§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas)The business for next week will be as follows:
§ Monday 14 July—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Debate on an Opposition motion on the persistent rise in unemployment.
§ Tuesday 15 July—Completion of remaining stages of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill.
§ Wednesday 16 July and Thursday 17 July—Report and Third Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
§ At the end on Wednesday, motion on the Summer Time Order.
§ Friday 18 July—Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
§ Monday 21 July—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: The subject for debate to be announced.
Mr. CallaghanWith regard to the Summer Time Order, many of us will be very anxious to know why we are being cut short on summer time next year. We hope that there will be a full debate on this subject. There is no reason whatever why we should fall into line with the others. They ought to fall into line with us, as we have obviously the most sensible arrangement on summer time.
Secondly, with regard to public expenditure cuts, which I understand are being discussed by the Government at the present time, will the Leader of the House tell us whether we are likely to have a statement on this matter next week? If so, let me intimate to him now that we would expect it to be followed by a debate.
Thirdly, as the Leader of the House has already said that Monday's debate is to be about the persistent rise in unemployment, let me indicate to him that with the remaining business at our disposal every week from now until the end of the Session we shall bring before the House some aspect of the scandal of unemployment
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI have been given early warning by the Leader of the Opposition.
Without getting into a dispute on the question of summer time, I point out that it is clearly for the convenience of everyone, in whatever country within the Community, that summer time should begin and end at the same time.
There is no need for a statement concerning public expenditure. The Cabinet is carrying out its normal review of public expenditure, as it does at this time of year, and no final conclusions have been reached.
§ Mr. HillIf my right hon. Friend can spare the time, will he read early-day motion 673, on the reform of the licensing laws?
§ [That this House welcomes the submission of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers on licensing legislation reform; believes that its conclusions result from a thorough investigation into the current problems in licensing law; and whilst not necessarily accepting all their conclusions nevertheless broadly accepts them as the basis for much-needed reform.]
§ Is it not time that the House discussed the jungle of legislation on which so many courts are unable to act because of the sheer immensity of the problem?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is studying these proposals, but he has at present no plans for legislation.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkAs the Leader of the House has not made the expected announcement that there will be a debate on prisons on Friday 18 July, will he say when that debate will take place? Will he also confirm that it will not be on a subsequent Friday?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI am hoping that I shall be able to announce shortly a debate before the Summer Recess, but I cannot give a guarantee in the terms for which the hon. Gentleman has asked.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneDoes my right hon. Friend recall that when, before Easter, I expressed anxieties about the way in which the House was expected to approve the Spring Supplementary 760 Estimates on the nod, he showed at least some sympathy? Now that we are confronted with Summer Supplementary Estimates running to £230 million of additional expenditure, will he offer some encouragement for the hope that we shall be given an opportunity to debate this before any decision upon it is taken?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasAs my hon. Friend said, I am sympathetic towards the point that he has raised, both in this House and in correspondence. I do not believe that it is satisfactory that we should follow these procedures, but I think that it is a subject that would be suitable for discussion in the procedure debate that I have promised the House before the Summer Recess.
§ Mr. SpriggsWith regard to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stated about unemployment debates in the future, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has seen early-day motion 748, about unemployment in Great Britain, and in the North-West of England in particular?
§ [That this House is deeply shocked at the reported increased number of unemployed men and women in the United Kingdom, which, with the decision of a major furniture and upholstery firm to lay off workers and to close a factory in the Manchester area, has reached the proportions of a major economic disaster in the North West Region; and calls upon the Government to take special measures to reduce the hardship caused by Conservative Government economic policy.]
§ Will the Leader of the House arrange time for a debate about the shocking conditions in the North-West in particular and in the country in general?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI am, of course, aware, as is everyone in the House, of the problems raised at the moment by high unemployment, particularly in the North-West. It is for that reason that parts of the region where the problem is greatest are to retain their special development area status. That will entitle employers who are setting up, and thereby creating new jobs in those areas, to receive the highest level of assistance available under the Industry Act. But in the long term the prospects for the 761 region—as, indeed, the prospects for employment in the country as a whole—depend on our success in the fight against inflation.
§ Mr. BudgenDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of gaining control of public expenditure is now so urgent that the leisurely procedure that he suggests for considering the way in which we might consider Supplementary Estimates is not good enough, and that we must have an urgent debate about it, so that the House may consider whether it wishes to reassert its ancient rights of considering Supply?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI hope that there will be nothing leisurely either in the approach to the debate or in the debate itself. As I indicated, it is a most urgent problem, and I hope that we shall proceed to tackle it, as action has been delayed for many years.
