HC Deb 14 April 1983 vol 40 cc939-45 3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

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

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows: MONDAY i8 APRIL—There will be a debate on the Brandt Commission report "The Common Crisis", on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

TUESDAY 19 APRIL—Opposition Day (10th Allotted Day). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on the effects of Government policies on East Anglia, and afterwards a debate on the crisis in the shipbuilding and ship repair industries. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Remaining stages of the Matrimonial Homes Bill [Lords] on the Mental Health Bill [Lords] and of the Pilotage Bill [Lords], which are consolidation measures.

WEDNESDAY 20 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill.

THURSDAY 21 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

Motion on the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order.

Motions on the Pastoral Measure and on the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.

FRIDAY 22 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 25 APRIL—Progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Foot

The Opposition have tabled the motion on the shipbuilding and ship repair industries for Wednesday's business. We shall deal then with some of the issues that were dealt with during the exchanges a few minutes ago. We are deeply sorry that the Government have not been prepared to take any action to protect work in British shipyards, so we ask that the House of Commons shall come to the rescue. We shall have a vote on that subject on Wednesday. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Tuesday."] On Tuesday. [Laughter.] I know that some Tory Members think that work in shipyards is a laughing matter, but we do not and we are determined that the House shall settle the matter, because the Government have not been prepared to shoulder their responsibilities in that regard.

I hope that the Leader of the House will consider afresh the way in which Monday's debate is to take place. We are grateful to the Government for agreeing to our frequent requests for a debate on the subject, but it would be much better if it were on an amendable motion. I hope that the Government will consider that afresh. We would prefer to vote on a motion that we can table than to vote on an Adjournment motion.

We are grateful for the fact that arrangements are being made for a disarmament and defence debate. We have asked for one many times. I understand that it is to be arranged through the usual channels for a convenient date.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on citizens advice bureaux and the attitude that the Government are apparently taking to the subject? The answers that were given a couple of days ago make a debate on the subject even more necessary. No one believes that the issue was cleared up by the Minister's statements. I hope that we shall have such a debate soon.

When will the Home Secretary, who, I see, is present, make his promised statement about the changes that he proposes to make to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill? I should have thought that he would be eager to advance those proposals as quickly as possible in view of the mounting opposition to the Bill throughout the country.

When are we to have a statement about the corporate plan for the steel industry and the plans for Ravenscraig which we have been promised for several weeks?

Mr. Biffen

Perhaps I might respond in the reverse order of the right hon. Gentleman's questions.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has yet to complete consideration of the corporate plan, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that important aspect of the steel industry will be the subject of a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.

As to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. I can assure him that the Report stage of that Bill will occupy the House in the near future. No doubt these matters will be properly considered and debated then.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs made an important statement about citizens advice bureaux. I shall draw his attention to the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety that the House should have a chance to consider the subject again. I do not doubt that he will have more to say about the review of the subject that is now being undertaken.

As to the debate on disarmament, I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation that discussions are proceeding to secure a mutually satisfactory arrangement for a debate on this most important of topics.

The Brandt debate which is scheduled for Monday has been widely requested by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In the past, when the subject has been debated in Government time, it has been debated on the formula for the Adjournment of the House. I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will feel that the opportunity to have that debate within that formula again will, on balance, be to the general advantage.

We shall welcome the debate about shipbuilding and ship repairing that has been arranged for Tuesday. I know that these matters excite strong argument from the Opposition, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government's case will be equally and most vigorously argued.

Mr. Foot

We certainly believe that it would be much better in the circumstances to have Monday's debate on an amendable motion. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that afresh now, in view of our representations about it. Surely it is not an extraordinary request. I hope that he will agree to it.

With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about citizens advice bureaux, I gathered from his reply that we are to await the possibility of a debate to see what happens in the inquiry that is being set up. According to the statement on Tuesday, even the form of the inquiry has not been decided by the Government. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will think that there should be a possibility of a debate on the matter in Government time, without waiting for the inquiry's report. We should at least have some information about the nature of the inquiry and when it will report; otherwise, the Government might try to spin it out for several weeks.

Mr. Biffen

I am in no sense guaranteeing that there shall be a debate on citizens advice bureaux in Government time. I was trying to respond positively to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the House should have a further opportunity to consider the matter. I shall refer the right hon. Gentleman's point to my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs. As the form of the inquiry has not yet been decided, the House will be further informed after resolution of that problem.

As to the right hon. Gentleman' first point, there are merits in abiding by the arrangements that have been followed hitherto in the House, when we debate the Brandt report, but I do not wish to be obdurate on this matter and I am prepared to reconsider it.

