Business of the House (Hansard, 2 December 1993)

§ Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South)
Will the Leader of the House be good enough to give us the business for next week?

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)
Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 DECEMBER—Continuation of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 8 DECEMBER— Consideration in Committee of the Sunday Trading Bill (first day).
Motion on the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order.
THURSDAY 9 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on the European Community white papers, European Community budget and subjects to be discussed at the forthcoming European Council, on a Government motion.
FRIDAY 10 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 13 DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 8 December to consider European Community document No. 8441/93 on the protection of animals during transport.

§ Mrs. Beckett
I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. I remind him that Labour Members expressed great concern last year about the fact that many people were losing their right to vote because of the defective state of electoral registers, especially in the Tory-controlled London borough of Brent. As this year's initial figures show that the electoral register in Brent is down yet again by 13,000, and as the council is refusing at present to do anything about it, will he ask the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House about the activities that the Government are undertaking to ensure that people have the right to vote?
In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to take account of parliamentary answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) on 26 November, which show that, although in Scotland and Northern Ireland the relevant Secretaries of State intend to mount a publicity campaign to remind people who are disabled or sick or who have a right to proxy and postal votes of their entitlement to vote in the local and Euro-elections, no such campaign is planned in England and Wales? We should like the Home Secretary to address that issue.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement to the House, perhaps next week, on the defeat that the Government have suffered in the High Court at the hands of the fishing industry on the compulsory tie-up policy, which as yet has not been reported to the House? 1166 We all very much hope that, once the process of debates on the Budget is complete, there will be early and full discussions on the way in which business is now being handled. It cannot be satisfactory to the House to have substantial statements at the outset of business on each day of the Budget debate, thus squeezing the start of the debate itself well into the early hours of the evening? Because the Budget is combined with public expenditure, we all understand the need somehow to handle those statements, but there could and should have been full discussions about how we should deal with this before the unified Budget process was introduced. Since that has not happened, will the Lord President assure us that it will happen before next year, and may we have an Opposition day soon?

§ Mr. Newton
That was a rather longer list of questions than the right hon. Lady usually has. I will do my best to deal with them all.
First, as to the electoral register, I think that the right course is for me to bring the right hon. Lady's observations to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I hope also that, in the light of what the right hon. Lady said, the people who are responsible for those matters in Brent might also give them some consideration. The right hon. Lady might care to transmit that message as well. [Interruption.]
As to the days-at-sea point, as the right hon. Lady said, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation's case against the Government has been referred to the European Court, which, I understand, is unlikely to rule on it in less than 18 months, so final judgment in the United Kingdom will be correspondingly delayed.
I assure the right hon. Lady that the Government are urgently studying the position and will make an announcement when they are in a position to do so. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is on the Front Bench, will have noted the request as to the way in which that announcement should be made.
As to the Budget debate and the right hon. Lady's observations, I think that I made it clear several times, not least to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that we do think that it will be right to review any lessons that need to be drawn from the unified Budget procedure in the light of experience this year. Of course we would expect to have regard to representations that the right hon. Lady might make through the usual channels or in other ways.
I would, however, make the point that, until the date of the social security uprating statement, for example, was changed the Government—in the mid-1980s as I recall, probably when I was Minister of State—for many years it was the norm for the social security statement to follow in the immediate wake of the Budget, as it has done this year. If the right hon. Lady wishes to make representations to the effect that she would prefer those matters to be dealt with only after a long delay—which, as they are involved in the Budget, would seem a bit odd—or by written answer, rather than oral statement, I would happily consider those possibilities.
Lastly, on the subject of Supply days, I always seek to satisfy the right hon. lady's ambitions, but I cannot make any great promises for the period between now and Christmas at this stage.

§ Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early, urgent debate on the policies that are being followed by local education authorities controlled by Labour and Liberal Democrat coalitions, not least in the county of Kent, where up to £100,000 of council tax payers' money is being set aside to encourage schools vigorously not to embark upon a policy of securing grant-maintained status?

Hon. Members
Abuse.

§ Mr. Newton
This is, I think, the second Thursday running when significant questions relating to the way in which Kent is dealing with those matters have been asked in the House. I will ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is drawn to them.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that next Thursday's business about EC documents and the motion that he intends to place before the House is not confined to the budget of the EC for the next year, but also relates to an adjustment of its own financial structure for the next few years? If that is the case, can the Leader of the House confirm that the forthcoming meeting of the European Council to which the motion will no doubt relate will take decisions on that matter, and that any Bill that may come before the House subsequently will be only to effect those decisions and not to give leave to anyone to agree to them?

