Business of the House (Hansard, 25 June 1981)

§ 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 29 JUNE—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: Debate on the problems of the Yorkshire and Humberside region, on a motion for the adjournment of the House.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Insurance Companies Bill.
Motion on European Community Document 7583/80 on proprietary medicinal products.
TUESDAY 30 JUNE—Supply [24th Allotted Day] (First Part): Debate on the conduct of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Remaining stages of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Proceedings of the Belize Bill.
Motion on the Supplementary Benefit (Requirement and Resources) Amendment Regulations.
WEDNESDAY I JULY—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: Debate on the car industry, on an Opposition motion.
Motions on the following orders: London Docklands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) and (Amendment), Vesting of Land (Port of London Authority) and (Greater London Council).
THURSDAY 2 JULY—Motions on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order and on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
FRIDAY 3 JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day] (Second Part): Debate on the disabled, with special reference to the International Year of Disabled People.
MONDAY 6 JULY—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords].

§ Mr. Foot
I wish to put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman. First, will he make arrangements for the motions on Northern Ireland on Thursday to be amendable because we wish to put our view in either an amendment or a motion? I hope that that will be the way in which the business comes forward. Secondly, on Tuesday's business on the conduct of the Secretary of State for the Environment, will he say whether he has had discussions with the Patronage Secretary about allowing a free vote? That would be generally accepted by the House. Thirdly, has he had an opportunity to reflect on the question I put to him last week about the debates on the Brandt report?
There are three major summit meetings scheduled for this year—the economic summit in Ottawa in July, the Commonwealth conference in Melbourne in September, and the Mexico summit in October. Neither the House nor the country has any idea of the Government's attitude towards those important matters. Will the Government provide a day, before the Summer Recess, to debate those matters, and will the Government make a statement to the House?

§ Mr. Pym
On the right hon. Gentleman's first question, we can arrange the motions in the way that he requested. On his second question, I have not yet consulted my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is entirely capable of defending himself. On the third question, I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what I said last week. In saying that, I am not in any way suggesting that it is not an important subject. There were three debates on the topic last year, including one on a Government day, and it also formed part of a debate in March this year. I appreciate the importance of the subject, but at the moment I cannot find Government time in the near future. I appreciate the significance of the request.

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)
In view of the statement that we are all eagerly awaiting, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the House will have an early opportunity to debate defence?

§ Mr. Pym
Yes, Sir. It is my intention to arrange a debate for Tuesday 7 July.

§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
Is the Leader of the House aware that Dr. Dracan Clift, a Home Office forensic scientist, gave crucial evidence at the trial of Mr. John Preece of Stoke-on-Trent which led to his conviction for murder? The Court of Appeal decided that that evidence had been discredited and the sentence was quashed. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for the Home Secretary to make a statement about that case and agree to reopen all the cases in which Dr. Clift has given evidence? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the case to which I referred is not the first case in which Dr. Clift's evidence has been discredited and the convictions following that evidence quashed?

§ Mr. Pym
I doubt whether a statement would be appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's request. I shall consult him. I could not be sure that a statement would be an appropriate step.

§ Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)
Is my right hon. Friend as disappointed as I am that my Bill on smaller businesses was not reached on Friday? Will it be possible for him to find time shortly to give half a day to that important subject?

§ Mr. Pym
I regret that I cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request. I am sad that his Bill was not reached.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
Does the Leader of the House recall that in November 1979 a motion was passed in the House to the effect that there should be no further cuts in expenditure on the BBC overseas services? Is he aware that evidence on the subject has been given in public, by both the BBC and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is in the process of drawing up a report? In view of those facts, does he agree that any Government statement on that matter should be made in the House and not by other means?

§ Mr. Pym
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, a question on that matter is being asked today. I shall have to check the facts to be sure that I am right, but I believe that, far from expenditure being cut, more money will be spent.

§ Mr. Raymond Whitney (Wycombe)
When arranging the business of the House, will my right hon. Friend continue to give high priority to the consideration of the important questions of unemployment and the management of the economy so that, as was demonstrated with such clarity yesterday, the country can be continually reminded that from no part of the House has there been offered any sensible alternative to the Government's economic policies?

