Textile Industry (Hansard, 17 December 1992)

§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)
I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise matters of concern and interest to the textile industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is not new to these debates. Indeed, he and I have participated in such debates on many occasions. I am delighted to see him in the Chamber and I welcome him to the debate.
The textile industry is of considerable importance, both in the country as a whole and in my constituency. The industry employs 420,000 people, of whom 15 per cent. are employed in my region of Yorkshire and Humberside. It is interesting to note that there are 95 textile firms in Huddersfield. That figure is exceeded only by Bradford, which has 130 firms while Leeds has 72. That shows the importance of the textile industry to my area.
Of course the industry has suffered seriously during the recession, just as every other part of British industry has suffered. However, it is not all bad news. Many people believe that the textile industry is now more forward looking and better managed than in the past. Exports have increased by 25 per cent. over the past four years and we have seen further improvements in productivity. The industry has become more responsive to consumer requirements and now pays more attention to quality, design and innovation.
The fact that the BBC provides prime viewing time on a Sunday afternoon to "The Clothes Show" is a positive sign and reflects well on the textile industry. Indeed, I think that "The Clothes Show" is one of the best programmes on television. I say that not simply because I made a recent appearance on the show when supposedly modelling swim wear during the House of Commons versus House of Lords swim. I am not going to tell the House how I did in the swim, except to say that I think that my modelling, which was not up to very much, was better than my swimming. However, it was certainly a very enjoyable occasion.
My purpose in initiating this debate is to ensure that the textile industry is kept at the forefront of Ministers' thoughts and to ensure that some of the important issues can be aired in the House. It is important that we have regular debates so that the issues can be discussed and debated.
I want to examine developments within the GATT round, the multi-fibre arrangement and the need to tackle the unfair trading practices of other countries. I want to consider the way in which some of our European partners are providing anti-competitive subsidies to their home industries, thereby putting the British industry at a disadvantage. I will also consider the environmental standards with which British companies have to comply, along with Government support for overseas trade fairs. However, at the end of the day, the general state of the British economy will be the most fundamental factor in the fortunes of the textile industry. I shall deal with that later.
I welcome the agreement eventually hammered out in the GATT round between the Community and the United States. I am glad that the French Government did not repeat their threat to veto the GATT round on agriculture at the Edinburgh summit last weekend. It would he unforgivable for the French Socialist Government to scupper the GATT round simply to curry favour with their 556 featherbedded farmers in the run-up to next year's elections. Such a veto would be a hammer blow to the Community.
Despite the agreement on agriculture, we have not yet finally agreed a GATT settlement, although it looks certain that such an agreement will be signed. Some issues are still outstanding. The United States currently levies a 36 per cent. duty on this country's wool cloth exports. So far, the United States has offered only a token tariff reduction which would leave most tariffs at more than 30 per cent. The American negotiators have offered to reduce the tariff on very fine wool cloth to 20 per cent., but such cloth makes up only about 1 per cent. of British exports to America. Therefore, it means little and is just not good enough.
I hope that the Minister is pushing the Community to seek a more substantial reduction in American tariffs. A danger is that the incoming Clinton Administration could have a more protectionist outlook than the outgoing Administration. I hope that the Government will take every opportunity to persuade President Clinton and his team not to go down the route.
Other developed countries, such as Australia and South Africa, also levy high tariffs. Australia's tariffs range up to 55 per cent. There is no fixed maximum, so those tariffs could be increased after a GATT deal. Many developing countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Thailand, India and Pakistan, levy prohibitive tariffs, some of which are as high as 200 per cent. All those countries have burgeoning middle classes who find British cloth attractive. Some people find it hard to imagine that we could sell some of our fine worsted cloth to those developing countries, but there is a demand for it. However, the tariffs that are imposed on our exports significantly increase the price and suppress demand.
It is extremely important for the European Community to make it clear to all the countries involved in the GATT negotiations that the EC's commitment to phase out the multi-fibre arrangement within 10 years is conditional on binding tariff reductions that cannot be raised in future. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government and the Community are taking that approach in the negotiations.
I hope that the Minister will have some news about the extension of the multi-fibre arrangement during the interim period before a new GATT agreement. I understand that the roll-over of the MFA has still not been agreed, although the Minister may have up-to-date news about that. An interim agreement is important.
There is a need to end trade distortions in the Community. It is feared that some European Governments are cheating by handing out anticompetitive subsidies, thereby subverting the spirit of the single market and its law. The Minister will know about the Belgian companies that have been ordered by the European Commission and the European Court to repay subsidies but have still not done so about five years after being ordered to repay the money. There is an example of £120 million worth of illegal subsidies being paid to an Italian textile firm. That money has still not been repaid, and that is not good enough. I am not one of the Maastricht treaty's greatest fans, but I welcome the treaty's provision to give powers to the European Court to levy fines in such cases.
There are other examples of European Governments subsidising their textile industries at the expense of the 557 British textile industry. Some may say that the British Government should subsidise our industry. I do not accept that approach and, as far as I can see, the Commission does not accept it either. The Minister may like to comment on that. As we have seen in this country over the past 20 or 30 years, Governments are not good at picking winners. The EC's objective should be to create a free and fair market. We should not be in the business of featherbedding inefficient companies which have lost market share and, for whatever reason, are no longer profitable.