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)

Can my right hon. Friend arrange a short debate next week on the new arrangements for incoming telephone calls to the House of Commons, which mean that constituents who wish to get in touch with a Member who is not immediately available must now pay for two telephone calls instead of one?

Mr. Biffen

I shall consider that matter immediately, but I cannot guarantee that there will bea debate upon it in Government time next week.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Can the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the House has an early opportunity to debate the recent report of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting in view of the dangerous implications of its recommendations for the maintenance of the privileges of the House?

Mr. Biffen

The right hon. Gentleman raises a central matter affecting the House, and I shall willingly consider his point. However, I can give no guarantee that time for a debate will be found in the near future.

Mr. Roy Jenkins (Glasgow, Hillhead)

What is happening to the arms control and disarmament debate? There have been some cosy mutterings across the Dispatch Boxes. When will it take place?

Mr. Biffen

It will take place in the near future, and I am sure that it will lead to a vigorous debate that will allow the right hon. Gentleman, and representatives of other parties, to make known their points of view. However, I assure him that there is no holding back from this debate—it is simply a question of finding an appropriate time for it.

Mr. Michael Latham (Melton)

May I urge on my right hon. Friend again the need for an early statement by Ministers on the future of Gibraltar, which is of great concern to many hon. Members? In that statement, which I hope will take place next week, perhaps Ministers can reaffirm their total commitment to the link between Britain and Gibraltar.

Mr. Biffen

I shall obviously draw my hon. Friend's request for a statement on Gibraltar to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

Does the Leader of the House recognise that his statement that he cannot guarantee a debate on the citizens advice bureaux but that he will notify the Minister for Consumer Affairs of my right hon. Friend's point is an inadequate answer, because the Minister for Consumer Affairs was very sanguine at the end of his statement the other day? For once, will the Leader of the house change next week's business and insist on a debate on the citizens advice bureaux?

Mr. Biffen

I cannot use the rhetoric of insistence, but I shall certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman's point to my hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. John Townend (Bridlington)

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the crisis that is rapidly building up in the pig sector of agriculture'? Pig farmers are squeezed between the drop in market prices and the soaring costs of feed, and many specialist producers face bankruptcy. Urgent action is needed, so will he arrange for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement next week about this?

Mr. Biffen

My right hon. Friend may recollect that this matter was raised in the recess Adjournment debate. I know that the matter causes great anxiety in the livestock sector of agriculture, and I shall refer his comments to my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Before the debate on disarmament, will the Government publish the usual defence White Paper? If not, when shall we have it?

Mr. Biffen

I cannot state when the defence White Paper will be available to the House, but I wish to make it clear that the debate on disarmament stands in its own right and is not related to the publication of the defence White Paper.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

When does my right hon. Friend expect that the Report stage of the Mobile Homes Bill will be taken? If the Government are to make several changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—I do not know whether they are or not—will my right hon. Friend ensure that those changes are made known well in advance of Report stage in case hon. Members wish to put down amendments to any new clauses, which would be extremely difficult if the changes were not made known until the Bill came to the Floor of the House?

Mr. Biffen

I will make certain that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows of my hon. Friend's anxiety about any proposed changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I cannot give him a specific answer about the Mobile Homes Bill, but I shall be in touch with him.

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 406?

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Heather and Grass Burning (England and Wales) Regulations 1983 (S 1983, No. 425), dated 15th March 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be annulled.]

Many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about this new statutory instrument and we wish to have a one and a half hour debate on it. Can that be arranged?

Mr. Biffen

I shall consider the matter.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

Are we to have a debate on the Government's intention to create a Minister for the west midlands on the grounds that there is terrible unemployment in that area? If we are to have such a Minister, will there also be one for the east midlands and for other areas with intolerable unemployment, including parts of Leicester where unemployment is more than 50 per cent.?

Mr. Biffen

The proposed role of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who represents a west midlands constituency, was made clear in a debate in the House. The fact that the post is referred to popularly as "Minister for the west midlands" does not put the matter in sharper focus. At present I have no intention of announcing the appointment of a similar Minister for the east midlands.

Sir Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the many claims being pressed upon him for debates by the Leader of the Opposition, other Opposition Members and some Conservative Members, which will probably take weeks, it is impossible for us to have an early general election?