§ Mr. Pym
We have given adequate time, and an appropriate amount of time, to discussing the important matter of unemployment. No doubt other opportunities will arise.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Is it not time that the Leader of the House arranged a debate on the scandalous treatment being meted out by the Government to the nurses and ambulancemen? Have not the Government forced them to accept a real wage cut? Were not the Tory Government elected on a prospectus of not interfering with free collective bargaining? Should they not take into account the fact that other workers, such as the police, have been given 21 per cent. by the Government? How does that fit in with the view of the new Hexham school of economics that the Government have spent more, borrowed more and been less able to count that money than any other Government in history?

§ Mr. Pym
Even if I thought that that was an appropriate subject for debate, I could not find time for it next week. There are other ways and other opportunities available to the hon. Gentleman of which, no doubt, he will take advantage.

§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)
As the cuts in the BBC external services have been announced by way of a written answer, and in view of the widespread concern about this matter, would it not be right for my right hon. Friend to arrange an early debate on the whole subject, because substantial cuts are planned in individual countries' services?

§ Mr. Pym
I do not think that I have Government time available for that purpose. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the purpose, of the change is to spend more, to invest more, and to have a higher degree of audibility. That is an appropriate matter for the House to debate, but my hon. Friend may have to find some other way of raising the matter.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire)
Can the Leader of House give an assurance, particularly to Scottish Members with children of school age, that the House will be in recess by the beginning of August, even if that means that it must meet on Wednesday 29 July, irrespective of any other event that may happen to be taking place on that day?

§ Mr. Pym
If we all talked a little less we might be able to achieve that.

§ Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton)
Would it be a good idea for my right hon. Friend to arrange an early debate on the important question of trade union immunities, bearing in mind that the closing date for representations on the Government's Green Paper is 30 June?

§ Mr. Pym
I believe that we must wait for that time. The Government will then give consideration to that extremely important subject. I doubt whether there will be 382 time for that subject before the House rises for the Summer Recess. In due course there will be plenty of opportunities for it to be debated.

§ Mr. T. W. Urwin (Houghton-le-Spring)
May I take the Leader of the House back to yesterday's debate on unemployment, picking up a question that was asked by one of his hon. Friends? Does he appreciate that, whilst I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, in congratulating the Government on providing one day for a debate on unemployment, one day is totally inadequate? That is shown by the fact that only six speeches were allowed from the major Opposition party and 18 contributions were made from the Back Benches. We are asking for a further debate next month and every other month on unemployment figures, but will the Government seriously consider giving more time—at least two days—to debate this vitally important subject of unemployment?

§ Mr. Pym
The Government have been forthcoming on this matter. I have been forthcoming since I have been Leader of the House, because we have had two days on that subject in Government time. The Opposition have provided time, on a regional basis, on several other occasions. Therefore, I believe that it can be said that this important matter has had a full degree of debate. There will be further opportunities. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a limit to the amount of time that any Government or Opposition can make available. We shall do the best we can.

§ Mr. Michael Latham (Melton)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that between now and the Summer Recess it will not be convenient to receive any fresh legislation, whether emanating from overseas or not?

§ Mr. Pym
It would be rash of me to say "No", although I have none in mind at present.

§ Viscount Cranborne (Dorset, South)
Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a debate at an early date on the urgent need for constitutional reform?

§ Mr. Pym
Not in Government time before the recess.

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)
In view of the Prime Minister's sad answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), to the effect that about seven language broadcasts are to be cancelled to the effect by the BBC, does the right hon. Gentleman not believe that this is far too important a matter to be left to a written answer? In view of the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House will regard that as a massive false economy, does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that we should at least have an opportunity to debate it?

§ Mr. Pym
In view of statements that we have had, the one that we shall have today, and others that will come, I believe that a written answer is correct. If the matter is to be debated—it is an appropriate subject for debate—some other way must be found. It is a question of working out what is the best use of the money allocated for that purpose. We shall spend more, there is an audibility problem, and the money will be spent to make sure that, in a given number of languages, the service is heard much better in the countries towards which it is directed. That matter is appropriate for debate. I do not believe that an oral statement would provide the answer or the conditions to raise other points that the hon and learned Gentleman wants discussed.

§ Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne (Knutsford)
As Thursday's business is presumably not appropriate for this purpose, can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that we shall have an early opportunity to debate the decision, just announced, to give Harland and Wolff another £46 million from the taxpayers whom we represent, on top of the £300 million that has gone before, apparently coupled with the pledge to continue to do so for at least another five years? Can we have an urgent debate on that matter before any further money is committed?