§ Mr. Newton
The list of documents that are to he taken into account in the debate next Thursday is extensive, and it would not be sensible for me to attempt to run through them all at this stage. Nor, indeed, can I give undertakings —it is literally not within my power—as to precisely what will emerge from the meeting of the European Council. I note, however, the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.

§ Mr. Simon Coombs (Swindon)
Is my right hon Friend aware of the inquiry that is currently being undertaken by the Arts Council into the future funding of the four London orchestras? Can he arrange for a debate to be held before Christmas, because this is a matter of urgency, so as to ensure that the House has an opportunity to express its views about a process which could lead to the destruction of two of those four orchestras, with consequent effects on the artistic and cultural life of the capital city and elsewhere, and on Britain's balance of payments?

§ Mr. Newton
I believe that the Government's commitment to the arts has been clearly demonstrated over a long period. Indeed, despite the continuing need to keep strict control of public expenditure, we have managed even now to find more money than was planned for the arts. I put that fact on the table before my hon. Friend, but I cannot promise what I would call a dedicated debate. However, he may find that there will be opportunities for him to raise the matter, if he wishes, before the House rises for the recess.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
The Leader of the House comes to these occasions well briefed, but is he aware of my representations to Ministers earlier today about the 3,000-plus Ferranti workers now heading for the back of the longest queue in Britain—the dole queue? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask every Minister who can help to do so urgently, and may we have an oral statement next week on the Government's response to this tragedy?

§ Mr. Newton
I will draw the latter request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but I can readily assure the right hon. Member that of course Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment and any other relevant Department will wish to do everything they can to assist with problems that will follow what has occurred at Ferranti.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
May we have a debate or statement before Christmas on safety standards and maintenance on London Underground, including investment in that organisation, so that my constituents, many of whom have to commute into London, can be reassured that they will not again have to face the awful ordeal that they suffered a few days ago, which caused many of them considerable difficulty?

§ Mr. Newton
My hon. Friend will be aware that the investment programme in London Transport continues at a high level—significantly higher than in the days of the old Greater London council, for example. But I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
Now that we have reached the time of year when we celebrate both the Hindu festival of light and Advent, which is a preparation for our celebration at Christmas, may we have some enlightenment and some news worthy of celebration from the Leader of the House? May we hear details, set out in a logical way, of when the Government expect to introduce the legislation mentioned in the Queen's Speech, for which they obtained the assent of the House, so that we have some idea of the timetable for the year, especially in relation to the Sunday trading option votes—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is on Wednesday."] No, that is only the first day. May we also have some news about ordering the sittings of the House sensibly—news often promised but never yet delivered?

§ Mr. Newton
In my concluding speech in the debate on the Loyal Address, I made some comments on the continuing efforts to achieve progress in securing the necessary agreement on that matter, and I cannot now add to what I said then.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I presume that he had noticed that I announced the debate on the Sunday trading options, which we hope will be dealt with next Wednesday. Thereafter, I expect the Bill to go to Standing Committee and at some later stage, perhaps while the Bill is still in Committee, we shall have on the Floor of the House the day that has been committed for the employment protection provisions.
Beyond that, I cannot yet give the hon. Gentleman a detailed catalogue of the dates on which Government Bills will appear. Some have already appeared; some will have their Second Readings in the House of Lords in the next week or two; others I hope to bring forward shortly after Christmas.

§ Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford)
As there is no time in next week's business schedule for a debate, will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade the appreciation of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) and myself of this morning's announcement by the Department of Trade and Industry that Chelmsford 1169 in Essex has received the full bid for KONVER funding to help defence-related industries that have suffered so many redundancies, and to provide a future, so that we can rebuild part of the manufacturing base in our constituencies?

§ Mr. Newton
As my hon. Friend knows, I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in communicating his mèssage to the President of the Board of Trade, because it would be easy for me to couple my name with that of my hon. Friends and to express my congratulations to the people from Essex county council and elsewhere who have put so much work into developing the project, not least because it is probable that as many of my constituents as my hon. Friends' will be helped.

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 155?
[That this House condemns the Portuguese Government and authorities for its failure to investigate the tragic death of Paul Kenney, whilst on holiday in Portugal in July; is outraged that the Portuguese authorities failed to take any steps to trace Paul's family, who were in Portugal at the time and were only informed of his death after his parents traced him to a local hospital, where the body had lain for four weeks after being found on a beach in Portimao, although on several visits to the hospital his parents were told that no person of his description had been admitted; expresses its dismay that even though Paul had telephone numbers on his person that would have helped identify him, neither the police nor the hospital made any effort to trace his next of kin; condemns the extraordinary discourtesy of the Portuguese Ambassador and his staff towards the honourable Member for Leicester, West, when he sought to progress this matter on behalf of his constituents, the Kenney family; and demands that the Portuguese Government now take immediate action to investigate Paul Kenney's death, to inform the bereaved family of its causes and circumstances, and to apologise to the family for the disgraceful way in which it has treated them and their awful tragedy.]
It concerns the awful tragedy of the death of a young constituent of mine, Paul Kenney, while on holiday in Portugal and the outrageous behaviour of the Portuguese authorities. Could the Foreign Secretary make an early statement on why that British citizen's family were not informed about the death for four weeks, why they found out only by chance and why, even now, the Portuguese authorities have refused or failed to provide any information on how the death occurred, despite my efforts to find out through the Portuguese embassy—efforts that were most discourteously treated?

