Business of the House (Hansard, 29 January 1992)

§ Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor)
With permission I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be as follows:
Timetable motion on the Education (Schools) Bill, followed by conclusion of remaining stages of the Education (Schools) Bill. I will announce in my business statement tomorrow the arrangements for the business originally set down for tomorrow.

§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)
Is the Leader of the House aware that that is a statement of which he ought to be ashamed? As I said earlier, the Government have no stomach for a fight. If they had been willing to debate these matters through the night, as we were, and then to ensure that there was sufficient time next week, they would have got their Bill, but the truth is that they are now in total panic over this measure. They know that even with the guillotine tomorrow they have no chance of getting the Bill through the other place and then back here if an election is called for 9 April. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is the case—if an election is called in the middle of March, there is no way in which this measure can become law?
Will he also explain what will happen to the Welsh revenue support grant order which was due to be debated tomorrow?

§ Mr. MacGregor
We were willing to accommodate the Opposition in any way today on the Bill. They never asked in any of our discussions for more than one day. Well into today's debate, there was, for the first time, an indication that the Opposition were not prepared to see the Bill through in one day. They never approached Ministers until well into the debate, and we had been quite unable to understand the purpose of their concern. It is now absolutely clear.
I cannot comment on the progress of the Bill when it reaches another place. What I can tell the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is that he has now revealed that his concern is entirely about election timing and the position of the Opposition on election timing.
It is important to make it clear to the House that I have been under pressure from all sides of the House to accommodate a large number of debates. I am under great pressure to accommodate the Friendly Societies Bill and hon. Members on both sides of the House want that Bill to be passed. I am trying to secure it in this Parliament.
After every business statement, I am asked to fit in more debates. I have endeavoured to meet the wishes of Members on both sides of the House, including their desire to debate the Friendly Societies Bill, and it was on that basis that we agreed to spend one day on this Bill. When it was clear that there was no agreement on that, we had to take the steps that we have taken to protect the rest of the programme.

§ Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North)
Will the Leader of the House explain to us why important groups of amendments that are still to be discussed have to be put back to tomorrow? Several of my hon. Friends wished to speak. Several of us were concerned about important aspects of the Bill. Not one speech has been ruled out of 1043 order by the Chair, and we have not been pulled up for being out of order. The whole issue was still to be debated, and we were most concerned about it. Moreover, will the Leader of the House explain what is to be done when local authorities all over the country are waiting to hear what is to happen with the revenue support grant—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. May I ask hon. Members below the Gangway not to converse among themselves? It is difficult to hear at this end of the Chamber.

§ Mr. George Howarth
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Leader of the House explain how those of us from Merseyside who have had correspondence with the Merseyside fire authority about the rate support grant assessment—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask the Leader of the House a question, as Members do with an ordinary business statement.

§ Mr. Howarth
How can the local authorities which are most concerned about the revenue support grant settlement and how it will affect services—[Interruption.] When will they know when the grant settlement—[Interruption.] When can local authorities sort that out? It is disgraceful that the Government are running away from—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. MacGregor
I could hear only a small part of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, if I heard him aright, I will make clear the position on the revenue support grant settlements in my business statment tomorrow.
With regard to the question about the time to be given to the Education (Schools) Bill, we had originally agreed absolutely that one day would be sufficient to see the Bill through. If we can agree the timetable motion early tomorrow afternoon, we will have two full days to debate the Bill instead of one.

§ Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
There is no point of order. These are business questions.

§ Mr. Hayes
If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is right in saying that he offered the Opposition more than one day to debate the Education (Schools) Bill and they refused that, it is clear that the Opposition were simply filibustering tonight for political ends. The Opposition have only one person to blame, and that is the shadow Leader of the House.

§ Mr. MacGregor
The Opposition did not ask for more than one day. We are now giving the Bill two days.

§ Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South)
Is it not a little disingenuous of the Leader of the House to pray in aid—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. May I say again to hon. Members below the Gangway that it would be helpful if they would carry on their conversations in the Lobby?

§ Mr. Boateng
Is it not a little disingenuous of the Leader of the House to pray in aid the long-awaited 1044 Friendly Societies Bill when he has already put off the publication of that Bill on several occasions? When will he publish that Bill and stop using it as an excuse to curtail debate about this disastrous measure—the Education (Schools) Bill?

§ Mr. MacGregor
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot ask for the publication of the Friendly Societies Bill and also claim that I am not trying to find time for it. There is a great deal of legislation ahead of us, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House want me to fit in many debates. I am trying to accommodate the Friendly Societies Bill because I am well aware of the desire on both sides of the House in respect of it. I am hoping to find time for it, and that is precisely why I thought that we had reached agreement to deal with the Education (Schools) Bill in one day. If we can find time, I hope to be able to publish the Friendly Societies Bill before long.

§ Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford)
With regard to the debate on the Education (Schools) Bill, is it not clear that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been forced to make his statement because of the systematic abuse of the procedures of the House by the Labour party and continuous filibustering to prevent proper debate on very important legislation?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I repeat that, if we can move quickly back to the Bill tomorrow afternoon, we will have two days to debate it.

§ Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro)
The Leader of the House will be aware that the debate will continue tomorrow at very short notice and that that will make it difficult for some hon. Members who had intended to do so to take part in the debate. Why must the right hon. Gentleman rush ahead with the Bill tomorrow when other business had been arranged? Why did he not arrange for it to be debated at the beginning of next week when it would have been easier for hon. Members, who have a genuine interest in the Bill, to see it through?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am sorry that this is the case, but it was forced upon me. It is important that we proceed with the Bill and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to rearrange his affairs so that we can proceed with it and so that he can participate in the debate.

§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)
My right hon. Friend, in support of his decision, should know that, every time that I have walked into the Chamber on a regular 10-minute basis throughout the evening, there have been only two rather bored Members sitting on the Opposition Benches and one person speaking. Will my right hon. Friend put tomorrow's business back to 14 February, as that would be a jolly good time to discuss tomorrow's business?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am not quite sure whether I follow my hon. Friend. I hope to be doing other things on 14 February.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the 10 o'clock motion was not moved because the Government feared that they would not be able to sustain the business as they did not have 100 Conservative Members in the House? [Interruption.]
1045 Will the Leader of the House make a statement tomorrow on the arrangements that he will make for debating the important revenue support grant orders for England and Wales? He will be aware that local authorities have been notified of that debate. They have budgeted accordingly, and it may cause them great difficulty because they are now faced with the problem that they will have no certainty until those orders are passed.
In his statement tomorrow, will the right hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear that the reason is the confusion and incompetence of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the rest of the Government in organising the business? Will he also confirm—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is an ordinary business statement. I think that the hon. Member has asked two questions.

§ Mr. Cryer
May I conclude, Mr. Speaker?

§ Mr. Speaker
No. I think that that is enough.

§ Mr. MacGregor
On the hon. Gentleman's first point in relation to the number of Conservative Members and the closure, it is quite clear that he cannot count, just as the Opposition generally cannot count on their tax and expenditure plans.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point about the revenue support grant orders, I understand the importance of clarifying the position on that, and I shall do so tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Questions must be related to the business announced by the Leader of the House. I shall allow questions to continue until 10.25 pm, when we shall move on to the Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest)
Is it not evidence of the extreme cynicism with which the Opposition have been dealing with an important education measure that, in Committee, they should not have any problem with the timetable, yet this afternoon should spend no less than three hours debating the first new clause and then not even vote on it?

§ Mr. MacGregor
My hon. Friend has a point. As I have said, we are now giving two days for the Bill to be considered on Report and on Third Reading.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that, throughout the 12 years of the Conservative Administration, there has been concern about standards in education? Will he confirm also that previous Secretaries of State, including himself, have not considered it necessary to introduce such a Bill? Will he confirm also that—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is the third question. Let us have the answer to the first two questions first.

§ Mr. Spearing
I am coming to the question for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Will not the business for tomorrow, which changes the goalposts for the assessment of standards and upsets an inspectorate of 130 years' standing, cause extreme cynicism not only among the teaching profession but among most parents in this country?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I confirm that throughout the period of this Government we have been concerned about standards in education and we have constantly been improving them. I confirm also that I wholly support my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in bringing forward the Bill. Had I still been at the Department, I would have done so. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's third point arises.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, unless there is more self-discipline on both sides of the House between now and the general election, we shall do no credit to ourselves? Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend offered two days for the business but that in the end it was agreed that there should be one day? Now the Government have agreed to provide two days. What on earth do the Opposition have to grumble about? They must be interested only in pure filibustering to frustrate legislation. Can my hon. Friend confirm that in the end the House will be the loser?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I can confirm two things. First, we now propose to provide two days for the remainder of the Report stage and Third Reading to enable the Bill to be discussed thoroughly, as happened in Committee. Secondly, we are getting on with the business of the normal legislative programme and endeavouring to do as much as possible in a parliamentary Session that will inevitably be shorter than usual. It is to do that in an orderly fashion that we are taking this action tonight.

§ Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
While welcoming the provision of two days for the remaining stages of the Bill, may I ask the Leader to ensure that, in the consultations about the timetable motion, discussions will be held with all parties in the House? Four or five clauses in the Bill which relate to the Welsh Office were dealt with very inadequately in Committee as a result of the make-up of the Committee. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have an opportunity to discuss those clauses on the Floor of the House tomorrow?

§ Mr. MacGregor
That could best be achieved by having the timetable motion disposed of very quickly, so that the whole day could be devoted to the Bill itself.

§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
Will it be possible, during the debate on the timetable motion tomorrow, to raise the fact that headmasters in my constituency are refusing to deliver the leaflet that the Department of Education and Science produced? Shall I have an opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Grimsby Evening Telegraph takes a very dim view of that?

