Business of the House (Hansard, 29 October 1987)

§ Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn)
Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 NOVEMBER —Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.

TUESDAY 3 NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the Employment Bill.

Motions on data protection orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.

WEDNESDAY 4 NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill.

THURSDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Economic Consequences of the Collapse of the Financial Markets".

FRIDAY 6 NOVEMBER — Debate on Government initiatives on crime prevention on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

MONDAY 9 NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the Licensing Bill.

§ Mr. Kinnock
The Leader of the House will recall that on Tuesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he hoped to be able to reach a conclusion in his negotiations with the BP issue underwriters and the Bank of England by Thursday. May we have a categorical assurance that the Chancellor will tell the House what that conclusion is since it is vital that the House of Commons is among the first to know? When will that take place today? Will the right hon. Gentleman make available Government time early next week for a debate on the Chancellor's decision on the BP share issue?
As the proposed changes in housing benefit and income support will damage the interests of at least 7 million people, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity to debate those changes in a full day's debate on each of the relevant regulations? The Leader of the House will recall the Conservative party's election pledge: Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother. Is he aware that yesterday, in a long radio interview, the Secretary of State for Social Services refused to guarantee that that pledge would be honoured? May we have a statement next week to reassure hon. Members on both sides of the House and families throughout the country that child benefit will continue to be paid as a universal, non-means tested benefit paid direct to mothers?
The right hon. Gentleman will know of the Policy Studies Institute report on inequality in employment in 452 Northern Ireland. The Government will be publishing a White Paper early in the new year. Will the right hon Gentleman ensure that the House has an opportunity for an early debate so that hon. Members can make known their opinions on that subject?
In view of the continued and justified disquiet on both sides of the House and in the scientific and industrial communities about the Government's refusal to make a proper commitment to the European civil space research programme, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister of Trade and Industry comes here next week to make a full statement about the matter instead of contenting himself with the inadequate answers that he gave during Trade and Industry questions yesterday?
In light of the welcome news this morning, may I congratulate the Leader of the House on his success in preventing the constitutional impropriety that would have arisen had the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry become the chairman of the Conservative party? I hope that the Leader of the House will not take it amiss if I offer the suggestion that as a reward on behalf of the country for his considerable endeavours he should get that job himself?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I am not sure whether that is a reward. However, I am very content with the job that I have at present. I will not add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about the chairman of the party, which is entirely a matter for her.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he hopes to make a decision on the BP share issue later today. He will, of course be glad to inform the House in whatever way is convenient and at the earliest opportunity. I do not believe that we can settle exactly when he will make the announcement until we know that he has made his decision. We will have discussions through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Kinnock
Will there be an oral statement?

§ Mr. Wakeham
The Chancellor is very very willing to make an oral statement if that can be arranged.
I believe that many of the points about social security raised by the right hon. Gentleman could be dealt with in the debate on the Social Security Bill next week. The best way to deal with the orders would be by discussions through the usual channels.
In response to the right hon. Gentleman's points about child benefit, I do not believe that there is any misunderstanding about the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. That matter may be referred to in next week's debate on the Social Security Bill, if necessary.
I have taken on board the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the inequality of employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. I will refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
There is nothing further that I can usefully add to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Trade and Industry yesterday in answer to questions or to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said except that I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will find an opportunity to report to the House after the ministerial meeting on 9 and 10 November.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
Is it not a little strange that in a modern society succession to the throne is by the eldest male heir rather than by the most suitable heir? Would it not be better if it were either male or female—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can ask a question of that kind.

§ Mr. Marlow
Is it possible to ask a question about succession to the Government?

§ Mr. Speaker
We will move to the next question.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)
With regard to the very important matter of the BP share issue, the Leader of the House has just said that the Chancellor will make his decision known in whatever way he thinks appropriate. Does the Leader of the House, who was present throughout Question Time, recall that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, not once but three times, gave a commitment that the Chancellor would make a statement to the House, and that the Prime Minister also gave an undertaking that the Chancellor would make a statement to the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment that the appropriate procedure in this instance would be for a statement to be made to the House on the Chancellor's decision about the BP share issue?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I thought that I made it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that the Chancellor would be glad to inform the House in whatever way is convenient to the House at the earliest opportunity. If that is an oral statement, the Chancellor will be content to choose that method.