The French company VEV went bust two years ago, but it has been rescued by the French Government and the Credit Lyonnais bank, which is 100 per cent. state-owned. That company collapsed despite earlier large injections of illegal grant, but the French Government are keeping it going at the expense of British companies—its more efficient competitors. The Wallonian regional authority in Belgium is of course renowned for its subsidies to textile companies. One hears much anecdotal evidence of back-door subisidies by continental Governments to their home industries. I urge the Minister to do what he can to ensure that the Commission prohibits anti-competitive state aids which distort competition. The Commission must also enforce rapid recovery of illegally granted aid.
Environmental obligations have been placed upon textile companies and strict standards for the discharge of effluents have been imposed. I was told by a senior representative of the industry that Britain's environmental standards are more stringent than those of any other country. There is evidence that some inspectors in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are less flexible than they might be. Will the Minister ensure that the Government show understanding and flexibility to the industry, especially during these difficult economic times? He may need to speak to Ministers in the Department of the Environment about that.
We should not impose unduly tough or unnecessary environmental standards. Plainly, we must ensure a clean environment, but there is a feeling in the industry that Britain alone in the EC has gone for the most stringent interpretation of European environmental targets, thus costing our industry enormous sums in new investment simply to meet those high standards. Companies have been making a great deal of new investment, but some of it has been for environmental reasons and has not contributed to greater productivity.
I am not suggesting that we do not want to clean up the environment, but the Government must ensure a flexible and sensible approach. Without such an approach, we are at a competitive disadvantage. I trust that future legislation for the environment or for any other area will be examined for its economic implications. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
About three weeks ago, we had an extremely useful debate on small businesses. One of the key features of the debate was the way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House, but especially Conservative Members, homed in on the problem of red tape and regulation. Those representing small businesses in my constituency complain increasingly about the regulations with which they must comply. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken the matter on board. He is launching a 558 crusade against too much red tape and regulation within the European Community generally and in the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is in charge of the battle against red tape, and I wish him well. We know that red tape can impose a great deal of extra cost on businesses.
I shall touch on the hope that the Government have provided to the industry in its export efforts. It has undoubtedly benefited from various export promotion schemes, but it is somewhat concerned about the so-called three-times rule, which restricts the support that is provided by the Government for a company's participation in trade fairs in a particular country to only three occasions. The rule is likely to hit the textile industry particularly hard because of the many fairs—often they are repeated twice a year due to seasonal factors—that textile companies have to attend. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give me an assurance that he will reconsider the rule.
The industry would appreciate receiving more help from our embassies, especially in the form of telling it and representative bodies as well as the Government of unfair trading practices, be they dumping, subsidising or whatever, of which they learn.
I have listed several issues that are of concern to the textile industry. The most important factor for the industry, however, is the state of the economy, both at home and in the wider world. I have no doubt that, in the context of the British economy, there have been put in place the appropriate economic conditions for recovery at home. Interest rates have been reduced by three percentage points. The reduction will give enormous help to companies in investing for the future as well as putting more money into consumers' pockets. The more competitive pound will help our exporters, and there is some anecdotal evidenced that overseas orders are increasing. The slowdown in Germany is alarming, especially as it will have a knock-on-effect throughout the rest of Europe, particularly northern Europe. As a counter-balance, it is encouraging to see that the American economy is showing clear signs of recovery.
This is the third debate on the economy and on issues of interest to industry in which I have spoken over the past six weeks. As I have said, I spoke in the debate on small businesses which took place about three weeks ago. I spoke in the recent debate on unemployment, and now we are debating the textile industry. At the end of the day, the key factor is to ensure that we get the right economic conditions.
We all know that interest rates have been too high for too long, and I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to reduce them by three percentage points over recent months. I do not know whether there is scope for reducing them still further. Some economists—some of the seven wise men —argue that intest rates could be further reduced without necessarily creating more inflation simply because companies will not be able to pass on the increased costs that are associated with a devalued pound. These are judgments for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government as a whole to make.
The autumn statement was a positive factor. Industry widely welcomed the measures that it contained, which helped to boost confidence generally among industrialists. There is no doubt, however, that confidence is still brittle. It is important that we show the key decision makers 559 within industry that economic stability is here for a year or two. We need to keep inflation down. Interest rates should remain as low as possible. We must ensure that red tape is kept to a minimum. Taxes, both in the corporate sector and for individuals, must be kept down. Those are the conditions that brought such success in the 1980s, and I hope and believe that they will bring repeated success in the 1990s. I am confident that we are coming out of the recession. I think that we shall see a recovery in 1993, and I look forward to it.
There is no doubt that the textile industry has the skill and resilience to compete in world markets. However, it needs a level playing field, and that patently does not exist at present. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do everything in his power to ensure that a level playing field is brought about. I know that the expression is heard in every debate on the textile industry, but I make no apology for repeating it. If we have a level playing field, I have no doubt that textile manufacturers in my constituency, in Yorkshire and throughout the country will play their part in creating employment, contributing to our balance of payments and generating wealth for the benefit of the British people.

