| Home Page |
Column 727
Lowlands Airports
3.30 pm
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement today by the Secretary of State for Transport of a review of Scottish lowlands airports policy."
The House should debate the matter, because it has serious implications not just for air transport in Scotland but for employment in Ayrshire-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining for the application please leave quietly?
Mr. Foulkes : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Members whose constituencies are under the flight paths at Glasgow and Edinburgh, like my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), will wish to express their concern about the environmental impact and the increased dangers that extra flights will pose at both those airports. It has also emerged today that, in Glasgow, check-in facilities for transatlantic flights will have to-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House please to listen and to stop the private conversations on both sides.
Mr. Foulkes : It has also emerged today that, at Glasgow airport, check-in facilities for transatlantic traffic will have to be in portakabins in the car park, with consequent problems for security and safety. Those of us who have Lockerbie still sharp in our memories will realise some of the possible implications.
In his statement, the Secretary of State himself also says that he recognises that the change in policy will have "an
Column 728
adverse impact" on employment in Ayrshire. As you know, Mr. Speaker, unemployment there is already well above the national average. For that reason alone, it is an urgent and important matter, but it is also not clear whether it is intended that the British Airports Authority should retain its monopoly of Scottish airports or, indeed, whether the Secretary of State intends that there should be real competition by insisting that the BAA divests itself of the ownership of Prestwick and allows Prestwick to compete fully with Glasgow airport.For all these reasons--the environmental impact, safety and security, and employment in Ayrshire--and other matters that need to be clarified, I submit that the only way the matter can be properly dealt with is by an urgent debate in the House. Even with the consolation clauses which the Secretary of State has included, today's announcement is unwelcome in Ayrshire and in Scotland. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give Scottish Members an opportunity of expressing concern by agreeing to a debate on this urgent and important matter.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement today by the Secretary of State for Transport of a review of Scottish lowlands airports policy".
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said about the matter, but, as he knows, the difficult decision that I have to take is whether to give it precedence over the business set down for today or for tomorrow. I regret that, in this case, the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
Column 729
Points of Order
3.34 pm
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the acknowledged champion of the House against the Executive. It is in that context that I seek your help. Bearing in mind both the integrity of the Secretary of State for Wales and the bizarre circumstances of his announcement, on Sunday, of his imminent retirement, we ask the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Wales come before the House with a statement. This is a very critical time for Wales and its economy, yet the Secretary of State for Wales is a lame duck. We believe that the best thing he could do would be to go now.
Mr. Speaker rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is an Opposition day, and I have had no request at all for a statement on this matter.
Mr. Jones : Very briefly, Sir, may I ask you if you recollect that when Lord Joseph--formerly Sir Keith Joseph--made a similar statement of intent, the episode ended in tears and the hon. Gentleman left high office within weeks? May I ask you to use your best endeavours to bring both the Secretary of State for Wales and the Leader of the House before the House with a statement about the decision of the Secretary of State--
Mr. Speaker : Order. That has nothing at all to do with me.
Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer back to Question Time, when, yet again, we had a series of mini -speeches from Members on both sides of the House? That spoils the point of Question Time. If you, Sir, chose to cut short these perorations, you would have the support of all moderate and sensible Members of the House--that is, myself.
Mr. Speaker : I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful point of order. It is not fair to the House for Members to ask long questions. It tends to happen in the case of the first supplementary question to departmental Ministers, and very frequently at Prime Minister's Question Time. In future, I shall cut Members short if they ask more than one question, and I hope that, in doing so, I shall have the support of the House.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member knows that I cannot do anything about that matter. It has absolutely nothing to do with me. Mr. Anderson rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. No. There are other ways of getting at things like this.
Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that my point of order will be slightly more genuine than the one you have just heard.
You may be aware of newspaper reports over the weekend suggesting that the Football Association intends to bring a charge against my hon. Friend the Member for
Column 730
Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) for bringing the game--presumably the game of football--into disrepute. It seems to me that my hon. Friend has said one or two very sensible things about the game of football, although--being so close to Manchester--I am not sure that I altogether agree with his comment about Manchester United being tripe. It seems to me that the football authorities could well be seen as trying to gag my hon. Friend. He has quite often--justifiably, in my view--put the boot into the football establishment, and it seems that that establishment is now trying to shut him up. Do you, Mr. Speaker, have any--Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) is here, and he has not complained about the matter. If the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is alleging that a contempt of the House has been committed, he must write to me in the usual way, and I shall give the matter most careful consideration.
Mr. Speaker : Order. No, I have dealt with that matter.
Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday--as can be seen from column 591 of Hansard --you described a point of order raised by me as "bogus". May I respectfully suggest that those of us who represent Welsh constituencies are truly concerned at the fact that, at this stage, industries and others may not wish to negotiate with the person who represents Wales in the House of Commons and in the Government because of his intended resignation? I believe that it is within your ambit to be able to decide whether a Minister can be called on to give reasons for his resignation.
