| Home Page |
Column 1003
Business of the House
3.31 pm
Several Hon. Members : On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I will take business questions first.
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I said that I would take business questions first.
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
Mr. Nellist : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I shall take points of order after business questions, in the usual way.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe) : The business for next week will be as follows--
Mr. Nellist : On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Member for Coventry, South- East (Mr. Nellist)--he knows this well--that we are still in the middle of Question Time. I am now taking business questions. I will take points of order--
Mr. Nellist : It is about the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker : I will take points of order, about the Prime Minister or anyone else, after business questions.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The business for next week will be as follows :
Monday 12 March----Until seven o'clock motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order.
Afterwards motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order. Motion on the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order which is a consolidation measure.
Proceedings on the Capital Allowances Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Tuesday 13 March----Progress on remaining stages of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
Motion on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order
Wednesday 14 March----Progress on remaining stages of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
Thursday 15 March----Until seven o'clock completion of remaining stages of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Consideration of any Lords amendments to the Coal Industry Bill which may be received.
Motion to amend schedule 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Friday 16 March----Private Members' motions.
Monday 19 March----Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill.
Dr. Cunningham : Is the Leader of the House aware that on Monday evening his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy placed in the Library a copy of a departmental minute seeking to indemnify Nuclear
Column 1004
Electric in the sum of £2,500 million? It is made clear in the privatisation Act--the Electricity Act 1989--that any sum in excess of £1,000 million that is so used must be debated and approved by the House. That is a large sum of public money. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the matter will be debated before any confirmation of the decision of the Secretary of State for Energy can be approved?Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the widespread astonishment and anger, not only in the House but outside it, about the report on the House of Fraser/Harrods scandal? Is it not clearly inadequate that Parliament should have only a brief period--about 30 minutes--to discuss the matter, on a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Is it not in everyone's interest--not least in the interest of the Government, who commissioned the inquiry--that these matters should be fully debated in Parliament, and may we have an early opportunity to debate them in Government time? I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the support for that proposition on both sides of the House.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the activities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the chairman of the Conservative party, in relation to poll tax? Will he arrange for the chairman of the Conservative party--instead of erecting bogus figures about responsibility- -to come to the House and bring with him his 12 Cabinet colleagues, of whom the Leader of the House is one, who represent constituencies in Conservative counties, where in every case the poll tax is hugely in excess of the Government's recommended level?
Why do the Government blame Labour councils when, under Cabinet Ministers' very noses, these huge poll tax figures are being set? Can I say--[ Hon. Members-- : "No."] May I ask the Leader of the House to explain why in Tandridge, in his own constituency of Surrey, East, which has a Tory council, the poll tax is £79 above the Government's recommended level?
Mr. Speaker : Order. I was on the point of interrupting the hon. Gentleman, so perhaps I may do so now. Business questions do not provide the opportunity to make a statement.
Dr. Cunningham : I am coming to the question, Mr. Speaker. Why, in Mole Valley, is the poll tax £85 above the Government's level and why in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Defence, is it £93--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must ask business questions.
Dr. Cunningham : My question is simply this, Mr. Speaker. As, in the face of public outcry, so many Conservative Members appear to have changed their minds about supporting the poll tax, will the Leader of the House organise an early debate so that we can vote on the matter again and throw the whole thing out?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I have no intention of arranging an urgent debate about that, although if such a debate took place it would provide us with yet another opportunity to ask Labour Members why 28 of their number are trying to incite people not to pay a tax put in place by the House.
Column 1005
Mr. Nellist : It is 31, not 28.Sir Geoffrey Howe : That makes it three times worse.
Such a debate would also provide us with an opportunity to make it plain that, under Labour councils, taxes will inevitably be higher than under Conservative-controlled councils.
Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's more serious points. He inquired about the electricity industry. The departmental minute deposited by my right hon. Friend gives notice to Parliament that it is his intention to bring forward, if necessary, an order to increase the current limit of £1 billion for liabilities under schedule 12 of the Electricity Act 1989 to £2.5 billion. As you, Mr. Speaker, made clear yesterday when this matter was raised, the order would be subject to parliamentary approval.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement yesterday about the report on the House of Fraser. I note the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate. Clearly there is no opportunity for a debate next week. Moreover, I understand that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is currently examining the investigative powers of the Department under the Companies Act 1989. It may well be thought appropriate to await its report before considering a debate. In any event, the matter can be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for an early debate on early-day motion 659? [That this House views with grave concern the serious allegations made against the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers by the Daily Mirror and Thames Television Cook Report Special on 5th March that moneys from foreign countries were accepted in order to prolong a national industrial dispute and that one of those same countries, namely Libya, was at the same time supporting terrorism within the United Kingdom ; notes that allegations of fraud and embezzlement were made to the effect that some of these moneys were used by officers and trustees of the National Union of Mineworkers for their own personal gain and that allegations of dishonesty were made against officers of the National Union of Mineworkers still in office ; calls upon Mr. Attorney General to refer all these allegations forthwith to the Director of Public Prosecutions ; and requests and requires assurances from those honourable Members still sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers that none of the money they receive in election expenses is derived from Libyan or similarly tainted sources.]