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that that subject has been selected for an Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Newton
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was going to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that. The Government share the concern shown in the motion about the circumstances of Mr. Kenney's death and the lack of notification to his family. We hope that the Portuguese 1170 authorities will respond positively to our consul's formal and informal requests for an explanation, and we shall continue to press for that.
As you, Madam Speaker, helpfully and informally reminded me, and as I was about to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he did not already know, he has the Adjournment debate on that matter on Friday 10 December, when he will have a greater opportunity to ventilate his concerns.

§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he expects that we will be able to have a full day's debate on agriculture? I understand that it was initially intended to have a day before Christmas. He will know from the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor that there is to be a further reduction in the support given to hill farmers. It is likely that the first chance that the House will have to debate agriculture is when some specific, related motion comes before the House late at night. Would it not be much better to take a thorough, on-going look at agriculture to see how hill farmers are bearing up in the general context of farming?

§ Mr. Newton
There are three observations to be made on that issue. First, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be here on Thursday to answer questions. Secondly, on the same day, there will be extensive debating of European matters, into which he may probably squeeze a reference. Thirdly, I hope that he will acknowledge that, despite the reductions to the allowances to which he referred in 1993, the net farm income of the relevant farms rose by 33 per cent. in real terms between 1991–92 and 1992–93, and is set to rise by a further 28 per cent. this year.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 157?
[That this House welcomes the information provided by the Channel 4 programme Dispatches, broadcast on 1st December, which demonstrated conclusively that Aims of Industry is a front for the Conservative Party; notes with surprise that a number of companies who made donations to Aims of Industry have not included these in their annual report in breach of the Companies Act 1985; notes with concern the suggestion that before the 1992 general election Aims of Industry funded a campaign on behalf of the Conservative Party in Wallasey, apparently in breach of the Representation of the People Act 1983; and calls on the Prime Minister to instruct the President of the Board of Trade and the Home Secretary to authorise immediate investigations with a view to prosecuting those responsible.]
It concerns Aims of Industry and the Conservative party. In addition to a discussion about how Aims of Industry has illegally raised funds on behalf of and with the knowledge of the Conservative party—generally and in the constituency of Wallasey—we can discuss the dinners that the Prime Minister is again beginning to promote, with a tax-free subsidy that helps those dinners, and discuss the relationship between those who attend and donations from the tobacco companies, for example, to the Conservative election campaign in 1992 and the consequent refusal of the Government to introduce a ban on tobacco advertising.

§ Mr. Newton
I find the extent to which the hon. Gentleman appears to claim that the entire world rests on a permanent, running conspiracy of some kind quite 1171 extraordinary, and sometimes almost laughable. The Government's view is absolutely clear: that all companies should comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 1985, which was introduced by the Government. I hope that, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, he will find it possible also to condemn the millions of pounds spent on what was, in effect, political advertising by the National and Local Government Officers Association during the general election.

§ Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)
Will my right hon. Friend find a way to promote the superintendent of police in the Commons for his exemplary work in creating the maximum number of obstructions which prevent hon. Members from getting to the Commons and to the Chamber? Outside St. Stephen's entrance in particular there are more and more barriers which now resemble something out of Hampton Court maze.
During Divisions, we cannot get round Parliament square by car or by taxi because there is no police cover at the traffic lights to enable us to get through. When one finally arrives in New Palace yard, one finds that only officials and not Members of Parliament can park there. We have to park five or six floors down in the underground car park. Is it not time that we ensured that the House of Commons is run by and for Members of Parliament and not by officials for officials?

§ Mr. Newton
I shall convey my hon. Friend's initial recommendation to those responsible for these matters, although they may find that the gloss that he subsequently put on it conveys a rather different flavour. I say straightforwardly, not least because of your involvement in and knowledge of these matters, Madam Speaker, that there are present in the Chamber significant numbers of people concerned with security arrangments in and around the House who, I am sure, have noted what my hon. Friend has said and what has been said by a number of hon. Members earlier this Session.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
As the Minister responsible for such matters, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that no motion will be put on the Order Paper for the establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland? Would it not be wrong, at this time of all times, to do anything that would further divide the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland? There was no direct recommendation from the Select Committee on Procedure. The Committee was split, with Labour Members making it clear that we were opposed to such a Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman bears in mind the sensitive position over Northern Ireland at present.