§ Mr. Pym
That is an appropriate matter for Supply. While acknowledging the appropriateness of that subject and the importance of that allocation of money, I do not believe that there will be an opportunity in Government time. Unfortunately, I cannot give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he would wish.

§ Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)
In view of the fact that there is no time for a debate on the Brandt report, will the Leader of the House give consideration to having a statement some time before the recess on the progress made by Government Departments on implementing it? As the Prime Minister may discuss with the Vice-President of the United States the use of resources in that regard tonight, and as the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations will have made some rules, will it not be possible for a statement on progress to be made, not on platitudes but on resources?

§ Mr. Pym
I am prepared to give consideration to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
Will my right hon. Friend go a little further than he did in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) and say that there is no question of the House dealing with any Canadian legislation before the Summer Recess?

§ Mr. Pym
It would be rash of me to say "No" to any legislation, from whatever source. I do not have it in mind at the moment.

§ Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea, South)
Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 463, which deals with the recent Select Committee's report on the Vagrancy Act, and in particular with the offences of begging, sleeping rough and being found on enclosed premises. [That this House notes the Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee concerning Vagrancy Offences (H.C. 271); further notes that the Committee was divided on the timing of the repeal of the offences of sleeping rough, begging, and being found on enclosed premises under the Vagrancy Act 1824; and urges the Government to initiate an immediate debate on that Report.] Will he arrange for an early debate on that report?

§ Mr. Pym
The Government must make their response and then we must consider, when days are available, which Select Committee's reports and which responses should be debated. The hon. Gentleman has raised one candidate. I cannot go further than that.

§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)
Has my right hon. Friend received any communication from our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary saying that he will shortly introduce a short three or four-clause Bill dealing with replica firearms—a Bill that, with the acclamation of the House, could be on the statute book before the Summer Recess?

§ Mr. Pym
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)
Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), is the Leader of the House aware that there is a precedent, in that a previous Labour Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement at the Dispatch Box following the release of Paddy Meehan after it was found that he had been wrongfully convicted for murder? Would it not be more appropriate if the Solicitor-General for Scotland made a statement on the Preece case? I understand that before he came to the House the Solicitor-General was supposedly responsible for defending those two men, who might have been dead today had the hanging brigade, including the Solicitor-General, had its way?

§ Mr. Pym
I take note of that and I shall consider it. I have nothing to add to what I said to the right hon. Gentleman earlier.

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cutting of seven or eight foreign broadcasts of the BBC is important, not least in terms of defence, because propaganda is part of the battle? Will he therefore arrange that the House takes that fact fully into consideration, has an opportunity to debate it, and does not have to depend upon a written answer?

§ Mr. Pym
Nothing that I have said in any way lessens the importance that we attach to the BBC external services. I believe that a written answer on what we have decided is correct and I hope that an opportunity for debate can be found. I cannot see an opportunity in Government time in the near future. If I did not say that, I might mislead the House.

§ Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)
When will the House next have an opportunity to debate the reports of the Public Accounts Committee? Does not the Leader of the House believe that it is important that his successor at the Ministry of Defence should defend, at the Dispatch Box, the allegations that International Military Services—a company of which the Secretary of State for Defence owns all but one of the shares—has allowed the payment of nearly £½ million into a Swiss bank account with no guarantee that that money is not being used for bribery? When can we have a debate so that the matter can be thrashed out on the Floor of the House?

§ Mr. Pym
Not next week, Sir.

§ Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)
Is my right hon, Friend aware of the tragic circumstamces prevailing in dockland, certainly in the port of Southampton at the moment? Is he further aware of the need for a debate on the review of the national dock labour scheme and the fact that it has been a considerable time since the Jones-Aldington agreement was made? Surely, for the benefit of the export and import circumstances of this country, a debate on the entire ports industry would be invaluable.

§ Mr. Pym
I am sure that it would, but I am afraid that I cannot see an opportunity in the near future.

§ Mr. John Silkin (Deptford)
Does the Leader of the House recall that he promised to consider a debate on the Royal Commission on criminal procedure report? Is he now in a position to give us a date?

§ Mr. Pym
Not yet, Sir.