HC Deb 20 January 1983 vol 35 cc479-84 3.30 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 24 JANUARY—Opposition day (5th Allotted Day): There will be a debate on the Adjournment of the House on the regional impact of unemployment. This subject has been chosen by the Liberals.

Motion on the Local Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contribution) (Repairs Grants for Airey Houses) Order.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.

TUESDAY 25 JANUARY AND WEDNESDAY 26 JANUARY—A debate on the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Franks on the Falkland Islands Review, Cmnd. 8787, on a motion to take note.

At the end on Wednesday, motions on the Valuation (Plant and Machinery) (Scotland) Order and on the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order.

THURSDAY 27 JANUARY—Proceedings on the Pig Industry Levy Bill. Remaining stages of the Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill and of the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill.

FRIDAY 28 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 31 JANUARY—There will be a debate on the fishing industry.

Mr. Foot

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for arranging the debate on the fishing industry that we have been requesting for many weeks and for arranging it at a time next week that we believe is appropriate for the House.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce his Budget, if indeed he intends to introduce one?

There is to be a statement today on the Serpell report, but may I make it clear that the Opposition want an urgent debate on the matter because we believe that the sooner that report is strangled by the House the better for all concerned and we are not prepared to see the British transport industry wrecked in the way that other great British industries have been wrecked?

Finally, on the question that I raised with the Prime Minister earlier, I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement now, but will he do all in his power to ensure that the negotiations in the water industry succeed? Is he aware that proper negotiations have not taken place, although there have been ballots supporting the claim of the workers and unions in the industry? I hope that he will do all in his power to get proper negotiations going and perhaps arrange for a statement to be made to the House if that would assist the process.

Mr. Biffen

On the last point, I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that the work of ACAS in the water industry dispute will be crowned with success. I note the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety that the House should be kept properly informed of progress.

I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the Serpell report. The House will wish to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport today. We may then discuss how best to proceed.

I note with gratitude the right hon. Gentleman's comment about the fishing debate. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that this will coincide with the successful resolution of the dispute in the European Community.

Finally, I am pleased to tell the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce his Budget on Tuesday 15 March.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 47 signed by 105 Members on both sides of the House relating to restrictions on gliding in Scotland?

[That this House, concerned that there is no independent appeals procedure against Civil Aviation Authority decisions on the introduction of new airways, calls upon the Government not to implement the proposal for an airway between Glasgow-Edinburgh and Aberdeen via Perth until the effect of the airway on gliding at Portmoak and all the other options have been fully explored and debated in public.]

Will he promise that there will be a debate before any further action is taken?

Mr. Biffen

I am afraid that I cannot offer a debate in Government time, although I realise the importance of the matter for a section of the community. Some of those who have signed the motion might try seeking an Adjournment debate so that the matter may be further ventilated.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)

When will there be a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade, even if it means summoning him from the House of Lords to the Bar of this House, to explain why he put his own vested interests before the jobs of more than 3,000 Scottish workers in his scandalous decision to allow his junior lackey to overrule the decision of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the Anderson Strathclyde takeover?

Mr. Biffen

As the matter is now before the courts, it is proper that I should reflect an inhibition on that account. If I were not so inhibited, however, I should say that the manner in which the hon. Gentleman raises the matter and the motive that he imputes are thoroughly disgraceful and reflect more on the hon. Gentleman than on his target.

Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

Will there soon be an opportunity to debate the work of the new Select Committee? In view of reports in the newspapers today, will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that the Committee will not be televised by the back door without the full approval of the House first being secured?