§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)
May I remind my right hon. Friend that last week I requested, in the most kindly fashion. that he remember his undertakings? This week may I request him to recall that Procedure Committee reports for over two years are still outstanding and that the House should be given the chance to debate some of them? Does he accept that we should be getting on with that early in this Parliament rather than later?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I thought that first I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who was a distinguished Chairman of the Committee in the last Parliament, to come and see me to talk about the outstanding reports so that we could decide the best way to proceed. I think that that would be sensible.

§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
It may be that in the next week or so we shall have the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on British Airways and British Caledonian. Will the Leader of the House undertake that before the Secretary of State makes a decision on that report the House will have the opportunity to debate its contents?

§ Mr. Wakeham
No, I can give no such undertaking.

§ Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)
Will my right hon. Friend find time, possibly next week, to discuss the important question of the ritual slaughter of animals? Apart from the cruelty involved, is it not fundamental that the laws of England should apply to everyone equally and that exceptions should not be made?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I recognise that hon. Members and many people in the country feel strongly about the issue on both sides of the argument, but I cannot promise a debate next week.

§ Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)
Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity of expressing our sympathy to the relatives of those who died yesterday in the tragic accident on the M61 motorway in Lancashire? Will he draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport the desirability of making a statement when major tragedies such as this occur? Will he also advise him of the desirability of conducting automatically an inquiry into such events? An inquiry would take place after an accident at sea, in the air or on the railways. Will the Leader of the House also draw the Secretary of State's attention, without prejudging this incident, to the importance of recognising whether speed was an important factor and to whether the police are able to control high speeds on motorways when repairs are being undertaken?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I shall certainly draw those points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing our condolences to those bereaved by the tragic accident and in sending the injured our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
The accident is being investigated by the police, and the Department of Transport's vehicle inspectors are examining the vehicles involved. My right hon. Friend will consider all the reports carefully to see what lessons can be learnt.

§ Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that earlier today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that he might be able to move amendments to the Education Bill? In that context, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Bill will be extended to cover Northern Ireland?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I feel embarrassed that before replying I must check my answer to the first question which my right hon. Friend has asked me.

§ Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston)
In connection with the horrible accident on the M61 near my constituency, will the Leader of the House impress upon the Secretary of State for Transport the importance of giving us a chance to debate road safety with a view to making constructive suggestions such as that which I made to him after the last horrible motorway accident about enforcing speed limits and the excessive number and weight of lorries on motorways which cause an enormous number of roadworks which are inherently dangerous?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I have taken on board what the hon. Lady has said. I will ensure that the matter is referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)
Did my right hon. Friend note that yesterday no fewer than four pro-life private Members' Bills were presented? If, as is possible, all four are deliberately talked out rather than voted down, will my right hon. Friend consider, for future purposes the possibility of Government time being given to an abortion reform Bill, as happened in 1967?

§ Mr. Wakeham
It is best to wait until the Bills are debated in the House and see how we get on. I should not want to give any intimation that the Government are likely to depart from their normal practice of not giving additional time for debating private Members' Bills.

§ Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)
Will the right hon. Gentleman state when, at long last, the Scottish Select Committee will be formed? Will he guarantee that the matter will not be left to one side as other Select Committees are formed, and that all the Scottish parties will be represented on the Committee? Does he agree that the present impasse is no way to treat important Scottish business?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I want to get on with the formation of all the Select Committees as fast as possible. Considerable progress has been made through the usual channels and I am hopeful that the Committee of Selection will consider these matters very shortly. Who goes on the Committees is a matter for the Committee of Selection and not for me.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement to the House about the imminent takeover of Matthew Brown Brewery, in the north-west of England, by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries? That takeover will neither be in the interests of the consumer nor for the betterment of the reputation of the brewing industry, in which I have had a long, though not vested, interest. Will he ensure that this unique matter, which has arisen due to the problems on the stock market, is brought before the House and that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announces that it will be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as a matter of urgency?

§ Mr. Wakeham
That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend, but I shall refer it to him later today.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Is the Leader of the House aware that those of us who want reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act are reliant on a private Member's Bill that is shortly to come before the House? May I press him on the same subject on which I pressed him last week? When can we debate the report of the Procedure Committee? If the House resolves to carry the report, will extra time be given to that private Member's Bill?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I cannot add anything to what I said to the hon. Gentleman last week.

§ Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport)
My right hon. Friend will have read that next week the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is likely to report to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the results of its deliberations on the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian. Since that merger would make British Airways ten times larger than the rest of the British scheduled air carriers put together, will the House be consulted before a final decision is made?

