Business of the House

HC Deb 26 June 1997 vol 296 cc984-93 3.31 pm

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor)

May I first thank you for that statement, Madam Speaker? The Modernisation Committee was keen to move quickly, and we are happy to have your co-operation on the matter of the third desks.

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 30 JUNE—Motion relating to the Scottish Grand Committee.

Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.

Motion on the Satellite Television Service Regulations.

TUESDAY 1 JULY—Debate on the review of international development policies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

WEDNESDAY 2 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement.

THURSDAY 3 JULY AND FRIDAY 4 JULY—Continuation of the Budget debate.

MONDAY 7 JULY—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk)

I thank the Leader of the House for giving the business for next week and the following Monday. I should be grateful if she would outline the proposed arrangements for the Budget debate. Obviously, she has confirmed that next Friday represents the replacement of a non-sitting day.

Will the right hon. Lady also, as a matter of urgency, arrange for a statement to clarify whether Labour Members of Parliament have the freedom to take a full and active part in debate on the referendum campaigns in Scotland and Wales? I feel sure that the House will agree that such clarification is essential, following the explicit refutation of the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), whose reputation for integrity is respected throughout the House. Will the right hon. Lady also say whether there are to be different freedoms of expression for her Back-Bench colleagues according to whether they represent Welsh or Scottish constituencies?

Will the right hon. Lady clarify the position of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) with regard to their ability to carry out duties in the House and to represent their constituents? Will she confirm that both Members are to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards?

Finally, will the Leader of the House provide time for a statement on the tax-raising powers of a putative Scottish Parliament or Assembly, following the confusion in Scotland yesterday about the Government's intentions? She will no doubt wish to say when we can expect the White Paper detailing precisely what the Government intend in that regard. I am sure that she will wish to give a categorical assurance today that the White Paper will be produced in time to allow a thorough debate on its contents before the House rises for the summer recess.

Mrs. Taylor

First, I welcome the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) to her position as shadow Leader of the House, and I welcome also the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to his position as her deputy.

On the Budget debate, I am pleased that we were able to accommodate the representations that were made. We have suggested that the debate should take place on what would have been a non-sitting Friday. It will be a non-voting day, and that will be for the convenience of hon. Members who may wish to speak in the debate, but who are not necessarily worried about speaking on the day on which we vote. We intend to reinstate the non-sitting Friday, and we will consult on that in due course.

In respect of the shadow Leader's comments on Labour Members and the referendums, there is no need for a debate on this matter next week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position perfectly clear yesterday, when he said that hon. Members were perfectly entitled to speak their mind. That remains the case.

So far as the hon. Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) are concerned, they remain Members of Parliament, and are entitled to use the facilities of this House. They have been suspended from the parliamentary Labour party—which is not a matter for this House—and have been reported to the Parliamentary Commissioner because of the allegations that have been made. The custom, and the insistence of the Parliamentary Commissioner, is that there should be no discussion of cases under review.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

What about Neil Hamilton?

Mrs. Taylor

The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to a certain ex-Member of this House. He will find it very difficult to find anything that I said about that case when I was a Back Bencher. Conservative Members ought to obey the rules of this House, and help to make our system of standards and privileges work. They should stand by the Parliamentary Commissioner and the new system that we have instigated. If Conservative Members want a debate on how we govern ourselves and rule out sleaze, we should be willing to look at that in due course.

As for the tax-raising powers of a Scottish Parliament, I think that the only confusion existed in the newspapers yesterday. There is no change whatsoever in the situation. I can confirm that the White Paper will be published next month, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have made clear that there will be a debate on it.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

As someone who never allows himself to be gagged under any circumstances, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can have a statement next week on the pressures that were applied to stop the Princess of Wales attending a meeting yesterday on land mines—a humanitarian subject which is certainly not a party political matter? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in today's The Daily Telegraph, the former Conservative Cabinet Minister Lord Deedes said that Conservative Members were totally wrong to stop the Princess coming here?

