Business of the House (Hansard, 12 November 1992)

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)
Slightly later than usual, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:
MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER—Opposition day (5th allotted day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate described as "Housing—Homelessness and the Mortgage Crisis" followed by a debate on Bosnia. Both debates arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY I7 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill.
Ways and Means resolution relating to car tax (abolition).
WEDNESDAY I8 NOVEMBER AND THURSDAY I9 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement.
FRIDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 23 NOVEMBER—Opposition day (6th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.
It may also he helpful for the House to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 18 November at 10.30 am.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)
Not again.

§ Mr. Newton
Evidently with the reluctant participation of at least one hon. Member. They will meet to consider European Community documents as follows:

§ Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South)
I thank the Leader of the House for the statement. There may be a certain amount of cynicism in some parts of the House about the fact that the Liberal Democrats' saving the Government's bacon is followed so closely by the award of an Opposition day.
1035 I press the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on the supply of plant and machinery to Iraq. Before the Leader of the House reminds us that there is to be an inquiry, may I say that the matter is not sub judice. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent the House from having a debate. We have a duty to scrutinise the role and behaviour of Ministers in relation to the House and statements made here.
As the timetable for completion of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill seems to be under continual review, when does the Leader of the House now expect to resume the Committee stage? I thank the right hon. Gentleman for next week's debate on the autumn statement, but will he bear in mind that, after the Select Committee report, the House will want an opportunity to take a more detailed look at the public expenditure programme?
Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the strong view on the Opposition Benches that it is quite unacceptable that the autumn statement and the social security uprating statement should be made on the same day in future, particularly on a Thursday, as that is bound to reduce the opportunity normally available to the House for questioning on those different subjects? Finally, may I utter the two words, "Members' interests"?

§ Mr. Newton
Taking the last point first, I assure the hon. Lady, as I have assured the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on whose behalf she no doubt raises the point in his absence, that I have that matter very much in mind. However, I cannot add to what I have said over the past week or two.
Returning to the main thrust of the hon. Lady's questions, although I note without surprise what she described at the outset of her remarks as cynicism, it will be well within the knowledge of those on the Liberal Democrats Bench that they have been pressing for a Supply day opportunity for some time—as, indeed, the hon. Lady probably has. My statement gives an Opposition day to the Liberal Democrats and to the official Opposition. It does nothing more than reflect my normal wish to be as helpful as I can in responding to the pressures on me.
With regard to the debate on the Matrix Churchill business for which the hon. Lady was pressing, I cannot promise that. The proper course is for the independent inquiry to do its work. However, I have already said that there is an Opposition day and no doubt the hon. Lady may wish to bear that in mind when considering what she wants to do.
I cannot give the hon. Lady a precise date at the moment for embarking on the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. However, I assure her that she will not have to wait too much longer. In respect of the hon. Lady's desire for a further debate on the autumn statement, I have said that next week's debate is expected to take place on a motion to approve the autumn statement. That would take over from the debate that more normally takes place in January. However, if the hon. Lady wishes to press, through the usual channels, for further opportunities to debate economic or public expenditure matters, between now and the Budget, consideration can clearly be given to that in the normal way.
I was a little surprised by the hon. Lady's remarks about the autumn statement and the social security 1036 statement coming on the same day. In many ways, there has been an artificiality in previous years in having the social security statement picked out some weeks in advance of the overall outcome of public expenditure. Although I do not say that that sets an immutable precedent, it makes a certain amount of logical sense. It is now more than two and three quarter hours since the first of the statements was embarked upon and there has been a full opportunity to question my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security.

§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)
Will my right hon. Friend make a statement next week on the way in which the House will examine the issue of the ordination of women? My right hon. Friend will be aware that that matter will have to come before the House after the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses has considered it. Is he aware that there is deep feeling on both sides of the House about the issue and that we will expect a full day's debate at least when it comes before the House?

