been rising.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend

In view of the reports emanating from Washington and Iran about the Soviet build-up on the borders of Iran and the growing tensions in the Middle East, is it not time that the House had a debate on foreign affairs? May we have an assurance that we shall debate foreign affairs more often in this Parliament than we did in the last?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I understand that the reports of the Soviet build-up have been exaggerated, to some extent. I agree entirely with the importance of debating foreign affairs in the House, especially because of the excellent record of the Government in that sphere. I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.

Mr. Ennals

Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to early-day motion 551—which is supported by right hon. and hon. Members on each side of the House—on smoking and health?

[That this House is concerned that the continued promotion of tobacco products, the largest preventable cause of death and disease in the United Kingdom, seriously undermines the efforts of Her Majesty's Government and the medical profession to reduce cigarette consumption and hence to reduce the present toll of at least 55,000 premature deaths per annum caused by smoking; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take the strongest action towards achieving a ban on the advertising and promotion of all tobacco products and to implement a range of other measures substantially to reduce tobacco consumption.]

In view of the mounting toll of illness and death from cigarette-caused illnesses, and in view of the negotiations between the Government and the tobacco industry about advertising, will the right hon. Gentleman confer with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to decide whether we can have an early debate on this issue?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is an important subject. Conversations are taking place between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the tobacco industry to see what further measures should be taken following the voluntary agreement. I am afraid that I cannot promise an early debate.

Mr. Harry Ewing

Will the Leader of the House discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the possibility of making a statement to the House early next week on the quite serious position that has arisen among teachers in Scotland which has been caused by the Clegg commission failing to make a specific proposal on teachers' salaries? Will the Secretary of State tell the House how it is proposed to resolve this serious problem?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I have been following the reaction of the Scottish teaching profession to the matter. I agree that it is an important matter. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. English

Is the Leader of the House aware that both he and the Leader of the Opposition are right on the subject of the public expenditure debates? There is no reason why the Second Reading of the Finance Bill need be earlier than it was last year. There is no special reason why, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, former precedents were not followed.

With regard to a remark made earlier, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that in the past the date of the public expenditure debate was always discussed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Whip and myself, as Chairman of the relevant Sub-Committee.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that weighty and impartial support. The opinion of the hon. Gentleman, which on matters of procedure is of great importance to the House, must be taken into account, as well as the other views that have been expressed.

Mr. James A. Dunn

Will the Leader of the House take an early opportunity to ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to give the House his opinion on any intention that he may have about a review of police procedures to inquire into the deaths of people held in police custody?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is away at present. I shall convey that request to him on his return.

Mr. Hardy

Is the Leader of the House aware of the grave financial problems now being experienced by local government and the severe anxiety being experienced by local councils of all political persuasions? In view of the severity of this matter, is it not time that the House gave it serious consideration?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

It is an extremely serious subject, but I am afraid that we cannot have a debate on the matter next week.

Mr. Ron Brown

On the question of early-day motion 567, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), does not the Leader of the House think that to circumvent the need for a debate on this issue it would be far better if he called for a day of action in the Cabinet to reverse that damnable decision by the Civil Aviation Authority?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's representation. However, one wants a day of inaction by the Cabinet if one wants more time for debate in the House.

Mr. Ioan Evans

There was a three months' steel strike because of the cash limits imposed by the Secretary of State for Industry. We now have British Leyland in dispute, although in a different position, because there may be a lockout, which may lead to many component firms being affected. In view of that will there be a statement by the Government next week about their attitude to the present dispute?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

The dispute at British Leyland is of immense importance to the whole country. However, it is a dispute that must be settled by the parties concerned, namely the management and the unions. Of course, if there is some development in which a Government view is relevant, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement to the House.

Mr. Canavan

Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), is the Leader of the House aware of the justifiable anger of Scottish teachers at the failure of the Clegg commission to deal satisfactory with the salaries claim?

In view of the disruption in Scottish schools, and the threat of further disruption that may affect important examinations for many pupils, will the Leader of the House say whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement in the House as early as possible to the effect that the Government will do everything possible to speed up a fair settlement, which should be at least as generous as the settlement for teachers in England and Wales?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I shall convey the representations of the hon. Gentle-man to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Would I be right in concluding that he is arguing for the abolition of the Clegg commission?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 536, which expresses concern about the overcrowding at local prisons and remand cantres, and the lengthening time that defendants now have to spend in custody?

[That this House is concerned at the overcrowding in local prisons and remand centres and the lengthening periods spent by defendants on remand in custody; and calls upon the Government to set up a working party with the task of conducting an urgent review of the factors affecting time spent awaiting trial or sentence and of making recommendations accordingly.]

The motion is supported by 123 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that there will be an early statement of Government policy on this problem? Will he also indicate when we are likely to have the statement promised by the Home Secretary on action following the May report? Will he give an assurance that there will be an early debate following that statement?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I have seen the motion that the hon. Gentleman has tabled about local prisons and remand centres. The increase in serious crime and the number of trials in recent years have led to delays—sometimes substantial—in the administration of criminal justice. My right hon. Friends are doing all that they can to reduce these delays.

In London and the South-East the position is still bad. To reduce backlog, special arrangements have been made this year, by which over 50 judges from circuits outside the South-East have volunteered to sit in London for a time.

With regard to the May report, as the hon. Gentleman may know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in New Zealand at the present time, but I shall make representations to him for a statement on the point that he has reached in his consideration of the report. I think that I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, subject to what my right hon. Friend says, a statement will be made shortly after his return.