§ The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury)
I welcome the opportunity that has been provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) again to debate the textile industry. I congratulate him on his diligence in pursuing the interests of the textile and clothing industry in the interests of many of his constituents who are involved in it. As my hon. Friend said, it is not the first time that we have had the pleasure of debating the industry, and I hope that it is not the last.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his extremely well-informed comments. They were so well informed that I am tempted to make an embarrassingly short speech—"Hear, hear. I agree"—and resume my place. I know, however, that the Government Whip would find that slightly inconvenient, as you would, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Accordingly, I shall respond more fully to my hon. Friend's comments.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the textile and clothing industry, which has long been a major contributor to our economy. The industry, as we all recognise, has been of particular importance to certain areas. My hon. Friend's area—Yorkshire and Humberside —with its traditional and justly world famous woollen textile industry, is one of those areas.
We all know that the industry has declined in size, but it still accounts for 6 per cent. of United Kingdom manufacturing output. The latest figures that I have show that it employs no fewer than 372,000 people. I hope that my Department reflects its importance. The restructuring of the Department by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade included the establishment of sectoral divisions to improve dialogue between the Department and all sections of industry. That has led to the creation of the textiles and retail division. Among its responsibilities is the specific task of ensuring that we can continue to have a high-level dialogue with the industry, good contact at all levels and a good knowledge of the industry. I hope that this will enable my Department to make a contribution to its continuing success.
560 In recent years, to meet the challenges of growing competition in home and export markets, there has been significant modernisation within the industry, leading to great improvements in productivity and in quality, to which my hon. Friend referred. I am happy to take up his comments, because, if we do not achieve world levels of quality, we shall not achieve success in export markets. I pay tribute to the improved quality that the industry has achieved.
In addition to improved productivity and quality, the industry has shown a great improvement in its ability to respond quickly to changes in customer needs, whether those customers are found in the British market or overseas. As a result, our textile and clothing companies are now much better placed to compete against the best in Europe and the world.
I congratulate the industry on the efforts that have led to those changes and on its continuing remarkable success in export markets. Total exports of fibres, textiles and clothing during the first half of 1992 were up 8 per cent. compared with the same period last year. Earnings in Yorkshire and Humberside from wool textile exports in the first nine months of this year were up 9 per cent. on last year. That is an impressive achievement in today's difficult world trading conditions.
My hon. Friend had a lot to say about a subject of great importance to the industry—the GATT Uruguay round. There is perhaps no other industry to which a successful outcome of the negotiations is more important than the textile and clothing industry. The Edinburgh Council stated the Community's commitment to an early, comprehensive and balanced agreement to the Uruguay agreement. The OECD has estimated that this could add nearly $200 billion to annual world trade. That would be of immense benefit to all industries, not just the textile and clothing industry.
A successful outcome of the round will entail agreement on the phasing out over a 10-year period of the multi-fibre arrangement, which at present provides protection for the clothing and textile industries in developed countries., Under those proposals, developed countries would, at least once every two years, be obliged to identify a range of textiles and of clothing products to be removed from the MFA quota regime. Quotas for those products not yet integrated into GATT will be progressively increased.
The draft agreement permits safeguard action against imports that threaten injury to domestic production. In other words, quotas can be reimposed on goods that threaten to damage our home industry. In return for phasing out the MFA, the Uruguay round will bring significant benefits to all industries, but particularly the textile and clothing industry. Those benefits include something of great importance—strengthened rules and disciplines governing the behaviour of all GATT members, including developing countries. As my hon. Friend will know, happily, an increasing number of countries have become subscribers to GATT.
I should like to highlight three points of particular importance concerning subsidies and anti-dumping. First, the Government and British industry have long been concerned about the potentially trade-distorting effects of foreign Governments' subsidies—a matter to which my hon. Friend understandably referred. The Uruguay round envisages the elimination of direct export subsidies and others that clearly distort or impede trade, while permitting domestic subsidies that demonstrably do not 561 affect trade. Those provisions, it is true, do not go as far as we and our industry would have liked, but they represent a significant improvement on the current GATT subsidies code, which imposes effectively no obligations on developing countries. That is progress on subsidies, and also on safeguards, where there are also proposals that will benefit United Kingdom industries.