§ Mr. Newton
I take careful note of that point. I am well aware that, following yesterday's decision, the House will expect a substantial opportunity to debate the matter should it come before us. I shall bear what my hon. Friend said in mind.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
Grateful though we are for the debate space on Monday, I wish to press the Leader of the House on the Committee timetable and remaining stages timetable on the Maastrich Bill. Will he dispel the various confusions in Government circles about the timetable from now on? Are we going to start the Committee stage, as we are told, the week after next? When will Third Reading be taken?

§ Mr. Newton
As I told the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), I cannot give a specific date, but I certainly anticipate embarking on the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill very shortly after we have disposed of the business that I announced today, which takes us up to Monday week. However, I shall not attempt to give a specific date this afternoon. As for subsequent stages of the Bill, the position has been made entirely clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have nothing to add to that.

§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)
Would my right hon. Friend care to tell me when I shall be able to express my dismay at a rather feeble decision by the Rugby Union authorities to kow-tow to the African National Congress and decide not to play the national anthem at Twickenham on Saturday? Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the fans at Twickenham to initiate the singing of the national anthem on Saturday to continue the long-held tradition which has been enjoyed there for such a long time?

§ Mr. Newton
Many will share my hon. Friend's concern. I understand that, following the press report earlier in the week, further discussions are taking place today and a decision is expected later. So far as I am aware, it has not been made yet. It is not, of course, a matter for the Government, being a matter for private bodies, but I hope that a solution will be found that will enable the tradition to be maintained.

§ Dr. Godman
May I say in passing that I am very interested to hear that European Standing Committee B is meeting next week.
My question concerns the need for a statement next week by the Secretary of State for Social Security about a decision by the chief adjudication officer to appeal against a commissioner's decision to restore invalidity benefit to a lady in Liverpool. The Government's refusal to restore payment of that benefit by way of the commissioner's decision, which is based upon an EC directive dating from as far back as 1979, has important implications for many thousands of women, some of whom are quite frail in health.
I appeal to the Leader of the House, who has knowledge of these matters, to arrange for a statement concerning the timing of the appeal to the English Court of Appeal. If that appeal is lost, I should like to know whether the Government would then appeal to the House of Lords. I have today written to Mrs. Papandreou urging her to take action at the European Court of Justice against the Government by way of article 169.

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to suggest that I had a certain knowledge of social security matters, which I suppose inescapably is the case after three years as Secretary of State, but it does not extend—

§ Mrs. Beckett
That does not necessarily follow.

§ Mr. Newton
That is a really cynical remark.

§ Dr. Godman
What does the Leader of the House mean?

§ Mr. Newton
I was referring to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). The hon. Gentleman probably did not hear her sedentary and cynical intervention.
As for the hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that whatever knowledge I have did not extend to the details of the case that he raised. However, I know enough about such matters to know that I would be unwise to comment off the cuff. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is some time since we have had a debate in Government time on tourism? Will he give recognition to the fact that tourism is Britain's largest industry, both in terms of revenue gains for the country and because of the number of people employed in it? Will he therefore urgently see if he can find time for a debate on tourism?

§ Mr. Newton
That is the second time in a couple of weeks that the point has been raised. Although I cannot give any promises, I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind. Meanwhile, noting the town that he represents in Parliament, I hope that it did reasonably well out of the CBI conference.

§ Mr. Ken Eastham (Manchester, Blackley)
I wish to raise with the Leader of the House the desperate plight of between 20,000 and 25,000 unfortunate old-age pensioners who, as a result of deregulation of the money markets in the mid-1980s, were encouraged by investment companies under the umbrella of the FIM BRA logo—that of the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Association—to take up home investment schemes and who have seriously impoverished themselves. Some families are almost on the point of suicide. Will the Leader 1038 of the House arrange for a Treasury Minister to make a statement to the House next week, with a view to introducing strict regulations to protect those unfortunate people?