Mr. Speaker : If such a request were made to me, that would be a different matter. I am sorry if I offended the hon. Gentleman--
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman gave me the opportunity to use the word "bogus" by saying that he hoped that his point or order was not bogus. Perhaps he would have preferred me to use another word.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your advice on two matters concerning procedure and the possibility of a statement? I refer you to early-day motion 659, which concerns the National Union of Mineworkers and allegations about a £5 million payment from Libya.
First, Mr. Speaker, have you received an application for a statement from the Attorney-General from any Opposition Member? Secondly, is it in order to debate the matter, on the ground that it is not sub judice because the NUM has instituted no proceedings against the Daily Mirror or the BBC?
Mr. Speaker : I have had no request for a statement. Whether a debate should take place is a matter for the Leader of the House, and the hon. Gentleman's question should properly be directed to him during business questions on Thursday.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today's announcement about lowland airports policy is the second major economic
Column 731
announcement in a week that affects Scotland and has been made in the form of a written answer rather than an oral statement. What powers have you, Mr. Speaker--in relation to allowing private notice questions or applications under Standing Order No. 20--to grant Scottish Back Benchers the right to question Ministers on important matters of policy?Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman knows the limits of my power, which are set out in the Standing Orders. He need not have asked that question.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I rarely bother you, but over the past few weeks an important matter has arisen.
In the old days, when there was a hubbub in the House--as there is occasionally--we could hear what was being said through the speakers on the back of the benches. For some reason, the volume has now been lowered. Are you able to find out from the Chairman of the Committee on the Televising of the Proceedings of the House whether, to oblige outside listeners, the microphones have been turned down so that hon. Members can no longer hear? I am not the only hon. Member who has noticed the change. Will you make a statement to the House, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : The matter has been raised with me once or twice before, and it is under active consideration. I accept that there has been some problem with the amplifiers, but I do not know whether that has anything to do with the televising of the House. Let us face it : as the hon. Gentleman knows, the microphones are not exactly new, and should perhaps be replaced at an appropriate time.
BILLS PRESENTED
Written Constitution
Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide for the drawing up of a written constitution for the United Kingdom ; for its consideration by the people and Parliament of the United Kingdom ; and for connected purposes : and the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
Blasphemy
Mr. Harry Greenway presented a Bill to make provision for the punishment of persons who blaspheme against certain religions : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on 30 March and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
Mr. Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet) : Not moved.
SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of Scottish Local Government Finance, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.-- [Mr. Chapman.]
Column 732
Tax Relief for Household Employers
3.43 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow tax relief on earned income in respect of the earner's employment of home helps, child minders and other workers in cases where such employment is essential to the earner's availability for work ; and for connected purposes.
My Bill calls for tax relief for household employers. Every day, millions of women perform an incredible juggling act by going out to work and managing their homes and families at the same time. About 45 per cent. of all the jobs in our work force are carried out by women, the great majority of whom are married. Over two thirds of women with children go to work. The Hansard Society recently produced a report calling for more women in top jobs. I have raised that issue here in the House with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
In addition, a great many employers are anxious to gain more women back into the labour force. In The Mail on Sunday, the Secretary of State for Employment called for more older women to return to the labour force. There is no doubt that women at work are an established part of our economy, yet if those women pay somebody to help them to look after their children or their home, they must pay for it out of their taxed earnings. In some cases, that means that they spend half--or perhaps more--of what they earn, and in those circumstances it hardly seems worth their while going out to work at all.
Some women have to go out to work to help with the household budget ; others work because they have a skill that they want to contribute. We are short of teachers, especially in our primary schools, and we want more of them. We are also short of nurses, and want more of them, too. There are a great many jobs for which women are trained and skilled and in which they could help in the economy if only we made some concession to their needs.
My Bill calls on the Government to allow those expenses that are reasonably incurred by a women who goes out to work to be treated as a business expense and to be offset against her pre-tax pay. The present situation is a mess and a muddle. The Treasury's attitude is almost that women work for pin money and that the money they earn can be used to pay granny or a neighbour a few shillings or pounds to look after the work that they have left behind at home.
That is make-believe. Nowadays, someone who looks after somebody else's children rightly has to be properly prepared for that work, and the circumstances in which they carry out such a job have to be vetted to be sure that they are suitable. All that means that, if a woman wants to hire help for her family, she has to pay a high price--certainly the market price--which may well be a substantial part of her earned income.