§ Mr. Wakeham
The matter will be decided by my right hon. and noble Friend in accordance with his statutory duties. I do not think that I can say anything further at this stage.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
With regard to next Wednesday's Bill about urban development corporations, may I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a report in The Independent today concerning exchanges of correspondence between the auditors of the London Docklands development corporation and its replies? In view of the fact that, if my memory serves me correctly, the auditors were appointed by the Secretary of 456 State for the Environment, or at least that he is responsible for the operations of the LDDC, will he ensure, through his right hon. Friend, that all the documents relating to this matter are laid before the House before the debate?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend and do what I can to meet the hon. Gentleman's anxieties.

§ Sir John Farr (Harborough)
Will my right hon. Friend say whether there will be an early debate on the problems of the hosiery and textile industry? As he knows, it faces many problems relating to the cheap imports that are flooding in from abroad and restricted access to markets in the United States and elsewhere. A debate on this urgent subject is overdue.

§ Mr. Wakeham
I recognise the importance of the matter, but I cannot say when a debate will take place. I shall certainly bear the matter in mind.

§ Mr. Dennis Turner (Wolverhampton, South-East)
Does the Leader of the House intend to proceed, as he said last week, with a debate on the growing crisis in the health services, particularly in the west midlands and Wolverhampton, where thousands of lives are at risk? I impress on the right hon. Gentleman the fact that we should have a debate very soon.

§ Mr. Wakeham
I recognise that that is an important matter and that hon. Members on both sides of the House have comments to make on it. However, I cannot promise a debate at the Dispatch Box today.

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate, or at least a statement, soon on the appalling problems and genuine needs of haemophiliac AIDS victims and their families?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I will refer the matter to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
Will the Leader of the House take steps to arrange a debate on the need for equal opportunities in employment in Northern Ireland, so that the people of Northern Ireland can be represented fully in the House by their hon. Members? Until such time as we move to a federal situation, can we ensure that every region of the kingdom is treated equally in the House?

§ Mr. Wakeham
If the answer the hon. Gentleman wants is that procedures in the House are likely to change in the near future, I cannot give him an encouraging reply. However, discussions can certainly continue and when there is a general agreement no doubt we can do something.

§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)
Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend said to the Leader of the Opposition, whose interest in the matter is relatively new, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 187 on Britain's role in space, which is signed by 48 of his right hon. and hon. Friends?
[That this House is convinced that an expanded British space programme would mobilise technical and scientific skills within the nation to a common purpose of great long-term strategic and industrial importance for the United Kingdom; believes that the creative and engineering genius of the British people should find expression in the major role in Europe's joint space effort; and urges Her Majesty's 457 Government to support the plans of the British National Space Centre for the United Kingdom to pursue an enlarged space programme wholly within Britain's technological and financial resources and fully commensurate with those of her leading European Space Agency partners.]
It would be good if the Government would listen to the views of Select Committee Chairmen, former Ministers and rapporteurs at the Council of Europe and the Western European Union who understand about such matters before our Ministers go to The Hague to the European Space Agency Council.

§ Mr. Wakeham
I can assure my hon. Friend, who I know has long been interested in these matters, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Trade and Industry will take on board all the points that have been made before he attends the ministerial meeting on 9 and 10 November.

§ Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)
Mindful of the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on Tuesday concerning the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the statements of the Leader of the House this afternoon, can the Leader of the House give an assurance that those Conservative Members who are showing a reluctance to serve on the Committee will be reminded firmly of their obligations to the House and the people of Scotland?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, in all friendliness, that I do not believe that my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies need any lectures from him on conducting their duties as Members of Parliament.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the televising of Parliament? If there is a positive vote, the public will be able to see demonstrations such as the two childish and ill-co-ordinated demonstrations that the Opposition have put on this week. Arguments having left them, they are reduced to demonstrating. With television, the public will be able to see that only the Conservative party has any real arguments to put forward to them.

§ Mr. Wakeham
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for bringing television cameras into the Chamber. I have given an undertaking that there will be a debate, and I stick by that.

Several Hon. Members
rose —

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall call those hon. Gentlemen who have been rising.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on the Shelter report entitled "Pits and Mortar" regarding the sale of former National Coal Board houses and the several thousand still owned by the board which are being sold off to absentee landlords? Will he also arrange for a debate on the coal industry in view of the large number of closures threatened by the board in the past few weeks? Perhaps he can get one of his people to explain why pits are being threatened with closure having sustained a temporary loss of a few million pounds, when the Government have been straining every nerve and fibre in the past few days to save the stock exchange which has lost £100 billion.