Safeguard action is different from anti-dumping, in that it presumes that the goods in question have been fairly traded. Thus, it is right that stringent conditions should be met before a country can take safeguard action under the GATT regulations. The GATT secretary-general's text that is being considered establishes adequate disciplines and sets limits on the periods over which action may he taken.
There is also a clause that allows for provisional safeguard action to be taken where delay would cause damage that would be difficult later to repair. The main advantage of the proposed new code is that it establishes better disciplines and greater transparency without allowing other countries to take indiscriminate or arbitrary action against our exports. That would clearly not be in our interests.
When the negotiations stopped in late 1990, anti-dumping was one of the sectors on which agreement was a long way off. There is much to be welcomed in the secretary-general's text, which attempts to strike a balance between conflicting interests. It contains no specific provisions on the dumping of textile and clothing products but it is intended to cover all products. One proposal in the code that should help the clothing and textile industries is the provision for the investigating authorities to employ sampling techniques where large numbers of exporters are involved. As my hon. Friend will know, rapid changes in the exact description of products has made the application of anti-dumping procedures to textiles particularly difficult. This proposal should help to speed up investigations.
My hon. Friend, quite understandably, had a lot to say about tariffs, and I entirely share his view that there are too many tariffs in the world at unacceptable levels. The Uruguay round is concerned with tariffs, and the textile and clothing industry is equally concerned with the current tariff situation. The outcome of the tariff negotiations, especially those being conducted bilaterally between the Community and the United States, will have a significant impact on the export prospects of those industries. British textile exports to non-EC destinations far too often face prohibitive tariff barriers, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Some exports to the United States face duty rates of up to 36 per cent.
The tariff negotiations are still in process. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that a reduction in textile tariffs, especially those in the United States and certain developing countries, is a priority for Britain. We shall urge on the Community that it continues to make this its priority in the market access part of the negotiations. We have constantly made clear, particularly to the United States, that we expect big reductions in the peak tariff, especially those on textile exports.
The British industry's view of the prospective package of MFA phase-out, coupled with strengthened GATT rules and disciplines and reductions in tariffs, was given 562 some months ago by the chairman of the Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance with which, I am happy to say, the Government have maintained close links throughout the negotiations. The chairman wrote that, while the textiles and clothing industry was disappointed with some aspects of the proposed agreement, it was nevertheless the best on offer, and better than other alternatives that would not deal with the problem of trade distortions.
The Government share that assessment. The overall settlement in prospect, from the textile industry viewpoint, is certainly not perfect, but it contains a range of positive features and offers the best way forward for integrating textiles and clothing trade into the GATT system on an orderly and gradual basis. The British industry is rightly continuing to press for the best possible outcome in the tariff negotiations, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are striving to ensure that that is achieved.
My hon. Friend referred to the temporary renewal of the MFA, pending the conclusion of the Uruguay round negotiations. The Community's bilateral agreements with supplier countries are due to run out at the end of this year. The delay in reaching agreement on the Uruguay round has made it necessary to renew the MFA and agreements under it. The Community has now reached agreement with 12 supplier countries on terms within the strict mandate given to the Commission. The Commission hopes to have reached agreement with all MFA suppliers by the end of the year. My Department is keeping the industry closely informed during the process of these negotiations.
Another important subject to which my hon. Friend referred is state aid. I fully agree with him on the importance of keeping up pressure on the Commission and our Community partners to ensure that the European Community state aid rules are rigorously applied so as to ensure fair competition throughout the Community. I am afraid that, as my hon. Friend said, there have been a number of violations of the rules in the textile industry and we have frequently made recommendations to the Commission both about the general issue and about particular cases.
We have secured an important provision in the Maastricht treaty to enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states that fail to comply with their obligations under the state aid rules. Industry has been commendably vigilant in drawing the Commission's attention to suspected violations of the rules. We encourage industry, through its United Kingdom and EC trade associations, to keep up its efforts in that area. The Government are ready to take up specific cases whenever it seems useful to do so.