§ Mr. Newton
I do not have to undertake to bring Treasury Ministers to the House next week, because they will be here in profusion on Wednesday and Thursday. It will be for you, Madam Speaker, to judge whether reference to such a matter would be in order in that debate. As I said last week, it would seem that, with reasonable ingenuity, it might be possible to get the point in.

§ Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove)
Will my right hon. Friend give time for a debate on nepotism in local government and recent accusations which have been made, in particular against Monklands district council in Scotland?

§ Mr. Newton
I do not think that I can promise an immediate or early debate on that matter, but my hon. Friend has made his point by raising it in the House.

§ Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich)
I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 647, which calls for the introduction of a boarder premium for homeless families.
[That this House is deeply concerned at the growing number of homeless families living in temporary accommodation, without access to independent cooking facilities, who are suffering from severe dietary and health problems; notes that these families have no resources to meet the additional costs of buying take-away food and having to east out in cafes, and that in the majority of cases children are not getting an adequate diet; congratulates the House of Lords for supporting Lord Henderson's motion to implement a boarder premium on 6th July; and urgently calls upon Her Majesty's Government to amend the 1987 income support regulations accordingly, thereby providing an extra £10 per week to each member of a homeless family living in these intolerable circumstances.]
That motion has now been signed by 176 hon. Members. Will the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Secretary of State for Social Security, agree that it was a serious disappointment that there was no mention in the statement by the present Secretary of State of the need for the introduction of that premium to cope with the acute problems of deprivation and malnutrition among such families? Will he urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter and to make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity?

§ Mr. Newton
Again, given that social security was very much part of the autumn statement, albeit the subject of a separate statement, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might find an opportunity to raise that matter in the two-day debate next week. However, I do not wish to raise his hopes for a sudden change in policy. I draw his attention to the fact that quite significant increases in social security benefits for families of all kinds were announced by my right hon. Friend only a few moments ago.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
Will the Leader of the House convey to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the warm response of the people of Northern Ireland to his positive statements yesterday concerning the democratic deficit that they have suffered, particularly in local government? Will he encourage the Secretary of State 1039 to make provision for the restoration of accountable democracy in local government in Northern Ireland, if not next week, at least before the forthcoming local government elections?

§ Mr. Newton
I am grateful, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will also be grateful, for the hon. Gentleman's comments and, indeed, for the comments of many from the political scene in Northern Ireland during the exchanges yesterday. I shall draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's point.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
I, too, am concerned about yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I asked a question about economic and social affairs in the Province. The right hon. and learned Gentleman claimed that those matters were taken seriously in the talks and were a serious concern of the Government. Yet when I look at the material supplied with the autumn statement, I find that from 1988–89 to the estimates for 1995–96 there is a decline year by year in the percentage that is to be spent by the Northern Ireland Office. That does not seem to tie in with the notion that there is concern for economic and social regeneration. We should therefore have a debate on the matter.

§ Mr. Newton
Following the autumn statement, we are having a two-day debate next Wednesday and Thursday. It is clear, as I think I can say even without consulting you, Madam Speaker, that the point made by the hon. Gentleman would be in order in that debate.

§ Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South)
Is the Leader of the House aware that there are 180 refugees stranded on the Austro-Slovenian border? They have been there since 9 am yesterday. My understanding is that they are going to different destinations in the United Kingdom and that the coach that is coming to Leeds carries people who have connections in Yorkshire. I further understand that those people are stranded because of the changes in arrangements for entry which were made recently in the House. When the original arrangements were made, their papers were in order, but they are now no longer so.
Is that entirely the responsibility of the Home Office or, given where those people are, is it the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary? Will the Leader of the House ensure that action is taken rapidly to get those people moving? Will he also ensure that a statement is made to the House next week?

§ Mr. Newton
I can certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention both of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, although I understand that the organisation that has been involved in the matter was informed on several occasions before the people started their journey that visas would be required for the passengers.

§ Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness)
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 778 concerning the future of Britain's shipbuilding industry.
[That this House notes with deep concern the continuing loss of jobs in Britain's shipbuilding industry, with recent redundancies at Swan Hunters and VSEL; recognises that in shipbuilding communities there is a collection of unique and 1040 precious engineering skills vital to the success of British manufacturing industry; and therefore calls upon the Government to take immediate action to promote the industry and thus secure the jobs of many thousands of people by pursuing policies which will allow warship yards to bid competitively for merchant orders through the intervention fund scheme, by bringing forward the order of new vessels such as LPH, and by actively supporting diversification initiatives.]
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in recent years there have been thousands of redundancies in our shipbuilding communities and more than 6,500 in my constituency. Government policies are ruining jobs in shipbuilding industries and we need an urgent debate in Government time to discuss the future of that once-mighty industry.

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry I had a considerable connection with shipbuilding matters, so I am obviously aware of the problems. I am also aware of the important amount that has been done, with considerable success, in many shipbuilding areas, not least in Sunderland, where the Nissan factory is virtually m sight of the former shipyards and has brought new and diversified employment.

§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
Given my questions during past weeks, it will come as no surprise to the Leader of the House that I welcome the meeting of European Standing Committe A next Wednesday. Does he realise the exact extent of the legislation that he has remitted to that Committee? The documents that I have here are only 50 per cent. of the material that affects common fisheries policy. I could question Ministers for two and a half hours on those documents alone.
Is it possible for the Committee meeting to be extended to ensure that we can question Ministers in detail? Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee the presence of a Scottish Office Minister at the meeting because of the closure of the haddock fisheries, which are important to the Scottish fishing industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept also that that meeting is not a substitute for a full-scale debate on the Floor of the House?

§ Mr. Newton
I take the hon. Lady's latter point. She has strenuously pressed that matter during the past few weeks. She will be well aware that normally there is a debate on fisheries towards the end of the year. Although I cannot give a time for that debate, I note her implicit request.
On the Standing Committee, I shall consider the matters that the hon. Lady raised. I cannot say more than that today. Given that there is to be a Fisheries Council discussion on 23 November, it is important to have a discussion in the Standing Committee beforehand, and that was the best way to do it.

§ Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool)
Have Ministers studied early-day motion 775, entitled "Rights of Social Security Claimants", tabled by myself and my hon. Friends, which requests the Government to withdraw the measure restricting the rights of claimants to have errors corrected?
[That this House believes that if an error is made in determining a person's benefit the claimant should have a statutory right to have such an official error corrected; therefore regrets that the Government has laid the statutory 1041 instrument entitled, The Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2595) as it will diminish the rights of existing and future claimants to such retrospective entitlement; believes that this attempt to remove Regulation 49 of the 1987 Claims and Payments Regulations is a further attempt to erode the rights of the poorest in the community and reduce social security expenditure by undermining the rights of benefit claimants; and urges the Government to withdraw S.I., No. 2595.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the strength of opinion in the House on that matter and arrange for an early debate?

§ Mr. Newton
I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comment to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security rather than promise a debate. I understand that the repeal of regulation 49 will not deny rights to people who have not received their entitlement to income support or family income supplement because of official error.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Does the Leader of the House think that it is about time that we had another debate on the mining industry, because the first debate was allocated on an Opposition Supply day? The Government ought to allocate a day's debate to that subject because 10 pits are being allowed to go to rack and ruin and 7,000 miners are being turned away when they go to work. It is costing the Chancellor of the Exchequer or British Coal £1.4 billion to send miners home instead of letting them go down the pit. Those 10 pits are being gradually closed, even though the Government gave a commitment that all 31 would remain open. Surely we should have a debate on that issue in Government time.

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the review that is being conducted. The appropriate time to consider further debate in Government time would be when we have the results of that review.

§ Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)
The Leader of the House will no doubt have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say during his autumn statement that the Secretary of State for Wales would make a statement on expenditure in Wales. I noticed in one of the tables that central Government support for local government will increase by £140 million in England and by £20 million in Scotland, but that it will decrease by £80 million, or 3.3 per cent. in Wales. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how soon the Secretary of State for Wales will come to the House to face questions on a serious issue for Welsh Members?

