Business of the House

HC Deb 27 May 1982 vol 24 cc1053-8 3.30 pm

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

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

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)

The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows:

TUESDAY 8 JUNE AND WEDNESDAY 9 JUNE—Consideration in Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill.

THURSDAY I0 JUNE—Supply [19th Allotted Day]: The subject for debate to be announced later.

Motions on Members' pay and allowances.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration at 7 o'clock.

FRIDAY II JUNE—Remaining stages of the Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Bill and of the Taking of Hostages Bill [Lords].

Mr. Foot

I wish to put three matters to the right hon. Gentleman. As to the recall of the House that might be required, I think that this matter was fully discussed and raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and I am sure that the Leader of the House will take account of what was said in that debate.

I understand that later there is to be a statement on the industrial action in the NHS. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to arrange a debate on this matter as soon as we return. It indicates a serious state of concern in the Health Service. I trust that such a debate will be arranged. It is of grave concern that people working in the Health Service do not seem to have anything like the consideration that has been given to judges, senior civil servants and many others.

The third issue is a matter that I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman on a series of occasions, but the danger has been increasing throughout. Even though the House, quite naturally, has been primarily concerned with the crisis in the Falkland Islands, I do not believe that the Government have responded sufficiently to our concern about the dangers that are arising in British Rail as a result of the proposed closure of the railway workshops and other developments on the railways. The crisis has been brought about because the Government are starving British Rail of its finance, and it is right that the matter should be debated in the House. Indeed, it would have been much better had the right hon. Gentleman responded to that appeal earlier.

We are talking about the future of the railways and whether we shall have an adequate rail system if some Government decisions are not reversed in the immediate future. I stress as strongly as I can that it is a great pity that we have not had a debate already. We sought to secure it by other means, and I hope that we shall have an absolute guarantee from the right hon. Gentleman that we shall have that debate very soon after we return from the recess.

Mr. Biffen

As the right hon. Gentleman said, the possible recall of the House during the recess was fully discussed on Tuesday, and I shall certainly take account of the views that were expressed.

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman contains his judgment about the possibility of further discussions on the NHS industrial action until after my right hon. Friend has had a chance to make his statement.

The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in the adjournment debate last Tuesday there was considerable coverage of the serious issue of the railways. Doubtless, both the circumstances of the NHS and the railways will be in the minds of his right hon. Friends and himself when they come to choose their subject for the debate on Thursday week.

Mr. Foot

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's reply about the railway crisis is anything like sufficient. Although several of my hon. Friends took the opportunity to raise the matter in the debate on the adjournment, that is quite different from having a debate in which the Government are required to reply. Their reply on the subject was totally inadequate, and as the right hon. Gentleman gave it himself he must be a better authority on that matter than anyone else. I would have thought that he would have been only too eager to accept my request. I again urge him, before this crisis explodes, to provide the House of Commons with a chance to discuss it in Government time.

Mr. Biffen

As to how these matters are handled in debate, whether it be the railways or anything else, conviction must be in the eye of the orator. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about the two issues that he mentioned and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friends to the points that he makes. Clearly, the business that has been announced for the week after the recess does not permit a debate on these matters in Government time. I am afraid that that is how it must stand for the first week back.

Sir Paul Bryan (Howden)

Has my right hon Friend noted early-day motion 424 signed by no fewer than 106 right hon. and hon. Members, which calls on the Government to stamp out the growing trade in pirated video cassettes?

[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to stamp out as a matter of urgency the great and growing market in pirate video cassettes; draws attention to the fact that some 65 per cent. of video cassettes sold in the United Kingdom are now seen by this means, and that this is now a serious area of illegal activity which is having a gravely damaging effect on both the production and exhibition sides of the British film industry.]

Is he aware that 65 per cent. of the market is now pirated and that that is causing great damage to the film industry? Can we have an opportunity to discuss this important subject?

Mr. Biffen

I recognise at once that my hon. Friend touches on a subject of real concern within the trade, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

As long as the Government are minded to continue including in the business of the House the ill-omened Northern Ireland Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman, in addition to consulting the usual "usual channels", take the mind of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies on what might be to the greatest convenience of the House as a whole, including those most closely concerned?

