§ 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:
TUESDAY 6 MAY—Consideration of a timetable motion on the Social Security (No. 2) Bill.
| Division No. 278] | AYES | [3.30 p.m. |
| NIL | ||
| TELLERS FOR THE AYES: | ||
| Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and | ||
| Mr. Reg Race. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Fisher, Sir Nigel | Marlow, Tony |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N) | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Alexander, Richard | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Marten, Neil (Banbury) |
| Ancram, Michael | Forman, Nigel | Mates, Michael |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) | Mather, Carol |
| Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East) | Freud, Clement | Mawby, Ray |
| Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) | Glyn, Dr Alan | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Goodhew, Victor | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch) |
| Beith, A. J. | Goodlad, Alastair | Moore, John |
| Bell, Sir Ronald | Gow, Ian | Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester) |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) | Grieve, Percy | Myles, David |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds) | Nelson, Anthony |
| Body, Richard | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Neubert, Michael |
| Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West) | Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Newton, Tony |
| Bradford, Rev. R. | Grist, Ian | Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham |
| Brittan, Leon | Grylls, Michael | Penhaligon, David |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Hannam, John | Percival, Sir Ian |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Hawkins, Paul | Pollock, Alexander |
| Bruce-Gardyne, John | Hayhoe, Barney | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Heath, Rt Hon Edward | Raison, Timothy |
| Buck, Antony | Heddle, John | Renton, Tim |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Butcher, John | Hill, James | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Butler, Hon Adam | Holland, Philip (Carlton) | Rost, Peter |
| Cadbury, Jocelyn | Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford) | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) | St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Scott, Nicholas |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn) | Hurd, Hon Douglas | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) |
| Chalker, Mrs. Lynda | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Channon, Paul | Jessel, Toby | Shersby, Michael |
| Chapman, Sydney | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Sims, Roger |
| Churchill, W. S. | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) |
| Clark, Sir William (Croydon South) | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Squire, Robin |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Knight, Mrs Jill | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Cope, John | Lamont, Norman | Stanley, John |
| Costain, A. P. | Lang, Ian | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Latham, Michael | Steen, Anthony |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lawrence, Ivan | Stevens, Martin |
| Dunn, Robert (Dartford) | Lee, John | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Dykes, Hugh | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Tapsell, Peter |
| Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke) | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Taylor, Teddy (Southend East) |
| Eggar, Timothy | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Elliott, Sir William | Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo) | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret |
| Emery, Peter | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) |
| Eyre, Reginald | Lyell, Nicholas | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | McCrindle, Robert | Waddington, David |
| Faith, Mrs Sheila | MacGregor, John | Wakeham, John |
| Farr, John | MacKay, John (Argyll) | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury) | Wall, Patrick |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) | Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage) |
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI spy strangers. I spy strangers.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasRemaining stages of the Port of London (Financial Assistance)—
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI spy strangers. I spy strangers.
§ Notice being taken that strangers were present, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 157.
| Whitelaw, Rt Hon William | Wolfson, Mark | |
| Whitney, Raymond | Young, Sir George (Acton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Wilkinson, John | Younger, Rt Hon George | Mr. Spencer Le Ma[...] |
| Winterton, Nicholas | Mr. Anthony Berry. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasAs I was saying, Mr. Speaker—to continue with Tuesday's business: Remaining stages of the Port of London (Financial Assistance) Bill.
§ Motion on the Local Loans (Increase of Limit) Order.
§ WEDNESDAY 7 MAY—Debate on a motion to take note of the Government's expenditure plans, 1980–81 to 1983–84, (Cmnd. 7841).
§ Motions on the Southern Rhodesia (Sanctions) (Amnesty) Order and on the Zimbabwe (Independence and Membership of the Commonwealth) (Consequential Provisions) Order.
§ THURSDAY 8 MAY—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
§ Consideration of the Instruction to Standing Committee D on the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill.
§ FRIDAY 9 MAY—Private Members' motions.
§ MONDAY 12 MAY—Until 7 p.m. consideration of Private Members' motions. Afterwards, Second Reading of the Gas Bill.
§ It may be for the convenience of the House to know that it will be proposed that the Whitsun Adjournment should be from Friday 23 May to Monday 2 June.