§ Mr. Newton
I have, of course, looked at the report that the Procedure Committee agreed last night, and I have noted the voting pattern to which the hon. Gentleman accurately refers. He well knows that the Government have consistently acknowledged that, although such a Select Committee may, in principle, be desirable, a number of issues need to be considered before coming to a decision, let alone before putting proposals to the House. Obviously, any such proposals need to be the subject of discussion.

§ Mr. Ian Duncan Smith (Chingford)
Will my right hon. Friend give his attention to the announcement of a debate next Thursday on the European Community White Paper and budget? We find that all the relevant papers are 1172 not available at this stage. I have in my hand what is a available so far. Do we have enough time to review the documents, given the short notice?

§ Mr. Newton
I shall take first the main thrust of my hon. Friend's question. He is right to think that the documents that will be referred to in the motion are already in the Vote Office, as he has physically demonstrated, or will be there as soon as possible. Some of my documents are being prepared for the European Council, and final versions may not be available until early next week. It is obviously right that debate should take place before the European Council. The House would expect that to happen and would complain if it did not; that inevitably involves some late documentation, I am afraid.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
When shall we have a Government statement about the role of the judges in meting out so-called "justice" in the courts? Does it not stink in the nostrils that Roger Levitt, who was involved in a £34 million swindle, was recently allowed to escape on the most important charges by the Government's Crown Prosecution Service, and that he finished up with 180 hours community service? He has friends in the Tory party, including Tory Members.
Terry Ramsden, a member of the race horse fraternity who was involved in a swindle of more than £50 million, got only an 18-month suspended sentence. Yet a Labour councillor in Derbyshire, in a case involving £13,000, was sent down the line for 18 months. Poll tax payers who refuse to pay the poll tax on principle are sent to gaol for as long as six months. There are double standards operating in British law, which is what one would expect from this tin-pot Government.

§ Mr. Newton
That is another question of what might now be regarded as a traditional variety from hon. Members who sit just below the Gangway. I simply observe, as calmly as I can, that I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks about judges to the attention to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and his observations about the Crown Prosecution Service to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

§ Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)
Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at his timetabling, and give time to a matter that is of great importance to all the parents in my constituency and to every parent in the United Kingdom: the fitting of seat belts in coaches? There have recently been two tragic crashes. One of them was on the M40, near my constituency, when many young lives were lost. Sadly, last week there was another crash, on the A3. Although the children who were wearing seat belts were hurt, they were not killed.
I should be grateful if time could be put aside to debate the matter, as it is of great concern to all parents throughout the United Kingdom whose children travel every day on coaches and minibuses.

§ Mr. Newton
I well understand why my hon. Friend raised that question. Although I cannot promise time for a dedicated debate—as I called it earlier—she may find opportunities to raise that matter if she wishes between now and the recess. I will draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. 1173 The Government are currently reviewing the technical and cost implications of her proposal, but feel that it would be unwise to rush into new legislation until the full reports of those accidents have been thoroughly considered.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
Can we have a statement on the future of the days-at-sea legislation before the European debate next Thursday? Would it not be foolhardy to proceed with such controversial legislation while the matter lies before the European Court?
On the same time scale, can we have a statement on the crisis in the Scottish salmon industry, which impacts on thousands of jobs across rural Scotland? Why are the Irish Government defending the interests of their producers in Europe more vigorously than the British Government are defending our producers? Those of us who hope to see better Irish-British co-operation on a number of important issues would like to see some practical co-operation to protect the interests of that vital industry.

§ Mr. Newton
On the latter point, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know of the active interest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been taking in those problems. He will know also that the Commission introduced emergency safeguard measures in the form of minimum import prices to provide a temporary floor in the market while the longer-term problems that face the industry are addressed.
As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot give a date for any announcement by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the matter that I touched on earlier, but I take note of his request about the timing.

§ Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central)
Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that, in Wednesday's debate on Sunday trading, there will be a completely free vote in the House of Commons and that there will be no so-called payroll votes on that issue?

§ Mr. Newton
I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), who is a member of the Whips Office, that that is not a matter for the Leader of the House. I presume that he is protecting some other empire. I do not speak for the Opposition Whips and therefore cannot say what they will do. Nobody has told me what to do.

§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)
Might it not be necessary to extend the debate on the Budget beyond Tuesday, given that so far we have had so few policies from the Opposition and that there is not much prospect in the next few days that we shall hear any more policy objectives from them?

§ Mr. Newton
That is a good question. Although I am much tempted, even if I were to extend the debate for a further year, the Opposition would still not have a policy.