Mr. Biffen

The first report from the Liaison Committee, which has just become available to the House, raises many important issues wider even than those touched upon by my hon. Friend. I am sure that the House will wish to consider it very carefully before deciding how to proceed.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (Hartlepool)

We are to have on Monday a debate on the impact of unemployment in the regions, but, as recent announcements regarding future employment in British Steel and in the British shipbuilding industry involve many thousands of people, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the prudence of arranging a debate on those two important industries at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Biffen

I noted the hon. Gentleman's sterling comments last Friday about the proposed steel closures in his constituency. I think that next Monday's debate will give him the opportunity to say indoors what he has already said outside.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

As the Franks report, which is to be debated on Tuesday and Wednesday, contains many details, although I welcome the fact that we are to have a two-day debate, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of suspending the Ten o'clock rule on one of those days so that any hon. Member who wishes to make a contribution may be sure of the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Biffen

I should be obdurate if I said that I would not even consider the possibility of suspending the rule, but I could not ordinarily recommend too nocturnal an approach to the matter. I think that the two days may well prove sufficient.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)

Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister responsible to make a statement next week about how a man so brilliantly able to break through the toughest and tightest security system in the world and to get into Buckingham Palace twice was found guilty of stealing a car, put into psychiatric custody, appealed to come out on the grounds that he was fit and was told that he was not but won his case at the tribunal, but for which he would still be incarcerated? May we be told who was responsible for keeping him there then, and refusing to release him, because we are now told by an independent tribunal that he should be released because he is fit enough to be out, provided he goes on with treatment? Why was he not allowed out without having to appeal?

Mr. Biffen

The hon. Gentleman, in an ingenious fashion, makes some trenchant comments on the matter. The Prime Minister answered very comprehensively a few moments ago, and there is nothing that I can add to her reply.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Aberdeenshire, East)

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 209 about an allowance for blindness?

[That this House notes with concern that Her Majesty's Government has not introduced an allowance to offset the additional costs occasioned by blindness even after statements by the Prime Minister and successive Ministers with special responsibilities for the disabled have accepted the case presented by organisations of blind persons and given assurances that measures would be taken to introduce an all-purpose disability income when the economy inproves; and now believes that as inflation is now in single figures such an allowance should be introduced as a matter of urgency.] As is clear from the early-day motion, the Prime Minister and the Ministers responsible for the disabled have accepted the need for a blindness allowance for disabled persons when the economy starts to improve. As inflation is now in single figures, is it not time to have a debate so that we may discuss the possibility of granting a blindness allowance to people who deserve it?

Mr. Biffen

My hon. Friend will have heard me announce that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to present his Budget on 15 March. I should have thought that that occasion and the ensuing Finance Bill would give him the opportunity that he seeks.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

May a considered reply be given to a question of which I gave the right hon. Gentleman's office notice this morning? Could a statement be made on the American intelligence reports of the stationing of two squadrons of M5 extended range Mirage fighter bombers, especially in the light of the Prime Minister's replies which seemed to show that in the event of a bee-sting attack on the Falklands there could be—this is the only interpretation that could be put on it—retaliation on the South American mainland? Should not the matter be cleared up?

Mr. Biffen

I am reluctant to comment on press reports of the character that the hon. Gentleman mentions for reasons that I am sure he will understand. However, I shall certainly ensure that his anxieties are put to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Defence. I have a feeling that the topic may be touched on in the debate next week.

Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire)

I draw my right hon. Friend's attention again to early-day motion 47. Is he aware that the Civil Aviation Authority has seen fit to ignore the views of the 105 hon. Members who have signed the early-day motion, and that in the absence of an independent appeals procedure, it is exercising dictatorial powers in a most insensitive manner?

Mr. Biffen

I can add little of substance to the reply that I have already given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). However, I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to the points that have been put to me by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)

In view of the fact that we are to have a two-day debate on the Franks report on the Falkland Islands next week, shall we at the same time have a considered Government statement on what they intend to do to meet the numerous criticisms of the various Government Departments and the failure of co-ordination? Shall we at the same time have a statement about the long-term future of the Falkland Islands, in view of the fact that they have already cost the nation £7 million per family on the island, and leaving aside the financial aspect, the fact that there is the danger of a further military conflict?

Mr. Biffen

I am sure that all the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will feature in the debate. I do not think that I can go further than that.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Bristol, North-West)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been no debate in this House on the civil sector of the aerospace industry since the passage of the British Aerospace Act in 1980? The military sector is amply covered in our defence debates, but the civil and space sectors which account for about one third of the output of our aerospace industries are not covered. As important decisions, particularly in the civil sector, are pending, will he allow parliamentary rime for a debate?