Mr. Biffen

I shall be happy to engage Members from Northern Ireland to secure the passage of the Bill, and I shall be happy to accept representations from the right hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware that a well-conducted student lobby today presented a well-documented case about grants in higher education? Will he look at the possibility of an early debate on higher education, perhaps an extended debate on the order implementing the grant award, so that the House can look at the serious disincentive to students from poor backgrounds that the eroded grant now represents?

Mr. Biffen

I would not like to make a judgment about whether the rules of order would enable such a debate to arise on the topic mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bear in mind the point that he has made. However, there is no question of the Government supplying time in the first week after the return.

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 272 regarding restrictions on the importation of seal products?

[That this House expresses its concern at the slaughter of 200,000 baby seals in Northern Canada and, bearing in mind that the United Kingdom is one of the largest importers of seal pelts, welcomes the resolutions passed overwhelmingly by the European Parliament (160 votes to 10) on 11th March calling for a ban on the importation into the European Economic Community of all skins and products derived from young harp and hooded seals and on products coming from seals whose stocks are depleted, threatened or endangered; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government not only to accept this proposal at the Council of Ministers but also, following the example of the United States of America, France, Holland, Italy and Sweden, to take action itself to introduce such an import ban as soon as possible.]

If the business on Friday 11 June does not go its full time, will he provide time for a debate on the matter then?

Mr. Biffen

I cannot give that undertaking. Nevertheless, I shall examine my right hon. Friend's point. I shall also make my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade aware of this point.

Mr. John Roper (Farnworth)

Will the Leader of the House consider the point that I raised at business questions last week and ensure that, before the Prime Minister goes to New York in the third week in June for the United Nations special session on disarmament, the House will have an opportunity to consider the proposals that the Government will advance?

Mr. Biffen

The time of the meeting is drawing dangerously close. I am conscious that the House has not had a day's debate on foreign affairs, which could also include the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. I do not wish to make him too optimistic. At any rate, the debate for which the hon. Gentleman asked could not take place in the week that I have covered in my announcement.

Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)

If we are to debate hon. Members' remuneration on Thursday week, presumably including the question of allowances, will my right hon. Friend be ready to give us a view on the report of the Select Committee on linkage? Does he agree that it would seem to be in the interests of us all to have a one-day rather than a two-day debate on those matters?

Mr. Biffen

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield, East)

Will the Leader of the House reconsider laying the order concerning hon. Members' pay and allowances next Thursday at seven o'clock, when we do not have a three-line Whip? Does he agree that, although many hon. Members will probably be willing to bow to a 4 per cent. increase in salary in present circumstances, a serious debate on secretarial and research allowances would be preferred?

Mr. Biffen

I appreciate that the House will wish to have a serious and wide-ranging debate on those matters. That is why I was happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Du Cann) that it will cover not only the pay increases for the prospective year but the report of the Select Committee on hon. Members' salaries that is chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). With regard to the time, the precedent is that the matter is normally taken either in the evening during the week or on a Friday. I have had to make a judgment and, for all the imperfections, which I readily concede, the proposed time is as helpful a time as is available to the House.

Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some self-control will be expected of him in not calling back the House next week for any military event? With regard to diplomatic events, will he bear in mind that such events are most unlikely and that the House can wait to hear about them until a week on Tuesday?

Mr. Biffen

I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that I shall be guided by the motion that was passed on Tuesday concerning the possibility or otherwise of a recall of Parliament. Throughout the matter, we are all enjoined to demonstrate some self-control.

Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)

As we went to the Falkland Islands to protect 500 families there and as there have already been 600 tragic losses, will the Leader of the House ensure that, when the House returns, we shall be given a statement about what is being done to protect the lives of women and children on the island who could be killed in the cross-fire between British and Argentine forces?