§ Mr. Wakeham
Although I shall not be able to arrange a debate for next week, I have no doubt that the hon. 458 Gentleman will find an opportunity to make his points, and we shall find an opportunity of putting the correct position.

§ Mr. Ken Eastham (Manchester, Blackley)
Will the Leader of the House consider arranging for Ministers to come to the House from time to time to make statements about some of the nationalised organisations and the conduct of their chairmen? For example, British Rail is considering the purchase of 100 locomotives costing £100 million from America, when Britain has lost thousands and thousands of engineering jobs. Should not Ministers be more accountable to the House on such policies?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I reject any suggestion that my right hon. Friend has not fully discharged his duty to the House. However, I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to him.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
Let me focus the attention of the Leader of the House on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). Would it be proper if the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs were frozen while other Select Committees came forward from the Committee of Selection? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will not be allowed to drift into suspended animation?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I have no desire to see the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs drift into suspended animation. As with all other Select Committees, I would like it to get on. However, these are matters for the House and not for me.

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)
When can we have a debate on war crimes matters and, in particular, on the Government's failure, after many months, to complete investigations concerning 16 people known to be living in this country and alleged to be serious war criminals? They include Antonas Gecas, who lives in Edinburgh. May we debate, too, the Government's incredible refusal to release documents concerning Barbie, though his trial has ended, and Waldheim, even though there can be no conceivable risk to intelligence or security matters now that the documents have been in the Public Record Office for 40 years?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I cannot add anything to what was said to the hon. and learned Gentleman very recently. However, I know of his deep concern and interest, and I know that if he has evidence, as opposed to allegations, he will ensure that it is made known in the right quarters.

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)
As the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) a few minutes ago suggests that she has learnt nothing and forgotten everything about recent election results in Scotland, and as a properly constituted Select Committee on Scottish Affairs could perhaps apprise the Government of the real interests of the Scottish people, is the Leader of the House aware that the majority party in Scotland would be quite willing to take up its place on the Select Committee even if the minority parties, among which I include the Conservative party, are not?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I propose that the House should deal with these matters in the traditional way, and I fear that that means rejecting the hon. Gentleman's advice.

§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)
Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on the cash crisis at Edinburgh's hospitals—in particular, the Royal Edinburgh hospital in Morningside where the doctors, nurses and other staff are under tremendous pressure, and where patients are suffering considerable hardship and their relatives considerable distress and worry?

§ Mr. Wakeham
I cannot add to what I have already said about a debate on the Health Service. However, the hon. Gentleman's subject seems to be a perfectly reasonable one to raise in an Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
rose —

§ Mr. Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member, may I say that if he wishes to take part in the serious business of the House he should come here appropriately dressed? He was a distinguished chairman of the Greater London council and I do not think that he would then have approved of such attire.

§ Mr. Banks
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that you are most fetchingly dressed yourself? I might add that my dress. represents a perfectly legitimate peaceful protest and I hope that the House will always tolerate peaceful protests.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 179 concerning Britain, the Commonwealth and the African National Congress.
[That this House welcomes the positive developments which have taken place in the recent period in relations between the African National Congress and a range of representative opinion in Britain, including the British Government, as highlighted by the meetings between the President of the African National Congress and the Foreign Secretary, the Opposition, the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress and representatives of British industry; recognises that these contacts reflect the central role which the African National Congress will play in any resolution of the conflict in South Africa which was one of 460 the key conclusions of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group; therefore deeply regrets the statement of the Prime Minister in Vancouver in which she described the African National Congress as a 'typical terrorist organisation'; believes that this is a totally false description of the African National Congress; and believes that such a statement can only damage relations between Britain and the black majority in South Africa as well as with the rest of Africa and the Commonwealth.]
The Prime Minister's statement that the ANC is a terrorist organisation gave great offence to every Commonwealth Head of Government. If the right hon. Lady believes that the ANC is a terrorist organisation, is she considering expelling its representatives from London? If she is not, will she apologise? I understand that today the United Democratic Front in South Africa has broken off all diplomatic relations with the British Government until an apology is made. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give that undertaking, will he arrange for a debate at the earliest possible moment on the position in South Africa and the ANC

§ Mr. Wakeham
I cannot promise an early debate on South Africa, but it is, of course, a subject to which we shall return from time to time. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sometimes says things that are uncomfortable to listeners, but that does not mean that her comments are not perfectly justified and true.