§ Mr. FootLeaving aside the rest of the proposed business and coming back to the timetable motion proposed by the right hon. Member for Tuseday 6 May, does he not appreciate that that proposal by the Government for dealing with the Bill is bound to give rise to extremely bitter feelings on the Opposition Benches? Does he think that there is any possible excuse for having a timetable motion on a Bill that is only in its second week, that has had two all-night sittings, that is to be discussed again at 4.30 this afternoon, and on which there has not been obstruction?
Of course, there is bound to be lengthy debate on a Bill of such importance, which cuts benefits and interferes with the rights of people throughout the 1622 country. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any excuse whatsoever for introducing this timetable motion on this Bill in this manner?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasIt hardly lies in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to complain about guillotines, since we recall that he set an all-time record in this matter by introducting five guillotines on one day—20 July 1976. There is a further precedent in 1966, also by the Labour Government supported by the right hon. Gentleman. The Selective Employment Payments Bill was guillotined by that Government after the Second Reading—before the Committee stage.
Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I have had the advantage of being present at quite a number of the sittings of the Committee and I have seen the progress that has been made. After nearly 40 sitting hours the Committee is only halfway through one clause, with only nine groups of amendments tabled. There have been 15 Opposition speeches of half an hour each There have been three Opposition Front Bench speeches of over an hour each, two of which I heard, from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). There were five hours on a sittings motion and one and a half hours of points of order. Surely it is clear that the Opposition have no intention of making reasonable progress on the Bill.
§ Mr. FootThe right hon. Gentleman has quoted the five timetable motions that I introduced on a single occasion. Can he give me the name of any one of those Bills on which the time for debate was as short as that which he is proposing?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasIt is likely that there will be up to 70 sitting hours on the Bill. So far we have had 40 sitting hours. We shall probably have another 30 hours. Seventy hours for a six-clause Bill is not unreasonable.
§ Sir William ClarkWill the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service be available to hon. Members before the public expenditure debate on Wednesday?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasAs my hon. Friend knows, we arranged this debate at such a point that it would be possible for the report of the Select Committee to be available. It should be available in the Vote Office at noon tomorrow, and the evidence should be available on Tuesday.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising, before we move on to the next business.
§ Mr. William HamiltonOn the guillotine motion, is the Leader of the House aware that the Social Security (No. 2) Bill is the first Bill in 50 years that deliberately sets out to cut national insurance benefits? Is he further aware that on the first sitting the Minister in charge of the Bill created a precedent by initially moving a sittings motion providing for three afternoon sittings—Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday—openended from 4.30 onwards, and that on no occasion in the course of the proceedings has a closure motion been moved on a major debate?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThere are precedents for sittings motions of that character. In fact, benefits will be increased. It is the rate of increase that is reduced.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyWill my right hon. Friend arrange to have a debate next week or the week after—perhaps on 14 May—on bank holidays and other national days off? Is he aware that we need to discuss, first, whether May Day should remain the first Monday in May or should come back towards St. George's Day, or some other more suitable day? Secondly, the House should be able to discuss the " day of action" and to discover why trade union leaders suggest that their members are all in favour of such action when every piece of available evidence indicates that the vast majority of trade unionists are utterly opposed to it.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the major mistake that was made by my predecessor, the late Mr. Crossman, was the substitution of a secular bank holiday for the traditional Christian Whitsun. One option that might be investigated is a return to the old arrangements, which were much more acceptable.
§ Mr. Greville JannerIn view of the report of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the expected increase in child abuse and child battering in the deepening recession, will there be time for a debate on these problems, especially having regard to the need of the society for funds and the need of local authorities for more resources to deal with the problems, which are getting so much worse?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with any connection between these two events. The House should debate social matters from time to time, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to an important report. I shall consider what he suggests and whether it can be fitted into the context of a general social affairs debate.
§ Mr. FauldsAs Diego Garcia comes under British sovereignty, and as its use by foreign forces, for whatever purposes, must have the agreement of Her Majesty's Government, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for somebody more responsible than me Prime Minister to make a definitive statement?
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall be giving a ruling on this issue at the end of the statements.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI drink that the essence of the reply made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when this issue was raised earlier was precisely to state the Government's responsibility. It is rather irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman to attempt to raise the matter again.
