Business of the House

HC Deb 30 July 1981 vol 9 cc1165-71

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

Will the Leader of the House state the business for the week after the recess?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym)

Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Adjournment is expected to be as follows:

MONDAY 19 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 20 OCTOBER —Remaining stages of the Companies (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 21 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords messages which may be received.

Motion relating to the Hereford and Worcester Trial Area Order.

THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords messages which may be received.

Motion relating to the Education (Scotland) Lothian Regional Council's Transfer Scheme 1980.

FRIDAY 23 OCTOBER—Proceedings on the following four consolidation measures: Acquisition of Land Bill [Lords]; Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Bill [Lords]; New Towns Bill [Lords]; Trustee Savings Bank Bill [Lords].

Motions on European Community documents 9361/80 on micro-electronic technology, 5682/80 on marketing and use of certain dangerous substances, and 9953/80 on protection of workers from asbestos.

It is expected, Mr. Speaker, that the new Session will be opened on Wednesday 4 November.

[The following reports of the European Legislation Committee are relevant to the debates on European Community documents on Friday 23 October:

Micro-electronic technology: 25th report, 1980–81, HC 32-xxv para. 3.

Asbestos: 38th report, 1979–80, HC 159–xxxviii, para. 1; 8th report, 1980–81, HC 32-viii para. 1; 23rd report, 1980–81, HC 32-xxiii para. 6; 25th report, 1980–81, HC-32-xxv para. 2.]

Mr. Foot

I shall put four matters to the right hon. Gentleman, some of which I have raised with him before. One is the question of the incidents in Brixton of a week or two ago. Will there be a statement before we rise? The matter has caused considerable concern. I intimated to the right hon. Gentleman last week that we should have a statement before the House departed.

Secondly, we had exchanges about the Vale of Belvoir last week. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us absolute confirmation that the statement should be made in the House and that we should have a decision in the House. We do not want an announcement made during the recess which binds us in any way. I do not need to stress how strong the feeling is in the Opposition about the importance of the matter for the country as a whole.

Thirdly, there; is the question of the BBC external services. There was a debate at a late hour on the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman has studied the reports of that debate, as I am sure he must have done, he will realise how strong is the feeling on that subject, too. Can he give us an assurance that no cuts will be imposed before the House of Commons can decide the matter by its own vote?

Finally, I come to the question of unemployment, which is the greatest domestic issue facing the country.

The next unemployment figures will be announced on 25 August and 22 September. It seems probable that those figures will be moving towards the 3 million mark by 25 August. With the House departing this week, I give the Leader of the House notice that we shall look at those figures and that we shall make our representations to the Government at the time. It is probable that the proper way for the House to deal with the matter would be for it to be recalled to discuss the figures.

Mr. Pym

With regard to the events in Brixton and the inquiry instituted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend is not yet able to make a statement. When he can make a statements he will do so publicly if the House has risen. As the Leader of the Opposition will no doubt be aware, the Home Secretary has spoken to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) today. They have discussed the position, which is understood between the two sides.

I am not able to add anything to what I said last week about the Vale of Belvoir. The right hon. Gentleman said that the decision should be made in the House. That will not happen before we rise tomorrow, for the simple reason that my right hon. Friend has not yet reached a decision. As he has been otherwise engaged, as everyone knows, for the last week, it is not surprising that he has made no further progress on the matter of the Vale of Belvoir. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if my right hon. Friend comes to a conclusion during the Summer Recess it may be appropriate for him to make a public announcement about it. Indeed, it might be wrong if he did not. I am not saying that my right hon. Friend will make a statement in the recess; I am simply saying that if he reaches a conclusion in the recess it may be appropriate for him to make a public announcement then.