If an employer provides a creche or a nursery, and the employee who benefits from it earns more than £8,500 per year, it is treated as a tax perk and the employee is taxed on it. Of course, it is not always sensible for a woman to take her children to work with her. The journey may be long and travelling to work and back again with children may be unsuitable. The woman may prefer her child to be looked after locally, perhaps in a creche or by a friendly neighbour who has adequate facilities, but either way the woman has to pay for it.
Column 733
Some employers have introduced child care vouchers, along the same lines as luncheon vouchers. However, that is not always possible or the most satisfactory way of dealing with this issue. Although some large employers, including the Treasury, now provide facilities for people who work for them, a majority of women will always work for small companies and will not be able to enjoy such facilities at work.I am sure that the Inland Revenue would look askance at such a concession, because it will regard it as a loss of revenue. However, such a change in our tax structure would be enormously
cost-beneficial. Not only would it release many women to go out to work and thus to add to the national income from which the Revenue collects its taxes : it would also provide many more jobs associated with the home. Some young people might like to provide some help with children, and perhaps a bed-sitting room would be thrown in, which might help with some of our homelessness problems. Such work might also help retired people who might like a little part-time job associated with someone else's household which would help to supplement the pension. For all those reasons, the effect of the changes that I propose would be enormously beneficial to the economy.
That leaves opponents of the old Tufton Bufton school, who believe that a woman's place is beside the kitchen sink. There will always be a place here for neanderthal man, whether he comes from far afield or as close as Orpington. But there will always be a demand--and an increasing demand--for women to come out and contribute to our economy.
The Government cannot have it both ways. If they want more women to devote time, energy and skill to the economy, they must do something to help them. The most equitable, fair and sensible way to do that is to treat the job that she creates as any other job and allow its cost to be deductible from her pre-tax earnings.
3.50 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : I oppose the introduction of the Bill because, if enacted, it would be harmful to children, destroy family life and make worse the injustice at present suffered by mothers who work at home without pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) wants to make it profitable for mothers of young children to leave them with child minders and collect tax relief on the cost.
There is overwhelming evidence that most mothers of young children who go out to work thereby cause psychological injury to themselves as well as to their children. As my hon. Friend said, some mothers may be obliged to do so, but that should not blind us to the fact that the consequences of depriving young children of love and affection within a stable family unit cause much social evil, reflected in the high figures for crime, vandalism, divorce and plain cruelty to children. Children have a personal, social and spiritual need for love and affection and for the presence and time of those who love them. It is a crime to deprive children of that, yet that is what my hon. Friend seeks to encourage in her Bill.
My hon. Friend speaks as if there were some vast pool of vacancies waiting to be filled by working mothers. If there are so many jobs available, why are there 2 million
Column 734
unemployed, and how many jobless people are already being done out of a job by working mothers? If there are so many jobs to be done, why do we insist on retiring people at 60 or 65, when many are in the prime of life, and only too anxious to go on contributing to society?Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North-East) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Speaker : Order. We do not have interventions in ten-minute Bills.
Mr. Stanbrook : The Bill is an affront to mothers who see it as their duty to stay at home with their children. They already suffer from the tax system, which penalises them for staying at home. If the Government are, as they should be, dedicated to Christian virtues or even Victorian values, they should encourage the mothers of young children to be at home with them by allowing them tax benefits for doing so rather than encouraging those who see fit to evade their responsibilities.
My hon. Friend's error lies in carrying the cult of individualism to extremes. In some ways, individualism is a stimulant to and a safeguard of liberty, but in this form it is anarchic, inherently selfish and destructive of human relationships. It is the antithesis of social responsibility. Above all, there are the children's interests to consider. Such a Bill would increase their deprivation and expose them to the risks of cruelty and abuse. That is why I call on the House to reject the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) :--
The House divided : Ayes 125, Noes 17.
Division No. 104] [3.54 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Allen, Graham
Alton, David
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Ashby, David
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ashton, Joe
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Bevan, David Gilroy
Boyes, Roland
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Carrington, Matthew
Cartwright, John
Clay, Bob
Cohen, Harry
Coleman, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cryer, Bob
Currie, Mrs Edwina
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Devlin, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey
Dover, Den
Dunn, Bob
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Dykes, Hugh
Eastham, Ken
Evennett, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Fearn, Ronald
Fookes, Dame Janet
Galloway, George
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mildred
Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Graham, Thomas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Gregory, Conal
Hampson, Dr Keith
Haynes, Frank
Hayward, Robert
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Howells, Geraint
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Illsley, Eric
Irving, Sir Charles
Jessel, Toby
Johnston, Sir Russell
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Kilfedder, James
Kirkwood, Archy
Lamond, James
Lee, John (Pendle)
Livsey, Richard
Loyden, Eddie
McAllion, John
McAvoy, Thomas
McCrindle, Robert
McFall, John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
McKelvey, William
| Next Section
| Home Page |