It concerns the National Union of Mineworkers and allegations made by a former Labour Member of the House, Mr. Robert Maxwell, that £5 million came from the terrorist regime of Libya shortly after WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead by the same people, and that the money was then misappropriated by union officials. May we also in that debate examine why no Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), have said a word about this scandal when they would be so quick to do so if it concerned a City institution?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : As my hon. Friend understands, the investigation of matters of that kind is, in the first instance, a matter for the police service rather than for either of the Law Officers' Departments. Anyone in possession of
Column 1006
evidence to support the point he has made should, of course, place it in the hands of the police, who will be very ready to investigate the allegations. I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having brought the matter to its attention.Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : I thank the Leader of the House for announcing that the War Crimes Bill is to be introduced so swiftly. May I ask him whether we are to have a statement on the setting up of a special investigative unit such as the units that have been created in Canada, Australia and the United States so that justice may be done, so that those who are guilty and against whom there is sufficient weight of evidence may be brought to trial and those against whom there is not such evidence may be freed of anxiety?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his appreciation of the prospective legislation. It will, of course, be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to answer questions of that kind in detail in consideration of the Bill, but the hon. and learned Gentleman can be sure that appropriate arrangements will be made to ensure that the most effective investigations can be undertaken with the objectives that he has in mind.
Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar) : In view of the recent Consumers Association report revealing malpractices by some estate agents, linked to the feeling that investor protection may not necessarily be working out in precisely the way in which the Financial Services Act 1986 intended, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of initiating, not a narrow debate on the House of Fraser, but a much wider debate taking account of these concerns?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am glad that my hon. Friend has returned to the House, which we all welcome. The report gives us an opportunity of broadening the field of inquiry. I shall draw the point that he raises to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Mr. Frank Field.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) rose --
Mr. Speaker : I am sorry if there was some confusion, but the House should know that I always give precedence at the next opportunity to those who were called last at the previous business question time. I thought that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was rising.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) : Following the statement by the Leader of the House last week on the future of the Social Services Committee, may I ask him whether he has had a chance to consult again more widely on the desirability of splitting the Committee so that it more accurately reflects Government Departments? May I invite him to make a further statement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The matter has been raised through the usual channels. I am considering how best to take the matter further, and I shall seek to inform the House in due course.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the arguments for dividing the Health and Social Security Departments apply equally to the case
Column 1007
for dividing the Select Committees responsible for monitoring them, and that there is concern on both sides of the House about the delay in making this change? It is important that the departmental structure should be maintained, not least in this area, which accounts for almost half the total of Government expenditure and where the Committees have an onerous task. Will my right hon. and learned Friend see whether he can do something about this matter next week? The delay is a matter of concern.Sir Geoffrey Howe : Even in the face of this formidably bipartisan combination of pressure, including the energetic support of my right hon. Friend, I do not think that I can promise that there will be a reaction next week. I take note, however, of the points that have been made.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Is the Leader of the House afraid of having a debate about the House of Fraser because of the connections with the Sultan of Brunei? Does he recall that in 1985, when the pound was worth $1.08 and sinking through the floor, the sultan found £5 billion to prop up the pound? As a result, the Government decided to lay off the House of Fraser and its surrogates, the Fayed brothers. That is why we have the cover-up. As for the Libyan connection, the only one that I am aware of during the miners' strike was the millions of barrels of oil that came from Libya to prop up the Tory Government.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not an expert on diversion. He should be ready to tell the House a great deal more about the Libyan connection in the strike. We shall look forward to hearing from him. If the publication of a report as extensive and as critical as that which the House discussed yesterday is a cover-up operation, the hon. Gentleman is even more extraordinary than I think he is.