I do not think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he wants about the BBC external services. The Government have taken a policy decision. However, I said that I would take into account the views expressed in the House when we debated the matter. The debate took place last week, and various views were expressed—hostile views as well as views in support of the Government. We shall take into account those views as well as the views that will be expressed in a debate in another place today. I cannot give an absolute undertaking that the matter will be put to the House of Commons for a decision. That is not a normal procedure. However, we shall take into account the views that have been expressed.

Finally, on the important matter of unemployment—I agree that it is important—again, I cannot promise a debate in Government time in the overspill. We had a debate in Government time on Monday, arising, I know, out of the censure motion put down by the Leader of the Opposition. We have had a couple of debates in recent months in Government time, apart from debates in time provided by the Opposition. I cannot give an undertaking, but when we return after the recess we shall review the situation through the usual channels. I do not think that it would be right to give an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Foot

We shall wait for the announcement on unemployment—the most important matter of all.

As for the BBC external services and the Vale of Belvoir, it is incorrect for the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is not normal for the House of Commons to decide such matters by a vote. The way in which this place works is that, if the Opposition wish, they have a chance to table these matters to be settled by a vote. We want the opportunity to do that before action is taken on either matter. In saying that, we are representing the views not merely of the Opposition but of Conservative Members, and we are certainly representing widespread opinion throughout the country—the widespread opinion of anyone who has taken any notice of what has happened to the external services. Anyone who imagines that the Vale of Belvoir does not command great public interest is making a big mistake.

The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone how dispositions are made in the House. They are made so that the Opposition have time to put down such matters. The normal procedure is that we should have the chance to settle matters that we regard as important by a vote before action is taken on them.

Mr. Pym

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the Opposition having an opportunity to put down a motion on which the House can vote. That is undoubtedly an opportunity that is available to the Opposition and, if the right hon. Gentleman decides to take it, it is entirely a matter for him. I was responding on the basis that he was asking me to provide Government time for a debate, and I was not willing to give such an undertaking. If he chooses to use some of his time on that basis, that is a matter for him.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

What are all the Bills that the Prime Minister says are jostling for a place in the parliamentary timetable? Have not the Government legislated enough? Have they come to believe that old fallacy that extensive legislation cures national ills?

Mr. Pym

We must await the contents of the Queen's Speech. There is a strange desire in some quarters for Bills to be produced, and a remarkable degree of resistance in other quarters by those in favour of fewer Bills.

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

Will my right hon. Friend consider, if not next week, at least before he makes his next Business Statement, that Conservative Back Benchers—indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House—are strongly in favour of decreased, rather than increased, legislation? He would become a famous Leader of the House if he could arrange for a Queen's Speech announcing very little legislation.

Mr. Pym

I should like that myself. I managed to reduce the legislative programme this Session, and I think that hon. Members have been somewhat appreciative. I shall not turn over a new leaf on that; I shall stay on the leaf that I am already on.

Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked for a debate on unemployment as soon as we return from the recess. Unemployment has doubled during this Parliament. We shall be in recess for the whole of August and September. Surely October is late enough as it is for a debate, and we should have it as soon as we return and before the start of the new Session. If that is not understood, there will be a demand for the recall of Parliament if unemployment goes beyond 3 million.

Mr. Pym

It would not be right to give an undertaking about a debate in the first week when we return. There will be opportunities to debate this important subject. I was saying only that I was not prepared to give the undertaking for which the Leader of the Opposition asked.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, West)

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that an early opportunity will be given to debate the forthcoming Commonwealth conference in Melbourne in the autumn, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to attend? I particularly hope that he will do so if high on the agenda is the Gleneagles agreement, the results of the discussion of which could have far-reaching effects on international sportsmen throughout the world.

Mr. Pym

I shall keep those representations in mind.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

When we return after the recess, will the Leader of the Opposition give pride of place to early-day motion 511 entitled "An alternative strategy for jobs"? The motion deals with the questions of early retirement at 60, on a scheme similar to that introduced for miners, a 35-hour week, legislation on overtime, public sector wages, restoring cuts in public expenditure, longer holidays and so on.