§ Mr. HardyWill the Leader of the House accept that there is a great deal that is contentious in the Government's proposals for agricultural capital grants? May we have an assurance that this matter will be debated on the Floor of the House and not sent to a Committee upstairs?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI have no plans to have a debate on this matter in the coming week. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsDoes my right hon. Friend expect the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on arrangements to maintain an independent British strategic deterrent? If so, will there be a debate on this matter before the Summer Recess?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThat is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I cannot see my way to arranging a debate at the moment because I am anxious not to delay the Summer Recess unduly.
§ Mr. AshleyHas the Leader of the House read the recent report by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which shows that there is widespread discrimination against women in Britain 762 today? As this discrimination is increasing, and is offensive and damaging to many women, could we have an opportunity to debate discrimination against women?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThe right hon. Gentleman has referred to an important report. It may be that further action ought to be taken in that sphere, but I cannot promise a debate before the Summer Recess.
§ Mr. SilvesterIn view of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 14 May, will my right Friend ensure that the view of the House is taken before the Government finally decide to renew the right of individual petition to the European Court in January next year?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI do not know what statement was made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 14 May. If it is an important constitutional matter, I shall take an early opportunity to discuss it with him.
Mr. James CallaghanThere are two issues that the Leader of the House has answered on which I should like to press him further. The first is public expenditure. May we take it that no decisions will be announced before the end of the Session? If so, which is what I inferred from his statement, may we also take it that no statements will be made during the recess, when it is not possible to debate them? I should be grateful for a further indication of the Government's thinking on that matter.
Secondly, it will be intolerable if the Government make a statement on the strategic nuclear deterrent without a debate. There has been insufficient debate about the important issues raised by this matter—the balance between our forces, whether we can afford it, what it should be, and so on. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government are to make a statement on this matter it is imperative that there shall be a debate so that the House can express its opinion, too.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThe Leader of the Opposition has raised hypothetical points. I have given no indication that there will be a statement on this matter. I have not ruled it out, but I certainly 763 have not ruled it in. The logical point at which to raise the question of a debate is if and when a statement is made. At present I have no plans for a debate on the subject. If a statement is made, the right hon. Gentleman can raise this point again.
With regard to the public expenditure review, I stick to what I said. This is a normal review, which takes place in all Governments at this time of the year.
Mr. CallaghanWith respect, the Leader of the House has not answered the question. A normal review is going on. I have known many years when statements have been made. [Hon. Members: "In July?"] In July, certainly, by Governments of both parties. There is nothing exceptional about it. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask that if a statement is not made before the House rises for the Summer Recess it shall not be made until the House has had a chance to debate the issue. The Government cannot just creep away into the recess and then make statements either on Polaris or on public expenditure and expect the House to be satisfied.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThe Government are not creeping away from anything. The right hon. Gentleman has made a point without validity. I have had no requests for statements on these matters. The review that is taking place within the Cabinet at this moment, which has not reached a final conclusion, is the normal review that is carried out at this time of the year.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.
§ Mr. KilfedderWhy cannot the Leader of the House give a clear assurance that the Government will arrange for a debate before a decision is taken to replace Polaris—a decision that would cost thousands of millions of pounds and perhaps have the gravest possible consequences for the people of this country?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasWe have had a debate on defence. I have had no application for a statement on nuclear policy.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisWill the Leader of the House, one day next week, look at 764 the daily worsening position of Members' correspondence being neglected by almost every Government Department? It now takes a couple of months to get an interim reply and three months to get a substantive reply to any ordinary question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, having waited for six weeks for an answer to a letter, I tabled a question and got a reply within 24 hours? If he does not do something, every hon. Member will be tabling questions asking for replies to corespondence.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI think that that point is being exaggerated by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI do not have to ask Members. They would tell me prettty quickly if the general situation were as bad as the hon. Gentleman contends. Practice varies from one Department to another, but I do not believe that it is the normal practice in any Department that there should be no interim reply for, I think the hon. Gentleman said, three months.
§ Mr. SheermanWill the Leader of the House assure us that there will be an early opportunity to debate women's employment as well as equal opportunities and the effect of modern technology on their employment? Many hon. Members have the experience that I have in my constituency, of modern technology sweeping away and eating into women's employment, especially that of young female school leavers. This is an urgent problem. In my constituency the ratio of young female school leavers to male school leavers is two to one. This is a growing problem. Surely it is time that the House concentrated its mind on the problems of women's employment.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI agree that it is a very important problem. The hon. Gentleman raised another aspect of the problem that was raised a few minutes ago. Important though it may be, I cannot promise a debate on this subject before the Summer Recess.