Mr. Biffen

I arrived at the Dispatch Box this afternoon resolved that I would make no comment of even the most oblique character about the date of the general election. Therefore, I shall resist my hon. Friend's blandishments.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

In view of the uncomfortable reply of the Prime Minister to question No. 10 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which caused even her hon. Friends to fidget with incredulity, should there not be a statement on the banking operation that allows Admiral Raoul Gonzales in his penthouse in Hamburg merrily to buy very sophisticated weapons, many of which have British parts, and on the rumours of Argentine representatives talking to British bankers and arms manufacturers about spare parts, before there is renewed conflict in the south Atlantic?

Mr. Biffen

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, "fidget" is in the eye of the beholder. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise his latter remarks through an Adjournment debate or by other means, but I have no plans to make it the subject of a Government statement next week.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been standing throughout these questions, before we move on to the statement.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)

Since a debate in Government time devoted solely to disarmament is a rare animal, and did not happen during the Labour Government, despite the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), has my right hon. Friend given thought to extending the length of the debate to midnight, if it is to be only a one-day debate?

Mr. Biffen

We are a little way from the debate. Therefore, I do not feel that I can answer my hon. Friend's question, pertinent though it is.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Ormskirk)

May I remind the Leader of the House that Kraft Foods, which has had tremendous sums of public money during the past few years, is planning to make 930 of my constituents unemployed by the end of the year and transfer work to Germany and France? Will the Minister undertake to have a Government inquiry into such an incident and make a statement next week on what action the Government propose to take to prevent companies that take public money from transferring work overseas?

Mr. Biffen

I shall certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the relevant Minister.

Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

In view of the unwise decision that the House took yesterday about televising proceedings in Select Committees, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the private Member's Bill will have no assistance from the Government?

Mr. Biffen

Yes, I think that I can say that the Government's view is that they have yet to reply to the formal evidence on this matter submitted to the Liaison Committee and, pending that reply, there will be no other Government initiative.

Mr. loan Evans (Aberdare)

If we cannot have a debate on the citizens advice bureaux next week, will the Minister make a statement to clarify the position? Does he realise that there is a great deal of uncertainty and that the Government's actions have caused many more people to have many more problems? Under this Government the citizens advice bureaux have to deal with additional legal matters and consumer protection. Should not we have an early statement?

Mr. Biffen

I cannot go any further in answering the hon. Gentleman than I did in what I said to his right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I shall of course ensure that the hon. Gentleman's views are passed to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Consumer Affairs.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Basildon)

In view of its detrimental effect on British industry, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the House will have an opportunity to debate the Commission for Racial Equality's draft code of practice for the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of equality of opportunity in employment—which was laid before the House on 29 March under the Race Relations Act 1976—especially as the Government intend to introduce legislation to permit amendment of such codes in future but this code, as we understand it, cannot be amended?

Mr. Biffen

As my hon. Friend will know, that matter was raised on Maundy Thursday. I cannot go beyond what I said then.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on early-day motion 421, dealing with the William Stern bankruptcy and the Clay Cross councillors, so that we can draw attention to the man who owed £140 million-odd and who has been allowed to live in a £1 million mansion, although the Clay Cross councillors who were surcharged for refusing to put up rents under a Tory Government are not allowed to serve on any local authority or even on a school governing body after all these years? It is a scandal. It shows double standards and hypocrisy. It is time that we had a debate on this matter so that we can expose the differences that apply to different groups of people.

[That this House is appalled at the lenient treatment doled out by the High Court to Mr. William Stern, the biggest bankruptcy with £143 million debts; compares his final discharge from bankruptcy in 1985 to the treatment meted out to the 11 Clay Cross councillors who are still unable, after a decade, to serve on local authorities and school governing bodies; and recalls that the councillors defended tenants by keeping down rents, introduced job schemes and provided near total warden cover for pensioners and disabled, whereas Mr. Stern lives a life of luxury in a £1 million home, and has never experienced the harsh bankruptcy conditions, such as those imposed on those Clay Cross socialists, who fought only to assist the elderly, disabled and needy based on a popular and massive mandate.]

Mr. Biffen

There are ample opportunities for hon Members to seek a debate and to raise matters on their own account without requiring Government time. I have sufficient respect for the hon. Gentleman as a parliamentarian to believe that he can do it.

Mr. Skinner

I will do it.

Mr. Biffen

The hon. Gentleman says, "I will do it", in which case he relieves me of the responsibility. When that moment comes, I believe that another implication might be drawn from the facts that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this afternoon.

Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Scotland Exchange)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and I speak on behalf of all Merseyside Labour Members, as chairman of the parliamentary group. The closure of the Kraft factory in Kirkby would be an absolute disaster for Kirkby and Merseyside.

Mr. Biffen

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman speaks with eloquence on a constituency problem. None the less, I am sure that he appreciates that I have to answer him in the same terms as I did his hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).