§ Mr. Newton
The straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I cannot tell him anything beyond the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is due to answer questions next Monday.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
The right hon. Gentleman has held his office for some time now—more than six months—so when does he propose to make a statement on access for disabled people and visitors to this building and to refreshment and toilet facilities and on allowing members of the public to see the building without being accompanied by a Member at all times? I am sure 1042 that he agrees that it is nonsense that the House has legislated for facilities for disabled people in cinemas and public buildings, but that there is no real access to this place, apart from the humiliation of people in wheelchairs being taken down the back stairs route via goods lifts. It is high time that the right hon. Gentleman did what none of his predecessors have done and achieved a real change in this building.

§ Mr. Skinner
I asked about that last week.

§ Mr. Newton
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is right. He raised those matters with me last week and I undertook to assist and to do whatever I could. In the not-too-distant past, the House agreed revised arrangements for its governance, delegating substantial responsibilities to fully fledged Select Committees, including the Accommodation and Works Committee, chaired by a respected member of the Opposition Front Bench. In the first instance, I must draw to the attention of that Committee the issues being raised in the Chamber.

§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)
Will the Leader of the House reconsider the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about the need for a Commons debate on the Matrix Churchill affair? Some of the issues are separate from the Scott inquiry. There are matters with which the House needs to deal and we have received answers from Ministers and from the Prime Minister about which there are serious questions. We need to debate a serious issue—either the Prime Minister knew about the arms exports, in which case he is being dishonest, or he did not know about them, in which case he is being incompetent.

§ Mr. Newton
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt at some length with those matters at Question Time today. I am afraid that I am not in a position to add to what I told the hon. Member for Derby, South in response to her request from the Opposition Front Bench. The appropriate course is to ensure that the independent inquiry conducted by the judge is carried out as quickly and as fully as possible.

§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
rose—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I shall call the hon. Gentleman, but he came into the Chamber when the Lord President of the Council was on his feet answering the first question. It is a matter of courtesy and procedure that if Members are going to question statements, they should be in the House to hear them, irrespective of what they are.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
I fully accept that ticking off, Madam Speaker, and your advice and guidance.
At the remembrance service on Sunday, it occurred to me that it would be timely for the House to debate the plight of many war veterans and their dependants—widows and orphans. Many of them are increasingly infirm and are in the late evening of life. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have strong connections with the Royal British Legion, the Royal Naval Association and the Royal Air Forces Association and they would welcome the opportunity to discuss the increasing plight of many elderly and infirm ex-service men and women and their dependants. It is time for the House to put aside a half-day to debate those issues and especially 1043 early-day motion 735, which draws our attention to the inadequate compensation awarded to Japanese prisoners of war after the second world war.
[That this House joins with the nation in remembering on Sunday 8th November all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to remember those Japanese prisoners-of-war alive today, still imprisoned physically and mentally by the callous and inhumane actions of Japanese Imperial Forces during the Second World War; records that this continuing sacrifice was deemed in 1951 and still remains worth only £76.50 in final and complete settlement; reminds Her Majesty's Government that this issue is not closed until survivors receive full and adequate compensation commensurate with the sacrifice, claims which hitherto remain challenged only by the absence of natural justice.] Many hon. Members would like to press the Government to consider whether that matter should again be raised with the Japanese Government.

§ Mr. Newton
I am glad to find that I have something else in common with the hon. Gentleman, other than the fact that we both represent parts of the same county, through our connection with the Royal British Legion and the Royal Naval Association. I repaired to the Royal Naval Association branch in Braintree after the remembrance service on Sunday afternoon, where I met many of my friends. No doubt the hon. Gentleman did the same.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made an announcement that will help more than 200,000 war disablement pensioners, who will gain up to £5 a week. Not more than two years ago, when I was Secretary of State for Social Security, I made an announcement that was hugely beneficial to a large number of war widows.