§ Mr. MacGregor
My hon. Friend has made his point already. I hope that, if he wants to make it again, he will do so during the debate on the Bill rather than in the debate on the timetable motion.

§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)
Is not this shambles the Government's own doing? I speak as one who has been here since half-past three this afternoon, and I heard the points of order just now from Tory Members of Parliament who never graced the Benches opposite. Now we have this shambles led by an inept Leader of the House. That is the reason for the rearrangement of business. That is why the programme should be reinstated.

§ Mr. MacGregor
In recent days there have been many points of order from the Labour party, but today points of order took up very little time.

§ Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)
May I, as someone who has been here for most of the debate, ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that, by debating this matter again in prime time tomorrow, we shall enable the people of this country properly to understand the benefits that will flow from the Bill?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I know that my hon. Friend always takes a very great interest in educational matters, in which he is a great expert. He makes a very good point. The many excellent aspects of this Bill will be debated in the House tomorrow at a time when the public can be made aware of them. I am sure that that will be of great benefit.

§ Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
I have been here all day and have contributed to the debate, and I expected the business to be disposed of tonight. In all the years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have never seen such a situation. I should like to put a simple question to you, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Not to me.

§ Mr. Flannery
May I, then, ask the Leader of the House whether his Government are in some kind of mess?

§ Mr. MacGregor
Certainly not.

§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)
Has the Leader of the House taken fully into account the fact that the Government will be seen as having acted in a most cavalier fashion by their handling tomorrow of the revenue support grant and that this will cause a great deal of distress throughout local government? As the Leader of the House wishes to appear reasonable, will he tomorrow look at the Official Report, which will show that, in the early part of our proceedings, speeches were deliberately lengthened by means of extremely long interventions from the Government side? I rose to make a short speech in the earlier debate. There was a series of long interventions, including one that amounted to a speech by the Secretary of State. Given the Government's filibustering tactics—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. No pointing, please.

§ Mr. Hardy
Given the filibustering tactics adopted by the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman), and one or two others among the few Conservative Members who were in the Chamber, does the Leader of the House really think that his action could be described as reasonable?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there were no filibustering tactics on this side of the House. I repeat the important point that we are giving more time to consideration of the Bill by allowing a second day of debate. I am sure that it is in the interests of the House to conclude consideration of the Bill in that way. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about revenue support grant, I acknowledge the importance of clarifying the situation, and I will do so tomorrow.

Mr. John Greenway Rydale)
Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when the Bill received its Second Reading, it was rare to see Opposition Members in their places? That debate almost collapsed before 10 o'clock. However, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends 1048 participated in that debate, and I was one of them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason for the Opposition's pathetic protest is that Labour realises that it has lost the initiative on education, and is now behind in the opinion polls?

§ Mr. MacGregor
My hon. Friend makes two good points, and he is right on both.

§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)
No one is clear why the Government panicked at 10 o'clock this evening. It can be explained only by their desperation to get the Bill into the other place, in order to meet their timetable for a general election. The Leader of the House has organised a loss of Government time tomorrow for the revenue support grant orders for England and Wales, which we shall presumably now have to consider next week, when the Bill could have been completed in the early hours of the morning. Instead of all this nonsense, why do the Government not announce the date of the general election now?

§ Mr. MacGregor
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that we have been endeavouring for several hours to have discussions on those matters and to reach a conclusion, so that it might have been possible to complete the Bill in the early hours. However, we were unable to do so. We are therefore giving the Bill an extra day, to ensure that it is properly considered.
The hon. Gentleman's point about the revenue support grant orders was very much in my mind. As he knows from our exchanges in business statements, I am anxious to accommodate all the pressures on the parliamentary timetable in agreement with the Opposition, and to meet their desire for supply days. The more days I lose, the more difficult it is to do that.

§ Dr. Cunningham
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member asked one question.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There must be some discipline in this place.

§ Dr. Cunningham
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Is it a point of order for me?

§ Dr. Cunningham
Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House is mistaken. There were no discussions about not suspending the 10 o'clock rule. What is more, there was no filibustering on this side of the House. [HoN. MEMBERS: "He was not here. "]
There are 31 Government amendments for debate on the Order Paper, and 44 Opposition amendments, so the idea that the Opposition have been delaying the passage of the Bill is complete nonsense—and the Leader of the House knows it. If the right hon. Gentleman had sought for one moment to discuss the matter through the usual channels—with me—as he did not seek to do, we might have resolved the problem and the Government could have had their Bill. This is about the Government panicking because of their general election timetable. It has nothing to do with this side of the House—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

§ Mr. MacGregor
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say briefly—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is disgraceful behaviour.

§ Mr. MacGregor
The business statement has nothing to do with the point that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made. I am aware that discussions have been going on for some time. We have endeavoured, as I always endeavour, to accommodate the requests of Members on both sides for time and to enable the Government's legislation to get through in the best possible way.

§ Mr. George Howarth
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I will not take the point of order.