Business of the House

HC Deb 11 June 1981 vol 6 cc548-54

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 15 JUNE—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Debate on the problems of the North-West region.

Motion on EEC documents 4318/79 and 9175/80 on food aid management.

TUESDAY 16 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Contempt of Court Bill [Lords].

Debate on the report of an inter-party group on the Government of Scotland and on motions relating to amendments to Standing Orders for Scottish business.

WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on an opposition motion on the Monopolies Commission report on domestic gas appliances, followed by a debate on an Opposition motion on the Armitage report on lorries, people and the environment.

Remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 18 JUNE—Debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 19 JUNE—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 22 JUNE—Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill.

I think that it will help the House if I say that formal notice of the introduction of the Representation of the People Bill will be given today for presentation and publication tomorrow. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House and a courtesy to the House to be aware of this proposed legislation at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Foot

May I put three matters to the right hon. Gentleman? First, when may we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment about his breach of faith in compulsorily transferring housing from the GLC to the London boroughs? We demanded a statement about the matter a short while ago and we are still awaiting that statement. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make arrangements for that to happen. We regard the Secretary of State's honour as being involved.

Secondly, I ask for a clear assurance that we shall have a full day's debate on the Mexico summit meeting, in Government time and in good time for the issue to be properly debated. It seems that the Government's consideration of the issue may not take place until after the House has gone into recess in the summer. That would be unsatisfactory. We ask for an absolute assurance. We feel that the Government have not provided the Opposition with the time that they should have given us to debate the Armitage report. We have had to give up some of our time to enable the House to reach a decision on the report. The Government should have provided the time, and should have done so in good time. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that we shall have a full day's debate prior to the preparations being made for the Mexico summit meeting.

Thirdly—the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I return to this issue, as I have to return to it week after week because the Government consistently fail to provide time for the House to discuss the major domestic problem facing the country—I take up again the curse of unemployment and the Government's apparent readiness to accept the continual increase in unemployment. In a speech this week the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he believes that the underlying economic situation means that unemployment will continue to increase. Let him provide the debate that he should have provided next week. He could provide a debate the week after next. We shall debate the Representation of the People Bill—which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing for the week after next—when it is presented to the House, but we are doubtful whether the Government are wise to proceed with such a measure. We think that it would be much better for the House to debate unemployment, including unemployment in Northern Ireland, which is extremely serious.

Mr. Pym

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, as I said I would before the Whitsun Recess, I have had a discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Having gone into the matter, I can say that what my right hon. Friend did was regular and not, as alleged by the Leader of the Opposition, irregular. I do not intend that a statement should be made about that.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I entirely agree about the importance of the Mexico summit. The Government recognise the widespread concern in the House about the prospects for developing countries. We are approaching the Mexico summit in a thoroughly constructive spirit. However, the preparations are still at a preliminary stage. I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman the debate for which he asks, but I shall take careful note of the representations that he makes.

We are grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for providing time for a debate on the Armitage report. When he last raised the matter with me I said that the Government were still considering representations received. That is still the position.

On the important matter of unemployment, I assure the right hon. Gentleman yet again that I have not ignored his representations. He raises a request on a most important matter. We could have had a debate next Thursday, but I thought that in view of the strong representations for a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement it was right to provide a Government day for that before the issue is discussed in Europe on Monday 22 June. Therefore, I could not postpone the debate any further. I cannot provide a day in Government time next week, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman, as I did last week, that I am keeping that possibility much in mind.

Mr. Foot

Of course we are in favour of the debate on the multi-fibre arrangement. I am glad that the Government have provided some time for that. The right hon. Gentleman's answers on the three other matters were unsatisfactory.

Time and again we have discussed providing Government time for debates on unemployment, which is becoming increasingly serious. We are now fobbed off with another suggestion, that the right hon. Gentleman may be looking at the matter afresh. We want the Government to provide time in the House to discuss the greatest domestic issue facing the country. If the Cabinet is having a discussion next week, all the more reason for having a debate in the House.

With regard to the two other questions, I tell the right hon. Gentleman now that it would be unsatisfactory for us to drift into the summer with the Government going off to the Mexico summit meeting without having had a debate here. We do not trust the Government on that subject, as on most others. They have not shown much enthusiasm. Their early reception of the Brandt report did not encourage anyone to believe that they were taking the matter seriously. It is probably only because of the pressure and the important lobby that took place that a change of mind is occurring. The House of Commons has the right to have a debate on that subject.

As for the first question, the right hon. Gentleman has left us with no alternative. We shall have to seek our own time for a motion of censure on the Secretary of State for the Environment, because we believe that his honour was involved and that anyone who studies the facts must come to that conclusion.

