HC Deb 26 January 1984 vol 52 cc1063-8 4.13 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn)

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

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 30 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Data Protection Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY 31 JANUARY—Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order and on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.

WEDNESDAY 1 FEBRUARY — Opposition day (7th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the industrial and social consequences of the Government's policy on the shipbuilding industry. Afterwards, a debate on a motion relating to the Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) (Equal Value Amendment) Regulations 1983.

THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (8th Allotted Day). The topic for debate to be announced later. The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

Mr. Kinnock

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but I must record the regret of the Opposition that the Government have not agreed to the use of the Special Standing Committee procedure for consideration of the Data Protection Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this. In order to assist him, in our usual fashion, we shall be tabling a motion to allow the use of that procedure. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is committed to facilitating the full use of Parliament and all its procedures. Will he therefore advise his right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion so that the special procedure may be used?

Last Thursday, undoubtedly with the best of intentions, the right hon. Gentleman agreed that a statement on the A320 airbus would be made as soon as possible. The front page story in the Financial Times today reports that the Prime Minister is opposed to the project, which clearly causes concern and increases the necessity for a statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything possible to facilitate such a statement?

I am sure that the Leader of the House will wish to join my in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his service to the House and to the country in using his private Member's day next Friday to debate the cuts in the Health and Safety Commission.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Watford)

Give him a job.

Mr. Kinnock

I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) about getting a job. May we have a statement during that debate to the effect that the cuts are to be restored?

Finally, when may we have a statement on a second crossing of the Severn estuary and will a day be provided for a debate on the Hennessy report on the Maze prison, as has already been requested in questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Biffen

It is perhaps appropriate to comment on the last point first. Anyone who heard the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the Hennessy report, and the serious way in which questions were put on it, will realise that there is a general desire for the matter to be taken further in parliamentary debate. I cannot give an immediate assurance on the timing, but I will attend to that.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

We cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Biffen

I am speaking as clearly as I can.

Mr. Powell

Will the right hon. Gentleman speak a little louder?

Mr. Biffen

Even if my words did not reach the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the sentiments should have sustained him. I hope that we shall be able to debate that subject, and I take note of the view of the House that the debate should take place soon.

I note that the Leader of the Opposition will be tabling a motion to allow reconsideration of the application of the Special Standing Committee procedure to the Data Protection Bill. I shall, of course, refer that point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

On the matter of a statement about the airbus, my judgment remains the same as it was last week. It will be to the advantage of us all to have a statement on the matter as soon as practicable. Prudence requires me to make no observations whatever on the speculations in the Financial Times.

As for Friday's motion in the name of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the terms in which the Leader of the Opposition recommended that debate showed that he is halfway to success in enlisting his hon. Friend as a member of the new Establishment. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bolsover shaking his head as it would be one of the saddest losses that the House could sustain. I take note of the request made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

In view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Lebanon, will my right hon. Friend provide time next week, or very soon, to debate the situation there before matters get completely out of hand?

Mr. Biffen

My hon. Friend will note from what I have said that no provision has been made for a debate on the middle east next week. I shall, however, draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the point made by my hon. Friend about the seriousness of the situation in the Lebanon.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Is the Leader of the House aware that I do not intend to follow in his footsteps in taking a job, refusing a job, taking another job and then being shifted from it? I quite like my present position and I have quite a job to do dealing with the social dreamers on this Bench.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the necessity for a debate on the Hennessy report in view of the words of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland today and the contents of the report? Immediately after the Maze breakout the Secretary of State told the nation, not just the House, that if there was any adverse criticism he would be the first to go, but he has not done so. There is a stark contrast between his behaviour today in dodging the column and the behaviour of the Foreign Secretary yesterday in stripping trade unionists of their freedom and liberties, not for doing what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did but because the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is spoiling it. He should ask questions about the business for next week.

Mr. Biffen

If I may help the hon. Gentleman on his question concerning business in the near future, I am happy to confirm what I have already said, that there will be a debate upon the Hennessy report.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

Now that the Select Committees of the House are reconstituted, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorn (Mr. Atkins) is safely ensconced as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider and discuss through the appropriate channels the possibility of giving that Select Committee an appropriation function in order properly and effectively to scrutinise the defence equipment procurement process?

Mr. Biffen

My hon. Friend raises very formidable implications. That is something on which the House may very well at some stage have a chance to give a judgment.

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

Is it not self-evident that the removal of trade union rights for many thousands of people ought to be the subject of a debate in the House?

Even if the Leader of the House has not persuaded himself of the merits of using the Special Standing Committee procedure for the Data Protection Bill, will he at least ensure that the House has the opportunity to vote on the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition which will require a business motion from him? Will he consider that through the usual channels?

Mr. Biffen

On the second point, I will look at the matter through the usual channels.

On the first point concerning the communication centre, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made a very serious statement yesterday which was subjected to a protracted period of cross-examination at Question Time, and quite properly so, but I think, as I have indicated in next week's business, that the Government are not disposed to find further time for the matter to be discussed.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that, when the Government receive the five banks' report on the channel tunnel within the next few days, there will be a debate on the issue before the Government commit themselves one way or the other?