Mr. Biffen

I am sure that the record of achievement by civil aviation could be well displayed in any debate that we had on that subject, and certainly it would reflect the skill and successes of my hon. Friend's constituents. However, it is unlikely that we shall provide Government time for it in the near future.

Mr. John Tilley (Lambeth, Central)

Does the Leader of the House remember that on Monday the Home Secretary, in answering questions on the Kensington shooting, said that it would be a good idea to have an early debate on the policing of London? Will he accept my assurance that many London Members, certainly on this side of the House, want an early debate on the police force that is, at least theoretically, directly accountable to this House through the Home Secretary?

Mr. Biffen

I have noted the hon. Gentleman's interest, but I fear that I have to tell him that a debate certainly cannot take place next week.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made about the allocation of the contract for the Falklands housing project, in which a firm, Brewster Associates, managed to get the contract although its tender was for £4.2 million, while the tender from the Hallam Group, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher), was £3.8 million, in spite of the fact that Brewster Associates had not filed any company returns since 31 December 1979, as shown in the answer that I received this week, and that one of the directors of James Brewster Associates was an ex-diplomat from Argentina? Surely a statement should be made on this sinister matter.

Mr. Biffen

I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

May we at last, after repeated requests, have a debate on disarmament so that we may be given an account of the negotiations which are taking place to find out what progress has been made? As the Leader of the House knows, there have been many protests in the House because many people outside, including the courageous Greenham Common peace women, feel that Parliament has not devoted enough time to this vital issue, and that it is not sufficient to say that this matter can be raised in defence debates. We want to concentrate on the peace issue and disarmament, not on building up nuclear weapons.

Secondly, before Christmas, the Leader of the House said that there was the possibility of a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, following the statement that was made. May we have that debate, because it is a matter of great importance to the West Yorkshire textile industry?

Mr. Biffen

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I congratulate him on obtaining the Adjournment debate on Tuesday 26 January, which I understand will be devoted to the United States nuclear bases in the United Kingdom. That is just one way of demonstrating how these topics are often debated on the Floor of the House without using Government time. Of course, I note his concern that there should be a more general debate on these issues, and I have no doubt, taking account of the increasing degree of political interest, that there may well be one.

I shall consider the question of a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement discussions and recent agreement. I have shown some sympathy with the idea of having a debate, but I must confess that no time will be available next week. At this time of the year, things look a bit bleak.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange lessons for junior Foreign Office Ministers as to how to comport themselves when abroad, in view of the fact that on a recent visit to Turkey a junior Minister fell asleep during a meeting and referred to Constantinople instead of Istanbul?

Mr. Biffen

If it comes to lessons in comportment, there are some people whom I might have in mind before junior members of the Foreign Office.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

As in the last election all members of the Government campaigned against any idea of an incomes policy or norm and no person was more vigorous in opposition than the Leader of the House, may we have a statement next week on the 4 per cent. pay limit, which has meant that the water workers have not been able to negotiate freely with their employers? Is it not important to have a statement to justify the present position compared with what was said at the election?

Mr. Biffen

The Government's general economic policy was successfully argued yesterday. I have a sufficient sense of delicacy towards the feelings of the hon. Gentleman that I would not want to arrange such an infliction for next week.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Did the Leader of the House note that in the debate in the House last night the dominating issue was the problems in the international monetary system? Did he note also that only three Labour Back Benchers could be called because of the lack of time? Will the right hon. Gentleman give more time, prior to the Budget Statement, for a full debate on the problems of the international banking system?

Mr. Biffen

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that yesterday's debate rested substantially on the issue of international monetary arrangements. That was appropriate, given the significant role that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer plays.

With regard to the difficulty of obtaining the facility for Back-Bench Members to speak, I should have thought that one way of surmounting the problem was by way of shorter speeches.