§ Mr. HooleyWill the Leader of the House give an assurance that there will be a full-scale debate before the Government proceed with any plans to build a fast-breeder reactor?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI cannot promise a debate on that subject before the Summer Recess.
§ Mr. WinnickWill there be an opportunity in Monday's debate for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a contribution, bearing in mind the remarks that he made to the Tory Reform Group over the weekend? Are not his remarks even more relevant when we recognise that unemployment is increasing not only in areas where there have been problems for some time but in the West Midlands and the Black Country, where unemployment and poverty have increased substantially since the Tories returned to office in May last year?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThe Government, through various Ministers, have expressed their concern about the present state of employment, but we have consistently maintained that until our policies have a chance of coming into operation we have to go through what I hope will be a temporary period of high unemployment.
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's desire, which I am sure is genuine, to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the debate on Monday. At present there are no plans for him to speak from the Front Bench in that debate. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman is interested in the exegesis of my right hon. Friend's words, he should write to him about it.
§ Mr. SoleyIs the Leader of the House aware of the growing anger on both sides of the Chamber about the Government's casual attitude to the crisis in our prisons? His answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) is totally unacceptable. There is a major crisis in our prisons. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that prior to the Whitsun Recess he told me that there would be a debate on this matter after that recess. We have been told that repeatedly. Friday has been mentioned. That shows the low priority that the Government are prepared to put upon the matter. When will they give us proper time for a debate on it.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThe fact that we have not had a debate earlier is a reflection of the importance that the Government attach to the report, because it has 766 been necessary to hold widespread discussions on this most important report. As I told the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), on this and other occasions, it is still my hope that we shall have a debate before the Summer Recess, but I cannot guarantee that it will not be on a Friday.
§ Mr. CryerWill the Leader of the House accept that the fact that the Opposition are devoting a great deal of their time to the subject of unemployment does not abrogate the Government's responsibility to provide time for a debate on the textile industry, which is still losing jobs at the rate of 500 a week? It is a very complicated position for the industry and it needs the individual attention and responsibility of a Minister answering to the House specifically on the textile industry.
Secondly, will the Leader of the House provide time before the Summer Recess to debate the Select Committee's report on the register of Members' interests? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, five hon. Members have not declared their interests, which makes it extremely unfair on the rest of us who have done so. The report has not yet been debated. The right hon. Gentleman has in the past indicated that he would provide time for such a debate. Perhaps if we debated that report and, as a result, some Tory Members divested themselves of their interests, we might have more jobs floating around.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasMy hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently had a meeting with representatives from the textile industry, which I understand was a satisfactory meeting. I repeat the Government's pledge that when the multi-fibre arrangement expires in 1981 we shall negotiate a further agreement to protect the textile industry's interests.
With regard to the register of Members' interests and the Select Committee report, I have been instrumental in securing the publication of the register, which the hon. Gentleman may have noted—
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThank you very much.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI am grateful for that solicited tribute. I cannot, however, promise an early debate upon the subject.
§ Mr. SkinnerOn the question of coordination of Government policy, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Prime Minister will make a statement on the recent remarks of the Secretary of State for Industry in America, on the one hand, when he said that it would be a good thing for American investors to come over here because we paid low wages, and, on the other hand, a fortnight after that, when he said that wages in Britain were too high and that that was one of the reasons for unemployment? May we have that matter clarified?
Secondly, will the Prime Minister ensure that with regard to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture that unemployment benefit is now running at a rate of £7,000 million, out of a public sector borrowing requirement of £9,000 million, and is too high a price to be paid for the efforts to squeeze inflation out of the economy, a statement will be made on the question whether that is Government policy, especially at a time when the Government are giving aid and comfort to the steel bosses to throw people out of work, such as the people at Consett, which is the height of economic lunacy and is thereby adding more to the expenditure needed for the dole queues?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasAfter that, I am clearer about the hon. Member's views on the matter than about the various speeches—
§ Mr. SkinnerThat is what the Secretary of State said.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasSo the hon. Member says, but I would require to see the text of these statements and to check them against the version that the hon. Member is giving. However, as the hon. Member knows, when Ministers speak in their official capacity they are speaking on behalf of the Government. They are setting forth Government policy and they speak for the Prime Minister as well as for other members of the Government.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that the House is anxious to move on. However, I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he had not received any request for a statement on the modernisation of the British nuclear deterrent. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good order, perhaps I may tell you, Mr. Speaker, that my question to the Leader of the House a few moments ago was precisely a request for such a statement.
§ Mr. St. John-Stevasrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That was a point of order.