Mrs. Taylor

The Government are not responsible for who attends meetings in Westminster, but I agree that this should not be a party political matter—land mines are too serious for that. I hope that Members from all parties support the actions that the Government have taken.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

On behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I warmly welcome the Government's second thoughts on the arrangements for the Budget debate. We are grateful. May I draw attention to the difficulty that would have been caused—I hope that it will not happen in future—by having very important Divisions late on a Thursday evening for hon. Members with far-flung constituencies? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]

May I also draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that, under the Jopling proposals, it was the plan—I thought that it was agreed on both sides of the House—that, on Thursdays before non-sitting Fridays, there would not be late votes. In future, will she be able to give us advance notice of non-sitting constituency Fridays, as they are important for the planning of Members' diaries?

Finally, is it true that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is this afternoon meeting the directors of McDonald's to impress on them the importance of renewing the sourcing of their products from British beef producers? If so, and if he is not successful in those representations, can we have an early statement and debate so that we can impress on McDonald's and the other burger chains what damage they have done to British industry—to the farming industry in particular, but not exclusively—so that they can at long last apologise for the damage done, and perhaps eat humble pie?

Mrs. Taylor

With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about the Budget, the expanded debate is partly the result of pressures and partly because we were reluctant to have votes late on a Thursday night when there could have been a succession of votes. Despite the comments of Conservative Members, it is a good principle that we should try to avoid a succession of votes late on a Thursday whenever possible. Clearly, it will not always be possible, but if we can avoid it, we should. There will, however, be pressures on time in July, and we want to discuss how we can best deal with them through the usual channels. I hope that we can get some agreement there.

On the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his meeting with McDonald's, I can confirm that that meeting has taken place. I believe that significant progress was made, and that McDonald's will make a statement later in the day. The fact that we have got to this stage shows how successful the new Ministers have been in turning around a difficult situation.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

Will the Leader of the House try to find time for a debate on channel tunnel safety as soon as possible? She will have noticed the questions on the Order Paper relating to a number of incidents disclosed by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, which make it clear that there is consistent over-running, incidents such as doors falling off trains without being noticed, as well as a number of other questions that ought to be raised on the Floor of the House as rapidly as possible.

Mrs. Taylor

I am aware of my hon. Friend's long-term concern about those issues. I am not sure that it will be possible to find time for the debate that she requests, but those matters are of concern to many people, especially as we approach the holiday period. She will be aware that Transport questions are next Tuesday.

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

Will the right hon. Lady tell the House why the Government have allowed a press release to be issued by a Government Department—by a Minister—carrying private advertising and the logos of a private company in colour? Surely that is very nearly approaching sleaze. It ought to be stopped, because it is Government money, not private money. Will she investigate that matter, and ensure that it is stopped and that a statement is issued about it next week?

Mrs. Taylor

I do not know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to, but I doubt if anything of that sort is unprecedented.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Will my right hon. Friend consider a short statement next week, giving some explanation as to why it should take the Home Office and the Metropolitan police until the end of September to come to a conclusion on the tragic murder of one of their own—Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher? Is it not extraordinary that the conventional view is against the evidence of the senior ballistics expert of the British Army, George Styles, the evidence given by Hugh Thomas, the consultant surgeon in Belfast, and the professional evidence of probably the most distinguished Home Office pathologist this century, Bernard Knight, who was put in charge at Cromwell street? Is that not a matter of some urgency?

Mrs. Taylor

My hon. Friend raised that matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday. As my right hon. Friend said, the case remains open and the Metropolitan police will of course consider any new evidence. On the delay, it is important that any examination of evidence should be thorough. I do not think that we can find time for a debate on the subject in the near future.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the Leader of the House reconsider her decision not to allow us a debate next week on Members of Parliament being able to speak their mind on, for example, devolution, without the threat of expulsion from the parliamentary party? She will have heard what both the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and the Secretary of State for Wales said yesterday; there is a clear distinction, so they cannot both be right, and there cannot be an innocent explanation for the one who is wrong.

The Leader of the House will remember that the Prime Minister said that Ministers who deceived the House, directly or indirectly, should resign. Is not the proper course to have an early debate, so that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and the Secretary of State for Wales can explain their respective positions, and we can judge and take the appropriate action?