Mr. Biffen

The hon. Gentleman raises a substantial point. I am sure that he realises that it is because we have had no fewer than 10 statements and six debates on the Falklands since 3 April that I believe that he is not entitled to be fearful that the matter will not be brought before the House.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

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

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is desirable to have a debate on the developments of politics in South London in our first week back? I refer to the apparent link between crime and politics, threats to the outgoing mayor of Lambeth, and the destruction of vehicles in Wandsworth. Does he agree that such a debate would enable the Opposition not only to dissociate themselves in every way from those threats but to make it clear that, if the Labour Party wanted to give a position of prominence to the disabled or blacks, and if the leader of the council stood down, representatives of either could be appointed to Ted Knight's position?

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

You silly boy.

Mr. Biffen

My hon. Friend has made his point. I wonder whether we need a debate on this subject during the week of our return. I know that the matter gives rise to great anxiety. On the programme that I have announced for the week after the Recess, it is clear that there is no Government time for such a debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be two statements, one of which should be in the next 24 hours, setting out the Government's response to those thinking Americans who see great dangers for the whole of the English-speaking world in the prospect of outright British military victory? Does he agree that there should be a second statement, either when we return or next week, about how the Government see the long-term solutions to the Falkland Island problem, about which they have been extremely coy, since so much is dictated by injured political pride on both sides of the argument?

Mr. Biffen

There has been no lack of occasions for matters associated with the Falklands to be debated in the House. I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to what the hon. Gentleman has said and to his belief that there should be a statement on the matter.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

When considering the possibility of a debate in Government time about the closure of the British Rail workshops, will my right hon. Friend consider the implications of that as a precedent? Does he agree that, if there is a debate on that matter, there would have to be a debate on the closure of any factory or workshop whether it be in the public or private sector? Does he agree that there is no difference between a closure in British Rail or in any firm in the private sector?

Mr. Biffen

My hon. Friend underlines why I have great reluctance to accede to the request of the Leader of the Opposition on that point.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time for a discussion on the problems of hospitals? Will he allow the debate to be wide enough to encompass the closure of such hospitals as Glenfield district hospital in Leicester before they have even opened, due to the enormous shortage of money that is now being experienced? May we at least have a statement on the circumstances of areas such as Leicester, which are wholly disadvantaged in health matters?

Mr. Biffen

I should at once like to correct any misconception about a debate on the National Health Service. I have given no undertaking that there will be such a debate in Government time. I take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about health circumstances in his own area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is also here to take note of what he has said.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that there is a new factor regarding the House being recalled during the recess—namely, the resolution passed by the Security Council yesterday and the question of the Secretary-General reporting back to the Security Council within seven days about the possibility of a negotiated ceasefire? Do the Government intend simply to ignore that new plea for peace from the Security Council?

Mr. Biffen

I have nothing to add to what was said about that by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time.

Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Scotland Exchange)

Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 466 dealing with hangings in Malaysia, which has received the support of 181 Members?

[That this House, concerned that 31 persons have been hanged in Malaysia since March 1980 including a woman and a 14-year-old schoolboy, calls upon the Government of Malaysia to stop further hangings, in particular the forthcoming execution of Mr. Tan Chay Wa; and calls for all persons sentenced to death under the special procedure to be allowed to leave the country.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received news today that further hangings are imminent, including those of a farmer and another young woman? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make urgent representations to the Malaysian Government on humanitarian grounds?

Mr. Biffen

Although I wish to say nothing that would commit my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to making a gesture that might be construed as intervention in the domestic affairs of another country, I recognise that this matter gives rise to deep feelings in many parts of the House and I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

In view of the controversial nature of the Northern Ireland legislation, would it not be better if the Government gave up one day in the first week after the recess to the report on the Crown Agents, which is a comprehensive unfolding of incompetence and greed? Does he recall that this Parliament decided that the report of the inquiry into this controversial matter should be published? Does he agree that the report is extremely expensive and should not be allowed simply to gather dust now that it has been completed? If we cannot have a debate in the first week back, will he consider the possibility of a debate as soon as possible thereafter?

Mr. Biffen

The hon. Gentleman will have noted from the reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) on this that the Government are now studying the findings in greater detail. Therefore, there can be no question of dust being allowed to collect. The question of a debate raises wider issues, but it might perhaps be arranged in due course through the usual channels if it were thought appropriate.