A unit in my Department is dedicated to helping industry remove barriers to trade within the EC that should not exist under the single market. It is called the single market compliance unit, and I hope that the industry will not hesitate to contact it if it encounters obstacles that should not exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley also referred to the importance of environmental protection measures. He was right to identify those as a potential area of difficulty. I am sure that he will welcome, as I did, the resolution adopted at the recent European Community Industry Council calling for the costs and benefits of proposed environmental measures to be properly assessed before adoption. The resolution also called for an even-handed enforcement of environmental standards in 563 all EC countries. Those will be welcome words to many in British industry. Again, the Government are ready to take up cases where there is evidence that failure by other member states to enforce environmental standards risks distorting trade.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have several environmental grant schemes for research, development and demonstration of new environmental technology. One of those, the environmental management option scheme, known as DEMOS, supports the adoption of environmental technologies and best practice techniques, which offer wide environmental benefits. Under DEMOS, my Department is working with the Textile Finishers Association on a project to define best practice technology for waste minimisation and effluent treatment in the textile dying and finishing industry. My Department is providing £145,000 towards total project costs of £290,000 over 18 months. I hope that the industry will welcome that provision because that sector of the industry has problems with environmental protection rules.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the three-times rule covering attendance at trade fairs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I are aware of the concerns in the textile and clothing industry about the rule under which companies may receive British Overseas Trade Board assistance for participating in overseas trade fairs no more than three times in any one market, apart from the United States, Germany and Japan. However, I am not sure whether the position of the textile and clothing industry is unique, and the limitations on the budget may make it difficult to implement the change that the industry would wish to see. We are nevertheless always interested to consider suggestions from industry of ways to improve our services to exporters.
I shall think carefully about the point that my hon. Friend made. The operation of aid to exhibitions and fairs will come up for review next year, and I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade takes note of the comments that my hon. Friend made.
The industry is already a major recipient of export support provided through BOTB. During 1992–93, we expect no fewer than 1,350 textile and clothing companies to exhibit at 45 overseas trade shows with the help of support from my Department valued at £1.6 million. In addition, more than £.100,000 will be provided to assist the industry through inward and outward missions targeted at important export markets. Those figures are clear evidence of the industry's strong commitment to exporting and to the effectiveness of industry and trade promotion groups such as the British Knitting and Clothing Export Council and the National Wool Textile Export Corporation.
My hon. Friend referred to communication between companies in the industry and our overseas posts. I agree that such communication is extremely important, but the issue is not unique to the industry under discussion. I hope that I can say that, for the most part, good communication now exists. I am convinced that all our overseas posts are committed and determined to provide a good commercial service to our exporters.
All our overseas posts have trained and experienced commercial staff, tasked to promote the interests of United Kingdom companies and send back commercial intelligence. They are now under the management of the joint directorate which brings together my Department and the Foreign Ofice. In some of our larger posts, where resources permit, some of those commercial officers specialise in 564 textiles and clothing. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who will take note of them.
I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend mention deregulation, a subject that is dear to the hearts of all Ministers in my Department. I shall correct him on only one point. He said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was launching a new campaign. In fact, it is a relaunch. Deregulation requires constant vigilance and we are relaunching a campaign throughout Whitehall to ensure that deregulation is given the priority that it deserves. We wish not to burden industry with unnecessary rules, regulations or red tape but to give it every opportunity to flourish. That is particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises that find such regulations difficult.
I end as my hon. Friend did by saying a few words about the importance of achieving the right economic climate for the textile and clothing industry, as for every other industry in the country. In his autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out clearly the Government's new framework for economic policy. I share my hon. Friend's view that the statement has provided a further encouragement to confidence through the monetary policies set according to the needs of the domestic economy, the priority to continue to control inflation but, perhaps most positively, as my hon. Friend said, the advantage to the textile and clothing industry of lower interest rates—not just the recent reduction of 1 per cent., worth another £1 billion off British industry's interest bills, but also the £9 billion already saved as a result of previous reductions.
I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of the industry and assure him that my Department will continue to help by deregulation, help to exporters, and direct dialogue with the industry. I look forward to further occasions to debate this important industry and hope that we shall then have an opportunity to congratulate the industry again on further export success, further improvements in productivity, further improvements in quality and further improvements in its ability to meet consumers' demands.

§ Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will have observed, something has arisen this morning that has caused great concern to Scottish Members of Parliament. Only this morning on the Order Paper, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) put down a question to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland asking when he intends to announce the outcome of the current applications for NHS trust status in Scotland and whether he will make a statement. We have learnt that a written answer is to be given to that question later today and that there is to be no public announcement, yet we know—the Scottish press is already aware of it—that no fewer than eight of those hospitals are to be announced today, with a further announcement next week on another six.
That is utterly disgraceful. The whole of Scotland has expressed its disagreement with trust status for its hospitals. Communities and patients have expressed their disagreement. Furthermore, the Health Select Committee only recently expressed grave disquiet about the performance of the trust status hospitals in England. Yet the Government are not only pressing ahead but doing it in a utterly hole-and-corner manner because they are too 565 gutless to come to the Chamber and express their wish to do so. Can we demand that a Minister comes to the Chamber at 12 o'clock to answer questions on the matter?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady had to say. I can sense from the support that is being expressed from behind her that there is real strength of feeling on the matter. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Lady—

§ Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South)
Ministers did not even listen.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The Treasury Bench is occupied. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) will know that matters of state are nothing to do with the Chair. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard and listened attentively, because it is obviously important.

Several Hon. Members
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that they are new points of order.

§ Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen)
Further to the point of order. Although the Victoria infirmary has been mentioned in the press releases, there has been no mention of Rutherglen maternity hospital in my constituency, which is linked to the Victoria. Surely it is wrong that people who have worked there and those who are served by those two hospitals have no information from the Government about what the future holds for them.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That would be part of the content of any statement, if one should be made. It is nothing to do with the Chair.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I will take one more point of order, provided that it is not on the same matter.

§ Mr. McMaster
Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a disgrace that the press knew of the decisions last night and certainly before the House knew? Is it not a disgrace that this unwanted policy has been forced on an unwilling people by an unelected Government?

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Respect for the Chair is appreciated. These are matters of policy which have nothing to do with the Chair. It is 11.1 and this day is traditionally for Back Benchers. I call Mr. David Trimble.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not taking any more points of order on the matter. I call Mr. Trimble.

§ Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I understand that hon. Members feel very worried about the matter. That is self evident. However, three hon. Members have made a 566 virtually identical point of order. Hon. Members' views are clear. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard them and they do not need to be repeated. The Chair has now ruled.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have called Mr. David Trimble.