Mrs. Taylor

There is no need for any debate or action of the kind suggested. The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear yesterday that hon. Members are entitled to speak their mind.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

May we have a debate on the Government's proposals for the long-term disposal of nuclear waste, and in particular the future operations of Nirex?

Mrs. Taylor

I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in that matter over many years. He can make representations to the Ministers involved, but I cannot promise him a debate.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

Pursuant to the answer that I received from the Leader of the House regarding the Northern Ireland Grand Committee last Thursday, when she said, in an answer recorded at column 461, that there would be opportunities for questions, may I press again for a meeting of the Committee with a period of questions, bearing in mind the fact that, while I welcome the participation of other hon. Members in Northern Ireland business, there seems to be some syndicating or mental telepathy, as, in the most recent Northern Ireland questions, only one Northern Ireland Member appeared on the list? That makes it impossible for us to deal with constituency matters. Might further consideration therefore be given to a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?

Mrs. Taylor

I have no responsibility for the Order Paper, but I recall what the hon. Gentleman said last week, and I will discuss the matter again with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

To identify sleaze in the House, would not the Opposition agree that a debate is needed urgently on early-day motion 164?

[That this House is shocked that the Leader of the Opposition accepted a gift of £20,000 from David Steene, managing director of the City Mortgage Corporation which specialises in marketing oppressive mortgage deals to vulnerable and unsophisticated people who are judged to be high risks by reputable companies; deplores CMC's high interest rates that are doubled if a single payment is missed in order that increasing debts lead to homes being repossessed to the profit of CMC; is appalled that thousands of CMC's victims are left homeless and in debt; notes that the CMC Victims Group has accused the company of malpractice; and agrees with the Group's call that the Leader of the Opposition should give the £20,000 to the victims of the CMC in order to convince the House that he is opposed to sleaze.]

The motion gives details of how the Leader of the Opposition accepted a gift of £20,000 from Mr. David Steene, who operates an extraordinary business called the City Mortgage Corporation that specialises in giving mortgages to vulnerable, high-risk people at high rates of interest that are often doubled in the course of the mortgage, in order to gain possession of the houses for Mr. Steene's own profit. The victims of the organisation have described his business practices as atrocious, and accused him of malpractice. Is it right that the Leader of the Opposition should have been elected on the basis of £20,000—money that is highly dubious, if not from an immoral source?

Mrs. Taylor

I can understand why my hon. Friend is concerned about the matter. He can of course raise it with Sir Gordon Downey, and perhaps it would be better dealt with by him than in a debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on the qualifications and criteria for holding the position of Secretary of State in the Government of which she is such a prominent member? It need only be a short debate, because the principal participants would be the Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and perhaps the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell), who has also had recent occasion to encounter the Secretary of State for Wales, although in a slightly different context.

It might even be useful to the House if the Prime Minister himself were prepared to participate in that short debate, which would help to illuminate the matters so ably identified by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

Mrs. Taylor

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's question has anything to do with the fact that the Opposition have no shadow Secretary of State for Wales. Perhaps he will find some Welsh connections instead of his Scottish ones. We will take no lectures from a party that not only has no shadow Secretary of State for Wales but no Welsh Members.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

Will the Leader of the House use her good offices to arrange for a meeting of the House of Commons Commission next week? This Parliament has been existence for many weeks, and I understand that the Commission has not met. Many hon. Members are aware of several rumbling industrial relations problems relating to the employees of the House. The matter should be urgently addressed by the Commission. That is its business if it meets; if it does not, it is the business of all 659 of us to ensure that proper good industrial relations are maintained.

Mrs. Taylor

The House of Commons Commission has now been established, but the domestic Committees have not yet been set up. I do not know when the next meeting of the Commission will be, but I anticipate that there will be one before the summer recess.

Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)

Will the right hon. Lady consider the need for a debate next week on the ability of hon. Members to speak their minds? Does she accept that she quoted the Prime Minister selectively? Yesterday, he said: People are perfectly entitled to state their position"— not their minds—but after only a comma he continued: provided, of course, that they do so in accordance with the rules of the parliamentary party."—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 837.] Does she not feel that it is necessary to have a debate on whether the Labour party asserts privileges and rules above those of each and every Member of this House?