Mr. Biffen

I take note of the important point that my hon. Friend raises, and I shall certainly communicate it to those of my right hon. Friends who would have to take the decision.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

Is the Leader of the House aware that the weather conditions in Scotland in recent weeks have been atrocious and that they are probably getting worse? Is he further aware that there is already evidence that some local authorities, with their present resources, cannot cope with the task of keeping essential services running and roads open? It will obviously take a little time for the picture to emerge, but can he give an undertaking that in due course, perhaps next week, the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement to the House showing how local authorities are to be enabled to keep the roads open?

Mr. Biffen

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. When extreme natural hazards arise, very often it requires comment from the Dispatch Box. I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland so that he may keep the matter under review.

Mr. Gerrard Neale (Cornwall, North)

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had a chance to study the law reports of the case yesterday in which someone was fined heavily for flouting the copyright laws for copying matter from books on a copying machine. This is symptomatic of the widespread flouting going on at present, and of inadequacies in the current law. Can he say when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will introduce a Bill to correct the inadequacies in the copyright laws?

Mr. Biffen

I can give no indication when a copyright Bill will be presented, although I am conscious of some of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. I will bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I have to say that the Government's legislative programme is already under considerable pressure.

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore)

Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a lot of disquiet on this side of the House about the fact that the Prime Minister has not yet made a statement to the House about her involvement in the £300 million Oman deal? Will he use his powers to persuade her either to make a statement and answer questions in the House, or to submit herself to the lie-detecting machine at Cheltenham?

Mr. Biffen

I expect that that was meant to be a helpful question, but I cannot reasonably add to what I said in reply to such questions this time last week.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I would not wish to overload the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with having to make statements in the House, but will my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members support the call for a statement on the A320 as soon as possible, as it may remove the necessity for further redundancies in British Aerospace? Will he also make a request to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House at an early date, preferably next week, to make a statement on the report—a plan for action—that was submitted to the Department in March 1983, as the textile and clothing industry is the third largest manufacturing employer in the country?

Mr. Biffen

I will refer both points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I hope that there is no misunderstanding in the House. There will be a statement about the airbus.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

Will the right hon. Gentleman refer again to early-day motion 49?

That this House recognises the disgraceful profit made by the Government from fees for British citizenship; and calls for their immediate reduction in line with the Third Report of the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1982–83.

The motion stands in my name and that of nearly 200 hon. Members on these Benches concerning the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the present extortionate and wicked rate of charge of fees for British citizenship should be reduced. The report has been in the Government's pigeon hole for about nine months. May we now have action or a debate and a statement as to why no action has been taken?

Mr. Biffen

I will take up that matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

My right hon. Friend will be aware that later this evening the House will debate the European Assembly Elections Regulations 1983. He will also be aware that Members of that institution have certain aspirations to style it as the European Parliament. Will he confirm that the correct designation as far as the Government are concerned is, and will remain, the European Assembly?

Mr. Biffen

With the sort of sloppy tolerance that made this nation great, I think that we are allowed to use both.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to providing time for a debate on the statement made yesterday? Does he understand that the Prime Minister has done nothing today to dispel widespread concern that the Government proposals are unlawful, represent a denial of human rights and are a slur on trade unions? As we understand that these proposals were not considered by the Cabinet, and as the Prime Minister is meeting trade unions to discuss them, will he arrange for the House to have an early opportunity to discuss how these proposals came about, and how they can be contested?

Mr. Biffen

I understand the seriousness of the proposals and the resentment that they cause in some quarters, but no provision has been made for Government time to be available for a further debate on the topic. However, that does not rule out hon. Members seeking other parliamentary means.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Does the Leader of the House recollect that in Hansard on 19 December 1983, as reported in column 11 of written questions, I asked the Prime Minister about the costs of the polygraph at Cheltenham and received the reply that $25,000 had been paid to the United States for polygraph equipment for security checks? In these circumstances, may the House have a statement next week on the conditions of that sale from the United States?

Mr. Biffen

I will look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I will be in touch with him.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)

Even if the Foreign Secretary had not made the statement that he made yesterday, does the Leader of the House agree that the introduction of the polygraph system is a very important event and should be the subject of a debate? Does he also agree that, although one acknowledges his own initiative, the House has had only one debate on the Civil Service in the last five years and that that is quite inadequate?

Mr. Biffen

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday made it clear that the decision he then announced was in no way related to the polygraph. However, I note his interest that there should be a debate on the subject, and I will refer that interest to the relevant Government Department.

As to a debate upon the Civil Service, again I have to say that there is no provision for one in Government time in the near future. There are pressures for debates on other topics that are at least equal candidates.

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

Has the Leader of the House seen the allegation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) concerning the conduct of Mr. Bernard Ingham, a personal adviser and friend of the Prime Minister, whom he alleges, following a conversation with the editor of The Observer, threatened that editor? Is it not for the right hon. Gentleman to put it to the Prime Minister that she should come to the House and make a full statement either denying the allegation or accepting that it is true and making an apology on his behalf to the House?

Mr. Biffen

I do not have the advantage of having seen the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I confess that I thought that Mr. Ingham was one of the less minatory people — [HON. MEMBERS: "Military?"] Minatory, threatening. Perhaps I should have said "threatening." I think that there must be much misunderstanding on the matter, but I shall have a look at it.

Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

Will the Leader of the House consider making available time for a debate on the Government paper published yesterday entitled "Public and Private Funding of the Arts"? Does he agree that since the general election the House has not debated the arts and that, although we do not have a Minister here directly responsible for them, this central element in our national life should be the subject of debate?

Mr. Biffen

I shall, of course, look at the point that the hon. Gentleman raises and refer it to the relevant Government Department.