Business of the House (Hansard, 15 October 1990)

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement about the business of the House on Friday. The business for Friday 19 October will be as follows:
A debate on the transitional measures relating to the EC consequences of German unification on a take-note motion. Relevant documents will be shown in the Official Report. [See Written Answers to Questions tomorrow.]

§ Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and also for arranging for the Chancellor to make a statement this afternoon on the exchange rate mechanism.
Since the decision to enter was clearly taken for political reasons, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman use his full authority to drag the Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box in a full debate next week to explain her Government's deep divisions over Europe? Will he arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a full statement on his return on the latest developments in the Gulf crisis and on his consultations about the United Nations' resolutions on the shootings?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I shall leave the hon. Gentleman's first point to be dealt with on its merits through the usual channels. I appreciate his gratitude for the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement about the exchange rate mechanism immediately following this one. The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is currently in the middle east. I shall bring to his attention the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. The question of a statement or a possible statement can most usefully be considered when my right hon. Friend returns to Britain.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind the House that questions on this statement should be confined to the business on Friday.

§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)
Does not the Leader of the House realise that his statement is totally inadequate? My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) is absolutely right. During the recess, we had one of the most important economic statements in recent years and as this is a quiet week, Friday should have been used for a debate, led by the Prime Minister, in which she could have explained this extremely important decision. More importantly, she could have explained the differences between herself and the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary in their perceptions of the long-term significance of ERM membership. Perhaps, in winding up, the Leader of the House could have explained the difference between himself and all three of them on the long-term implications.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The right hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. The less questioning that takes place now about the statement that I have just made, the more quickly the House can get on to discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the statement that he will make on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. It is idle to pretend that the subject that I have announced for 926 debate on Friday is unimportant. We shall debate transitional measures following the conclusion of the conflict with Germany and German unification. These are important matters and it is right to discuss them on Friday.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)
If my right hon. and learned Friend rejects the blandishments of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not speak, does that mean that we would not have to listen to the Leader of the Opposition? Many of us would be happy with that. If there is an additional gap on Friday and I were to table an early-day motion in support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's expressed views in 1981 to 1983 on child benefit, would there be time to discuss that? It would be a useful debate.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend's enthusiasms are well known, but they do not relate directly to the business of the House on Friday.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the documents that he mentioned relating to Friday's debate constitute some 23 individual proposals, for each of which the Government have provided an explanatory memorandum? Will he further confirm that, if the Select Committee on European Legislation believes that any one of those documents should be considered on its own, those documents will not be deemed to have been dealt with in one debate on Friday?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I understand the hon. Gentleman's close, serious and professional interest in these matters. The documents are summarised in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Cmnd. 1246—the Government's observations on the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on German unification. I know that the Scrutiny Committee will be considering these matters tomorrow, and the precise shape of next Friday's debate may take account of the hon. Gentleman's recommendations, although I cannot promise to meet him in precisely the way that he suggested.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
Which Ministers will be involved in the debate? Will the Leader of the House use his good offices with Mr. Speaker to ensure that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Ridley) can play a full part in the debate?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Gentleman, as always, has more than one objective in mind. The appropriate Ministers will speak in the debate, no doubt including at the outset a Foreign Office Minister. The question of who else will speak in the debate is entirely a matter for Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
May we have a statement on Friday, or earlier if possible, on the substance of the Central Television programme on Cambodia, which demonstrated beyond challenge that the Government are giving aid and comfort to the Khmer Rouge, including the Pol Pot faction? Is not that small, impoverished country, which threatens nobody, being virtually squeezed out of existence? Is there not the possibility of mass annihilation if Pol Pot and his faction reach the capital, which they are likely to do within the next few months?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Gentleman is tenacious, but absurd in his continued tenacity. The Government have many times denied the allegations to which he referred, and there is no substance to them.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall call the two hon. Members who are standing, but I ask them to confine their questions to what is likely to happen on Friday, and not to discuss more general issues.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)
It is right and proper that on Friday we should debate the unification of Germany. However, at the risk of sounding excessively parochial, I must stress that the unification of Germany has profound implications for, among others, those who live in our maritime communities. I hope that, on Friday, the appropriate Minister will offer a comment or two on the role that will be played by a grossly enlarged German fishing fleet and the consequences for the interests of our fishing communities.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Certainly, in so far as that issue may emerge from the documents to which I have referred, it will be an appropriate subject for the hon. Gentleman to raise in the debate on Friday.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Why does not the Leader of the House admit that the real reason why the Prime Minister will not reply to the debate on Friday, or on any other day, is because the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot guarantee a 10-minute standing ovation before she begins?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I suspect that, if challenged, I could.