§ Mr. RaceIs the Leader of the House aware that in Standing Committee B on the Social Security (No. 2) Bill the Government have been introducing amendments to cut benefits because they forgot to put those provisions in the original Bill? Does not that make a mockery of the guillotine motion that will be put before the House next Tuesday?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI have dealt with the point of substance on cuts. It is normal for any Bill that goes into Committee to be subject to amendment by both the Government and the Opposition.
§ Mr. DubsIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that on at least two occasions m recent weeks Ministers have refused to commit themselves on policy issues on the ground that Select Committees were considering the same issues? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a chance to consider the implications of Ministers taking that course? If Ministers are to refuse to answer questions because Select Committees are in existence, the position of Back Benchers who are not members of Select Committees will be considerably weakened.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThe hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting matter. Naturally a number of problems are arising from these new institutions, which on the whole have been working highly successfully. If the hon. Gentleman draws particular instances to my attention I shall investigate them and take them up with the Ministers concerned.
§ Mr. SoleyIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who are unhappy about the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department yesterday on prisons, which leaves at risk many of our prisoners and prison staff? When can we have a debate on this urgent matter?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasSome hon. Members may not have been totally satisfied, but I think that a large number were extremely pleased at the progress that my right hon. Friend was able to announce in a difficult financial and economic period. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right that we should have a full debate on the vital subject of our prisons. I hope to be able to provide time for a debate. That will be not next week but after we return from the Whitsun Recess.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I propose to call the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) after I have called those who had risen before I said that I was drawing the line for further questions. I 1626 shall call the hon. Gentleman at the end of questions on the business statement.
§ Mr. Christopher PriceMay we have a debate on the Government's recently issued Green Paper on processions and the criteria under which they might be banned? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents were subjected to great inconvenience and affront by the National Front a fortnight ago? Is he further aware that it is absurd that the taxpayers should have to pay millions of pounds on such events throughout the year? We are grateful to the Government for making various suggestions about banning processions on the grounds of inconvenience, affront and cost, but may we debate the issue as soon as possible?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. It is an issue that raises important questions of public order and important constitutional questions on freedom. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked for replies and comments on his Green Paper. I think that the time for a debate will be after the replies have been received, and when he has had time to consider them.
§ Mr. SkinnerWould it not be a more sensible course for the Leader of the House not to introduce a guillotine motion on the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, especially at a time when I believe that consultations are taking place between civil servants of the National Coal Board and some Ministers on the effect that the Bill will have on the miners' voluntary retirement scheme, which I assume was supported by all parties and accepted by the Government? It will also have a special effect on pneumoconiotics. Surely it would be more sensible for all the negotiations to take place—especially the ones that I have mentioned—before a guillotine is introduced on such an important and vicious Bill.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThe most desirable outcome would have been to reach an agreement with the Opposition through the usual channels to discuss the Bill in an orderly way. If we could have done that we would have avoided the need for a guillotine.
§ Mr. Kenneth LewisI am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I was not in my place 1627 when you made your announcement. What is happening to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, which is apparently to be separated into two Bills? Does my right hon. Friend expect to get both through the House?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThe Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill is still in Committee. I announced today that on Thursday consideration will be given to an Instruction to the Committee to enable one of the clauses to be considered as a priority to assist with the new towns' borrowing requirement. Following that, the Bill will proceed in the normal way. It is for the convenience of the House that it is being dealt with as I have described.
§ Mr. OrmeI take up the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on consultations with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the manner in which the Government are conducting the Social Securtiy (No. 2) Bill removes the chance for proper consultation? Indeed, the Secretary of State for Social Services has refused to see any outside body, including the TUC, until consideration of the Bill in Committee has been completed. I think that this is unique in our parliamentary history.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI obviously treat with great attention anything that the right hon. Gentleman says on this subject. However, I do not think that he is quite right in saying that consultations cannot take place, or that my right hon. Friend has excluded them. I was in Committee. I heard what he said. When hon. Gentlemen were not speaking I was able to listen to one or two other people. As I understood it, my right hon. Friend said that he could not see them all directly, but he did not exclude seeing them. He hoped to fit them in, as he could, in his busy schedule.