Mr. Pym

The right hon. Gentleman protests a little too much. I provided a Government day on unemployment—I know that it was a long time ago. I do not believe that the response that I gave today or last week could be described as fobbing off. I thought that it was helpful. In the business that I have announced for next week I have provided a day for a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement. Therefore, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is being rather unreasonable about the way in which I am trying to help the whole House to make the best use of the time available.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

Is the Leader of the House aware that the only justification for the Bill that he has announced, which amends the Representation of the People Act, is the emergency and exceptional situation in Northern Ireland, which we accept? However, the principle is an unhappy one. Does he accept that that has arisen only because of the Government's refusal to countenance legislation for an electoral system in Northern Ireland that is the same as the one that we legislated for the local elections and Euro-elections in the Province?

Mr. Pym

That is an important matter. It arose because, when the law was adjusted in 1967, no one foresaw what the consequences could be in certain circumstances. What is in our minds is the serious situation in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is right about that. The Government have given the most careful and deepest consideration to that difficult problem. Tomorrow, when the Bill is published, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see what it proposes to do.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I propose to allow these questions to continue until 4 o'clock, because there is an important statement to follow and it is a Supply day, which I know is of considerable concern to the House.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

Is the Leader of the House aware that there will be widespread support for the Representation of the People Bill, which he has just announced. I assure him that, in accordance with our understanding, I shall be prepared to consider withdrawing my House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill to facilitate Government legislation to protect the electoral processes against farcical exploitation.

Mr. Pym

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. We gave an undertaking to him that before a certain date when his Bill might come before the House we would make an announcement. The details will be made public tomorrow.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for finding time for a debate next week on the renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement. There is no doubt that he has responded to the strong feelings on both sides of the House and has thus enabled hon. Members representing textile and clothing constituencies to make representations to the Government before the important meeting on 23 June.

Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange for a member of the Government to make a statement in the House on an initiative to try to find a peaceful settlement to the problems of Namibia—South-West Africa—and perhaps put forward a Proposition that a group of nations, including the United Kingdom, United States, Europe, Yugoslavia and Kenya might supervise elections there? Does he agree that the stability and the non-Communist control of that part of the world are essential to the West and to the United Kingdom in particular?

Mr. Pym

I am glad that it was possible to make arrangements for the debate on the multi-fibre arrangement next week. I shall discuss my hon. Friend's second point with my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. Speaker

As there is a time limit, I hope that we can have brief questions.

Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney and Poplar)

The Leader of the House will know that there is an exceptional meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is attending today, to discuss the extent of unemployment in Europe and the lack of action of European Governments so far. Will he make certain that his right hon. and learned Friend makes a statement to the House when he returns to London?

Mr. Pym

I shall convey that request to my right hon. and learned Friend and discuss the matter with him.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

My right hon. Friend will have noted that when the Leader of the Opposition was rather excited he attacked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for not providing time for a debate on unilateral nuclear disarmament. He will also have noticed that the subject for debate today has been selected by the Opposition. Will he tell us whether the Leader of the Opposition has thought of providing time for a debate on unilateral nuclear disarmament?

Mr. Pym

I do not know whether he has done so. He has not asked me for such a debate this afternoon. We had a debate on nuclear matters fairly recently. During the past 18 months the Government have given time to that subject. Therefore, it is open to the Opposition to choose that subject for one of their days, if they so wish.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

Is the Leader of the House aware that during discussions on the Scotland Bill my colleague and I were frequently reminded that Great Britain was a unitary State? The business announced for Monday is entitled "Problems of the North-West Region", so should I have the privilege of making the opening speech? Will the right hon. Gentleman in future arrange that problems in those areas are referred to as problems either of the British Midlands or of the North-West of England?

Mr. Pym

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is the Opposition's prerogative and right to choose the title of the debate, but I am sure that his contribution will be extremely welcome.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) premature moving of a writ by the that necessitated the Representation of the People Bill? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, whether the voting system is in the form of proportional representation or single transferable vote, a majority is always a majority? Will all the stages of the Bill be taken on Monday week? If not, what time limit will be set on discussion?

Mr. Pym

I agree that a majority is a majority, whatever the system. I have announced a full day until 10 o'clock for the Second Reading on Monday week. In a subsequent Business Statement I shall announce the subsequent stages of the Bill.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Is it not time that we had a statement or a debate on the Government's scandalous treatment of nurses and ambulance men? Why should those who look after the safety of others, such as firemen and ambulance men, have a rigid pay increase imposed on them of only 6 or 7 per cent., especially when the Government's mandate from the electorate was not to introduce a pay policy? Why cannot nurses and ambulance men be treated like policemen, who received 21 per cent.?

Mr. Pym

The hon. Gentleman may have helped you this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, but I am not sure whether he has helped me. All that I can say is that negotiations on nurses' pay are in progress.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on public health statutory instrument 1981/665, against which a prayer has been tabled by Opposition Members? Is he aware that the matter concerns gipsies in London and the peripheral counties, which is an urgent problem and which worries my county council and others adjacent to London?