[That this House believes that, in order to help reduce the ever rapidly increasing levels of unemployment, steps need to be taken to initiate massive public sector works, including housing construction, to speed up infrastructure projects, especially rail maintenance and electrification, sewers and canals rehabilitation and other major capital works, to restore cuts in public expenditure, to reduce the working week to 35 hours with legislation to limit the level of overtime, to create longer holidays and earlier retirement, to introduce school grants for 16 to 19-year-olds, and to increase substantially the £23.50 paid to those on work experience projects and thereby to present a sensible work-for-all alternative to the clapped-out monetarist policy as preached by the Government but not now practised with the same enthusiasm.]

If by then, after the Tory Party conference, the Leader of the House has replaced the Prime Minister, he will be in a much stronger position to accept this request.

Mr. Pym

That question was evidently addressed to the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to use some of his time for the hon. Gentleman's purpose, no doubt he will do so.

Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

In the first week when we return, or as soon as possible thereafter, may we have a debate on the state of the nation, bearing in mind the joyous events of yesterday, which if translated into our economic life could entirely transform the state of the country?

Mr. Pym

In a sense, the debate on the Queen's Speech is in itself a debate addressed to the state of the nation.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that a statement will be made as early as possible on the future of the gas-gathering pipeline in the North Sea and the Moss Morran project, which are critical for the United Kingdom economy as a whole? Will the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that there will be an early opportunity when we return, in the overspill period, for a debate on the Treasury response—an inadequate response—to the Public Accounts Committee report on the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Pym

I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy the hon. Gentleman's views about his first point, the importance of which I appreciate. I think that there will be an opportunity in the next Session for a debate on the Select Committee report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I believe that it will be a strong candidate for a day's debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it should have the attention of the House.

Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 570, signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, relating to world starvation?

[That this House supports the manifesto of the 54 Nobel Prize winners calling for immediate international action to combat mass starvation in the Third world.]

If my right hon. Friend cannot give an assurance that there will be a debate on the motion before the Mexico summit, will he at least ensure that the urgency of this aspect of relations with the Third world is properly seized by Ministers before the delegation leaves for Mexico City?

Mr. Pym

There have been recent opportunities to debate the subject—on the Brandt report and on the Consolidated Fund Bill. No doubt there will be other opportunities when we return.

Mr. Kenneth Marks (Manchester, Gorton)

As the Secretary of State for the Environment will not report back from Liverpool until after the House has risen, will the Government urgently consider the heavy costs that county councils such as Manchester and Merseyside face for additional police activity and the compensation for damage? Will the Government consider applying the same system to help those authorities as the Department for the Environment uses for flood and storm damage?

Mr. Pym

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is important, and the Government are currently considering that difficult matter.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

If, by chance, my right hon. Friend is asked to bring us back before the due date, will he choose the time very carefully indeed, and may I help him by suggesting that he might bring us back in the middle of the Labour Party conference, because Labour Members will not have much to do there as it will not take much notice of them and they may as well be here?

Mr. Pym

I note my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion, but I would not wish to cause too much disappointment to too many people.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

With unemployment at its highest level since the 1930s, and with the crisis in inner city areas, is there not a strong case for us to come back before the beginning of October? Bearing in mind the crisis, why should we break up for a long period?

Mr. Pym

We are breaking up for the period that we decided to break up for because the House has reached that conclusion.

Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire)

When the House resumes, may we have an opportunity to debate early-day motion 368 on cheque book journalism—

[That this House, deploring recent examples of cheque book journalism, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation making such practices illegal so that once again crime will be seen not to pay.]—

and particularly the amendment standing in my name—

[Line 1, after 'journalism', add 'and in particular condemns the payment of £50 to Susan Ettles for her contribution to an article about skinheads and for the anxiety and distress caused to her widowed mother who lives in Scotland and who had no knowledge of the matter'.]?