Mrs. Taylor

The hon. Gentleman asked me to reconsider the need for a debate; I do not think that there is a need for a debate.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

May I urge my right hon. Friend to make time for an urgent debate on the law of perjury and its application? Is she aware that in 1995, 193 people were sent to prison for perjury, and that, since 1979, the longest prison sentence for the offence was a mere five years? Does she agree that perjury is very serious, and that there is a case for the Home Secretary to review the appropriate sentence to be meted out to people who knowingly perjure themselves in the courts of this land?

Mrs. Taylor

The whole House will agree with my hon. Friend that perjury is a very serious matter. I will bring his comments to the attention of the Law Officers.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex)

May I press the right hon. Lady again on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)? It is a little more serious than was suggested by the glib way in which she dismissed it. After the point to which my hon. Friend referred, the Prime Minister said: I can give my personal assurance that no such threat was made."—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 837.] The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) claims that that is not correct, and that the Prime Minister has been misled. Would it not therefore be right that he should come to the House and clarify the situation as a matter of urgency?

Mrs. Taylor

I have nothing to add to what I said, but I remind the hon. Gentleman, who may not know this because he is now on the Back Benches, not on the Front Bench, that the leader of his party wrote to the Prime Minister this morning about this matter, and the Prime Minister confirmed that he had investigated the allegations, was satisfied with the result and that the matter was closed.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that academic articles produced by Hull university politics department, entitled "Blair's Bastards", listed Labour Members who had voted on the most occasions against the Whip and who presumably had spoken out the most? I was second on that list. However, in 10 years, I have not had a dicky bird said to me by Whips or Ministers to seek to control that. Does that not show that there is a great deal of tolerance within the Labour party?

Mrs. Taylor

My hon. Friend proves that we do not need a debate.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)

May I add to the calls for an early debate in Government time to consider the question of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is one of the most important Committees in the House, particularly in the present climate, and that it is absolutely imperative that it commands the greatest respect across the Floor of the House and beyond?

Is the right hon. Lady aware that only three Privy Counsellors have been nominated to the Committee, which, until 1940, was chaired by no less a person than the Prime Minister? Of the 11 Committee members, three are new Labour Members who simply cannot be expected to understand the proceedings and complications of the House after such a short time. Indeed, it would be extremely unfair to expect them to do so.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), to whom I gave notice that I would raise the matter, is in a particularly difficult position: not only is she brand new, but she is to sit on a Committee that will preside over the fate of her predecessor, Mr. Michael Brown. That creates a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), to whom I also spoke before raising the matter this afternoon, was involved with Mr. David Hencke in receiving advance notification, to the benefit of the then Opposition, of the story that was to be run by The Guardian about a member of the Conservative party.

I invite the Leader of the House to consider this matter seriously. You, Madam Speaker, made it clear in the previous Parliament how seriously you regard the way in which the House is portrayed to people outside. The House's reputation is at stake; the Select Committee is charged with the task of representing the House to the outside world. I hope that the Leader of the House understands the serious points that I have raised, and will arrange for a debate.

Mrs. Taylor

After that speech, I am not sure that we need a debate, anyway. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to object to the establishment of that Committee, he had an opportunity to do so last evening. He chose not to do so, and the House is therefore entitled to note that he missed that opportunity.

Mr. Howarth

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker

Order. Points of order come after all statements have been made.

Mrs. Taylor

As I said, the hon. Gentleman could have objected last night. If the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges carries out its work quickly, it may be possible to have early debates on those matters in the House. As for the seniority of Committee members, the Committee is well balanced. Indeed, there are now more Privy Counsellors on the Committee than there were in the last Session of Parliament.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

First, I thank the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for the courteous and amicable way in which he notified me that he intended to raise this matter.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that if, having been shown documents by that journalist, hon. Members were excluded from Select Committees, we would never have a quorum on any of them? Will she also confirm, and thereby reassure the hon. Gentleman, that I did not seek membership of that Committee, but seem to acquire it as a geriatric endowment? If, as a member of that Committee, I find that I have privy access to any information that is not available to the Committee, I shall certainly inform the Committee of it, and not vote on the ensuing discussion.