§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm to me that Madam Speaker has not stipulated that the announcement of any new trust hospitals should be made in the House of Commons? Several hospitals have become trust hospitals but the announcements were not made here in the House. We saw how Scottish Members suddenly came into the Chamber all at the same time just before 11 am. Is it not clear that this is a publicity stunt? It is an abuse of the House.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It is not for Madam Speaker to produce an opinion on any aspect of Government policy. Madam Speaker is here to ensure that there is considered debate on the matters which are scheduled for debate. I have taken three points of order on a specific matter which is outside the powers of the Chair.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
If it is a different point of order, I will take it, but I shall listen attentively. Time is coming out of the debate of the hon. Member who has the next Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Foulkes
I understand that an announcement is to be made today in a written answer on eight hospital trusts but that others, including the North Ayrshire, and the community trust in Ayrshire, will not be announced today. Apparently they will be announced next week, not even in a written reply—such is the insult to the House. That is of grave concern, particularly because the Minister of State, Scottish Office, Lord Fraser, abruptly cancelled a meeting with me on Tuesday at which we were to discuss the matter. The Government are clearly rushing the measure through against the wishes of the Scottish people. We must have an opportunity to have a statement and a debate on the issue as quickly as possible.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That was not a new point of order.

§ Mr. Foulkes
It was.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With respect, it was not. The hon. Gentleman must accept that I have some understanding of these matters, and that was not a new point of order. I expect that all the others are not new points of order. I urge hon. Gentlemen to understand that today is a special day for certain hon. Members who have worked hard to prepare a case about another important part of the United Kingdom.
I plead with hon. Members to understand that they are taking time out of that debate and no new point of order has been made. Hon. Members have put their case forcefully. The hon. Member for Maryhill put the case with considered deference to the House and showed that 567 the matter was vital to her and other Scottish Members. She put it with such strength that I hope that other hon. Members will resume their seats and I can call Mr. David Trimble.

§ Mr. Trimble
I have some sympathy with the views that have been expressed by Scottish Members—

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is no good hon. Gentlemen—

§ Mr. McMaster
And hon. Ladies.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I ask hon. Members to recognise that this is the season of good will—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not for these hospitals."] Order. I have now heard three hon. Gentlemen sitting on the fourth row say, "Not for these hospitals." Clearly, their point of order is identical to the one that we have already discussed.

§ Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead)
On a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. No. The hon. Gentleman said that it was on hospitals—

§ Mr. Galloway
It is a procedural matter. It will take you 30 seconds to hear it.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have ruled, and I expect some recognition that I am standing here in the absence of Madam Speaker. I ask hon. Gentlemen to recognise that I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Maryhill and to two further hon. Gentlemen, who made the same point of order and did so with conviction. There is no point in hon. Members continually making the same point of order.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I will take the final point of order from Mr. John McFall.

§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)
There is an intensity of feeling on the Scottish Benches because yesterday we spent five hours closeted with Scottish Ministers in the House in Scottish questions and then in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill until half past eight. They all disappeared and we were told about the decision last night. The intensity of feeling is great—so much so that we have consulted with our Chief Whip this morning who, through the usual channels, is trying to arrange for the Minister to come to the House at half past two this afternoon to make an announcement and be decent and respectful to Parliament.
It is with that in mind that we are pushing the matter this morning. Given that information, can the Treasury Bench tell us whether any advance has been made so that we can have a statement and the Scottish people exercise their right to know exactly what is happening in this House of Parliament?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has driven home his point with considerable conviction. He mentioned that negotiations were continuing and hoped for something at half past two. Let us see what happens then.

§ Mrs. Irene Adams (Paisley, North)
On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)
On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman are now stretching my patience.

§ Mrs. Adams
On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat. It is no good her standing up and saying that she has a new point of order when I am standing. I am sorry. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made it clear that negotiations were proceeding and hon. Members are seeking a debate at 2.30 pm. Let us see what happens. Now we must move on—

§ Mr. Galloway
I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

§ Mr. Trimble
I was about to observe—

§ Mr. Galloway
I spy strangers.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I put the Question—

§ Mr. Galloway
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He has been in the House long enough to know that. The hon. Gentleman may not understand the procedure. I put the Question. There were no ayes, but there were noes.

§ Mr. Galloway
You may not have heard them.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman should pay more attention if he is moving a motion.

§ Mr. Galloway
In that case, I will move it again. I spy strangers.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may wish to move the motion again, but he is not allowed to do so under Standing Orders. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies to recognise that today is an important day for all Back Benchers. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, on a further point of order, made it clear that he was seeking a statement and that negotiations were proceeding. I suspect that the hon. Members who are interfering will undermine that. Certainly, undermining the Chair does not help hon. Members. Hon. Members must recognise that I stand here in place of Madam Speaker. I do not think that hon. Members, least of all today, will want to upset Madam Speaker and challenge the Chair. I think that we can now move on to the hon. Member for Upper Bann.