Is my right hon. Friend aware: that the articles in the Daily Mirror and the Daily Record have brought considerable distress to a constituent of mine who had no knowledge of the matter concerning skinheads and her daughter?

Mr. Pym

I note my hon. Friend's request. I shall keep it in mind, but it may be that he will have to find his own opportunity on a private Member's basis to debate that subject.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)

The Leader of the House will be aware that in the early hours of yesterday morning the House was debating certain important matters relating to the steel industry. However, is he aware that, in the course of that debate, his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) alleged that the EEC Commission was threatening to withhold large capital sums that the Government had already authorised unless; the British Steel Corporation's steel-making capacity was reduced by a further million tonnes, and that that allegation appears to be confirmed by reports in the press; this morning? Will he, therefore, ask the Secretary of State for Industry to come to the House tomorrow to make a clear statement that there is no intention whatsoever of further cutting back the steel industry with the loss of tens of thousands of jobs?

Mr. Pym

I do not believe that a statement tomorrow would be appropriate. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is subject to negotiation by my right hon. Friend and the Commission, and, frankly, the Government are not unhopeful about the outcome.

Mr. Stanley Newens (Harlow)

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that 178 hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed early-day motion 569, which deals with the plight of glasshouse growers?

[That this House, alarmed at the increasingly unfair competition faced by the British glasshouse growers as the result of escalating energy prices, which have completely erased the advantages of providing the subsidy on oil, and the failure over a number of years of the European Economic Community to equalise fuel costs between the glasshouse industries of different countries, calls upon the British Government to take immediate action to offset the substantial financial advantages enjoyed by Dutch producers as the result of access to gas at artificially low prices.]

As we are unlikely to have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on that important subject before the House rises, will the right hon. Gentleman draw the matter to his right hon. Friend's attention and ensure that, as soon as the House returns, we shall have an opportunity to raise it in the House? Does he accept that it is of vital importance to those people, who are mainly small business men—about whom the Government are pledged to do something—and their employees?

Mr. Pym

Yes, Sir. I am able to respond with great sympathy. I have a number of glasshouse growers in my constituency, as do many other hon. Members. It is a serious situation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done as much as he possibly could, but he realises the competitive difficulties of glasshouse growers. He is doing everything that he can, and I am sure that he will be returning to the subject in the autumn.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

Is the Leader of the House aware that the multi-fibre arrangement renegotiations will enter a serious phase in October-November, which is about the time when the House reassembles, and that in textile areas like mine we already have an increase in unemployment of 183 per cent. since the Tory Government came to office? Is he further aware that many people are, therefore, deeply apprehensive about the outcome of the MFA renegotiation and it is important for the confidence of the industry that it should properly be renegotiated? Can he reassure us that any developments will be reported to the House in the form of a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade at the earliest opportunity, as I am sure that he recognises that such a statement is wanted by both sides of the House?

Mr. Pym

I shall convey those views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I was glad to be able to make a day available to debate the subject before the negotiations proper began, and I have no doubt that there will be continued interest in it when we return from the recess.

Mr. John Browne (Winchester)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the potentially largest, fastest growing and most lucrative industries is that of video text or home information technology, and that Great Britain could well be one of the leaders in the industry but that it is fast falling behind? Is he prepared to give a day to debate the subject in the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Pym

I cannot give that undertaking, but the subject is obviously a possible candidate, although, again, it may have to be in private Members' time. However, if we can find Government time, all the better.

Mr. Bill Walker

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the debate on 21 July, when the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) alleged that the Dundee chamber of commerce had issued a statement concerning myself. The chamber has since written to him stating that it never issued such a statement and asking him to withdraw the remarks that appear in col. 246 of the Official Report. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman, and he kindly informed me that he would be unable to be here today but that he hopes to deal with the matter when the House resumes. However, I felt that that was too long to leave the matter, so I wish to place it on record.

Mr. Speaker

No doubt we shall hear more about it.