HC Deb 10 November 1987 vol 122 cc525-8 8.19 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be as follows:

THURSDAY 12 NOVEMBER — Motions On Social Security Orders and Regulations. Details are in the Official Report.

That will be followed by a debate on a motion on the Supplementary Estimate on the purchase and sale of shares in BP.

The Consolidated Fund Bill, already announced for the beginning tomorrow, will now be taken at the beginning on Monday 16 November.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

I wonder whether, instead of that business tomorrow, my right hon. Friend will have a short debate on the astonishing refusal in a written answer this afternoon of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an assurance that the Bank of England will not use its funds to buy shares in Eurotunnel, as any such move would drive a coach and horses through repeated assurances given about the Bill? Will my right hon. Friend suggest that we have a debate or statement on this issue tomorrow, instead of what is planned?

Mr. Wakeham

No, Sir. I cannot change the business for tomorrow.

Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that the desultory exchanges this afternoon on the subject of the British Airways-British Caledonian merger will not be a substitute for a full statement and or debate later on aviation policy? If no such debate takes place, the public will be left with the impression that the Government look after the owners, the Labour Opposition look after the unions and no one looks after the customers. Can we have a debate?

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise the strength of what the right hon. Gentleman says and I think that this is best pursued through the usual channels.

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)

Can the Leader of the House persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to find time tomorrow for a statement about the White Paper on Scottish homes? As the Leader of the House will know, a statement should have been made today. In view of the damaging effects of this White Paper and the concern now being caused in Scotland because of the fears of rent rises and changes in conditions for tenants, will he arrange for time to be made available tomorrow for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement so that we can ask questions, as befits such a major measure?

Mr. Wakeham

I shall not be provocative now. I shall refer that matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

My right hon. Friend seemed rather cursory in his dismissal of the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Could he please give some more serious attention to this important departure from all the previous assurances and be ready to answer questions on this tomorrow afternoon? Is he aware that the only previous occasions when the Bank of England has bought shares in companies were in the cases of Johnson Matthey and Slater Walker? Are we now to have the great Eurotunnel gravy train following those doubtful precedents? More serious attention must be given to this worrying matter.

Mr. Wakeham

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked whether I would change tomorrow's business, and I said I would not. That remains the position. If my hon. Friends wish to pursue the matter at business questions tomorrow, there will he more time to give a more considered answer.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

In view of the debate that we have just had on lobbying in this place, including lobbying all-party groups, is the Leader of the House aware that, as a result of the background to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, with its dubious business of champagne parties cancelled because of criticism, refreshments in the Jubilee Room and fake Whips sent out with refreshments to offer as a direct inducement to hon. Members to stay and vote, the media are waking up to the fact that a large army of people are making money from lobbying in this place and persuading Members of Parliament to vote one way or another? If we do not take action and do something about it, the media will push and push until something is done from the outside inside, as happened on the last occasion, which involved a series of scandals about a gentleman called Poulson.

Mr. Wakeham

The hon. Gentleman raises a point to which we shall return from time to time, but we shall certainly not have a debate about that tomorrow, or a statement. The hon. Gentleman can find other ways of pursuing the matter if he wants to. The suggestion that a few glasses of champagne will change the votes of any hon. Member on either side of the House is an insult to the House and certainly to me, as I did not get any of it either.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for keeping you and me from your excellent table for a moment longer. May I stress to the Leader of the House, as somebody who must unfortunately be away tomorrow on pressing constituency business, that I share the concern of my colleagues that we should hale a full statement tomorrow on the Government's attitude to the Bank of England departing from past pledges and precedents in possibly funding part of the Eurotunnel issue?

Mr. Wakeham

I certainly note what my hon. Friend says and I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

May I correct the Leader of the House in his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), in which he said that he could not change tomorrow's business? He has come to the House this evening precisely to make a statement about a change in tomorrow's business.

I have an axe to grind. Why is tomorrow not given over to a debate or statement on the disgraceful answer to a written question from the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled that workers who lose their jobs will be denied up to 26 weeks unemployment benefit—double the existing period, which itself is double what it was a few months ago? Is not that a mechanism by which unscrupulous employers will exercise a whip hand, particularly over non-unionised workers, so that they do not complain about wages and conditions, knowing that if they are sacked they lose the right to six months unemployment benefit? Why are we not having a debate or a statement on that, instead of the proposed business?

Mr. Wakeham

The hon. Gentleman, with a little of his customary ingenuity, may find that the points he wishes to make will be in order tomorrow.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover)

Further to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my constituents' anxiety at any suggestion of the Bank of England being prepared to finance Eurotunnel in any way, shape or form? That will be directly contrary to all the assurances and promises that have been given to date and it would present unfair competition when the principle of the whole Bill is fair competition.

Mr. Wakeham

I cannot add anything more to what I have already said. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am absolutely certain that none of the Government's undertakings will be broken.