Madam Speaker

I shall, of course, allow the Leader of the House to respond, but we are moving a very long way away from next week's business. Questions to the Leader of the House should deal with next week's business. Does the right hon. Lady wish to respond?

Mrs. Taylor

indicated dissent.

Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea)

Surely one way out of the right hon. Lady's difficulties, which have been illustrated by my right hon. and hon. Friends, would be to arrange a debate on the Representation of the People Act 1949. That would allow us to discuss the effective disfranchisement of a part of two great cities in the United Kingdom, Glasgow and Liverpool, apparently on the authority of the Prime Minister. If the hon. Members concerned turned up in the House, where would they be expected to sit?

Mrs. Taylor

The right hon. Gentleman makes strange suggestions. The fact that an hon. Member is suspended pending investigation does not interfere with his ability to represent constituents.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Several Conservative Members—in particular, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—have called for a debate about hon. Members misleading the House. They wanted a relatively short debate. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House bear it in mind that the debate would have to be a lot longer than that if we included all the ex-Tory Ministers who misled the House?

I am thinking of the ex-Home Secretary, who finished up in court nine times—a recidivist—because he misled the House so often. I am thinking of the previous Prime Minister, who misled the House when he said that his Government would get rid of the beef ban after Florence last November, and failed. I am thinking of all the rest of them who have been jumping up and down, who lined their pockets with consultancies. We could have a very long debate about that matter, and I encourage them all to turn up for it, so that we can examine all their records.

Mrs. Taylor

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend says. I have a difficulty, because, if I had to provide time for a debate of the length that he requests, I might not be able, even in the next few weeks, to announce when the summer recess will be.

Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead)

Bearing in mind the comment by the Prime Minister to the House yesterday that hon. Members have freedom of speech, provided that it is within the rules of their parliamentary party; in the light of the standing order endorsed by the parliamentary Labour party before the last election that guaranteed hon. Members freedom of speech; in the light of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in a debate in the House about his concerns that the Secretary of State for Wales had been reported as saying that disciplinary proceedings would be taken against any Member who spoke against devolution; and in the light of the admonition given by the Secretary of State for Wales to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West from the Dispatch Box at the end of that debate, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is urgent for us to have a debate in the House, not only on freedom of speech for Members, but on the use of the Dispatch Box and statements by Ministers to indulge in parliamentary Labour party business?

Mrs. Taylor

That takes the prize for the cheek of the day. I do not believe that Labour Members are trying to discuss internal affairs at the Dispatch Box or anywhere else. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that there is no need for a debate, and I have nothing further to add.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Can the right hon. Lady, on reflection, confirm that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House next week explaining—not least for the benefit of new Members such as myself—how it was possible for him to investigate the dispute between the Secretary of State for Wales and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), without having spoken to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent?

Mrs. Taylor

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained that hon. Members are free to speak their minds. That is perfectly straightforward.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind opening words.

In view of the fact that Monday's and Tuesday's business is important but not desperately urgent, will she bear it in mind that it is desperately urgent for us to clarify a matter of extreme constitutional importance? Can we therefore arrange, at the very least, for the Secretary of State for Wales to give a personal statement?

The fact is that yesterday the Prime Minister said, in good faith, that he believed that no one had told an untruth. However, last night the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)—whose integrity is not in dispute—made it quite plain that he did not agree with that position. The situation must be clarified. Will the right hon. Lady allow that to occur?

Mrs. Taylor

I repeat my welcome to the hon. Gentleman. However, I am sorry that, at his first appearance at the Dispatch Box for business questions, I cannot agree with one word he said. There are no constitutional implications, and there is no need for a personal statement. For the convenience of Opposition Front-Bench Members, I shall ensure that they receive a copy of the letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to the Leader of the Opposition today.

Several hon. Members rose—

Madam Speaker

Thank you. We shall now move on.