Mr. Pym

I cannot find time next week, but I shall consider my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire)

When the Bill on the Canadian constitution comes before the House, will all stages be taken on the Floor of the House, as is normal with such Bills, and will there be a free vote, without the Government imposing a three-line Whip and attempting to bulldoze an important measure through an unwilling House?

Mr. Pym

At this stage in the proceedings, any aspect of a Canadian Bill or the possibility thereof remains entirely speculative.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline)

When will the Secretary of State for Defence conclude his survey and, instead of making speeches to Conservative Back Benchers, tell the House what the future defence policy will be? Is he aware that those of us with dockyard constituencies are very worried?

Mr. Pym

My right hon. Friend has said publicly that he intends to make a statement in July. I have no reason to suppose that there is any change in that.

Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford)

In view of the Prime Minister's stubborn refusal to allow the Civil Service pay dispute to go to independent arbitration, will the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for a debate so that we can discuss the Government's hyprocrisy and moral bankruptcy, which have allowed Ministers to receive pay awards of up to 136 per cent. in a catching-up exercise and yet refuse to allow civil servants their modest claim?

Mr. Pym

The debate last Friday would appear to show that the hon. Gentleman's comparison is not accurate, but, however that may be, I cannot find time for a debate next week. I remind him that earlier this week we had a statement in the House and in another place about the current state of play in this unfortunate dispute.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer (Batley and Morley)

Will the Leader of the House reconsider the matter, as statements on the dispute have not helped? Is he aware that sharp remarks that have been made have highlighted the lack of awareness in the Government—including the Prime Minister—of the strength of feeling in the Civil Service—a feeling that goes far beyond militants, to a wide spectrum of civil servants who are appalled that their pay agreements and arbitration rights have been torn up by their employer? May the House properly debate the matter so that the public and civil servants can hear a full and fair debate of issues crucial to the nation, which faces the first Civil Service strike since 1926?

Mr. Pym

I regret that I cannot respond in the way that the hon. Gentleman hopes.

Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)

Does the Leader of the House accept that, apart from the nuclear arms race, world poverty is the most serious problem facing mankind? With both sides of the House supporting the Brandt report, may we debate it before the Mexico summit?

Mr. Pym

We have already provided time to debate the report. I believe that it was one day in our time and one in Opposition time. I note the Opposition's representations.

Mr. John Smith (Lanarkshire, North)

The Leader of the House announced the Supply day debate on the Monopolies Commission report on domestic gas appliances. The House is anxious to know whether the Government will reach a decision on the report before or during the debate, or whether they will wait until after. Can the right hon. Gentleman help us on that now, or before the debate begins?

Mr. Pym

I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman now, but no doubt the matter will be raised during the debate.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Ormskirk)

When will we have an opportunity to debate the important proposals of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure and the reactionary suggestions in the Government's White Paper on young offenders? May we have an opportunity to debate the White Paper in advance of the legislation promised for next Session?

Mr. Pym

Again, I regret that I cannot respond positively to the request, although I fully accept the importance of the subject and the interest in it. I make time available as I can for debates of interest to the House, but I cannot respond positively or favourably to that request.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

Both sides of the House are pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has responded by providing time for the important textile debate, but will he consider, in the longer term, providing time to debate health and safety at work? Is he aware that it is seven years since the Act was passed and that more people are injured at work than stop work through strike action? Will he accept that in Government time the House has not had a proper and orderly debate on that important matter?

Mr. Pym

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said at the beginning of his question. I shall consider his request, although I am bound to say that Government time is unlikely to be available.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Is the Leader of the House aware that this is the worst possible time to change the Representation of the People Act, and that the measure will be widely seen both here and abroad as changing the electoral rules only to prevent a recurrence of the recent election result in Northern Ireland? Will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. Pym

That is not an appropriate question on business for next week, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, however quickly he may jump to certain conclusions, we have given a great deal of consideration to the matter. The situation in Northern Ireland is a source of the greatest worry to the House and we must attend to it in the best way that we can. There is a heavy responsibility on the Government to take such action as they feel most appropriate. All the considerations have been borne in mind. If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman can of course advance his point of view when the Bill comes up for debate.

Mr. Tom McNally (Stockport, South)

Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that although there is gratitude for the provision of time for a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, many other trade matters, such as trade with Japan and the United States, and Community fair trade matters, require an airing and a debate in the House? Is he aware that there is a Select Committee report that would provide the basis for such a debate? Will he give an assurance that such a debate will take place before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Pym

I cannot say whether that will be possible. I do not think that it is very likely. However, I suspect that there will be an opportunity, in one form or another, on one occasion or another, before the House rises for the Summer Recess.