Mr. Kenneth Warren (Hastings and Rye) : Delighted as I am to acknowledge my right hon. and learned Friend's acceptance of the work of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on company investigations, the terms of reference of the Committee do not include, nor are they intended to include, the study of any particular company and its problems. As I feel sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would like to have more time to give us the background of his opinion, I commend to my right hon. and learned Friend the suggestion that a debate would be right and proper.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : Obviously I take account of the proposition that my hon. Friend has put before the House, without being able to make any commitment.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill) : Following the reply which the Leader of the House made on 26 February about the funding of political parties in the emerging democracies in eastern Europe, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he has had the discussions which he promised to have with the Foreign Secretary about the nature of the funding, the timetabling of the resources and the methods by which moneys can be paid to the parties in eastern Europe?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I understand that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), is
Column 1008
undertaking, or will undertake, consultations with the various parties about the best way of taking the matter forward in pursuit of the sort of objective which is shared by both sides of the House.Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time to debate the fact that this week the Liberal-controlled Richmond upon Thames borough council opened a new town hall that has been built at a cost of £12 million? Over the next 20 years it will add £10 per head per year to the community charge. Are not my constituents and their Member of Parliament right to protest about this reckless and indefensible civic extravagance?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having focused so precisely the grounds on which he and his constituents are objecting to characteristic Liberal extravagance.
Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon) : Will the Leader of the House reconsider his replies about a debate on the House of Fraser? The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) made a reasonable point about how limited the inquiry of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will be. The task that faces the House cannot adequately be dealt with in a statement. Nothing more nor less than the probity of British business is at stake, and we should have an early debate.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I said in answer to the first question on the subject that the matter can be discussed through the usual channels. It is always open to the Opposition to select the matter as a topic for one of their debates.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend give further consideration to the possibility of a debate on the affairs of the NUM, not so much just so that the House can get to the bottom of the matter, as to give Opposition Members the opportunity to explain why they are suddenly so eager to dump a man to whom not so long ago they were all busy paying court as a great hero of Socialist labour? Is not this a possibly unique example of the rats trying to throw one of their own kind overboard?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend has put the matter extremely compactly. I shall see whether any opportunity is likely to arise for the further discussion of that interesting insight.
Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath) : Is the Leader of the House aware of the anxiety felt in Wales about the unclearness of the situation with regard to the announcement concerning the Secretary of State for Wales, especially in view of the breadth of the portfolio of the Welsh Office, which includes health, education, housing and local government? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made before the Welsh Grand Committee meets next week so that we may have a clear picture of the position in regard to his right hon. Friend?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I see no reason for any such statement. The hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend's predecessor as Secretary of State for Wales also gave substantial advance notice of the likelihood of his departure from that office. That did not prevent him from fulfilling the duties of that office with great
Column 1009
distinction, as he did throughout his time there. He has been followed with equal distinction by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State, and he will continue to be an excellent Secretary of State until the time comes for him to leave the office.Mr. William Powell (Corby) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the substantial public interest and concern about the revelations on funds paid to NUM sources during the strike some years ago? Is he further aware that that is a legitimate matter of concern to our constituents, upon which they expect the House to cast the maximum possible light? In those circumstances, will my right hon. and learned Friend bring forward a resolution next week to establish a Select Committee with the power to take evidence and call witnesses and so get to the bottom of the matter, which remains desperately unclear?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend adds to the clarity with which the House is being informed about a matter which clearly deserves to be followed closely.
Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : Would it not have been more dignified for the House last Friday if one of the main contributions to talking out the Bill that seeks to help the victims of nuclear tests had some from someone other than the Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister whose Department seems to want to dump the Bill without debate? May we have a statement next week on the humane and important Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay)? Is there anything that the Leader of the House can do to facilitate consideration of the Bill?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The Bill has so far taken its place in the ordinary way for consideration along with other private Members' Bills. I see no prospect of it receiving any different treatment from other Bills in the queue.
Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the War Crimes Bill, which I support, raises some of the gravest issues that could possibly come before the House of major changes in British justice? Is it not important that the Bill should be dealt with in a non-partisan way and that there should be a free vote?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the issues raised in the Bill. He will recollect that when it was considered in embryo, as it were, before Christmas, the House had a free vote, and that will continue to be the position.
Mr. Nellist : Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement later today by the chairman of the Tory party because some hon. Members have been smeared by this disgraceful press release, yesterday, to which several hon. Members and the Prime Minister have referred today? Is he aware that the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, while it understands that tempers can boil over when millions of families will be pauperised by the poll tax, does not organise, advocate or condone premeditated violence of the kind that has taken place recently.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that what has really upset him today is the news this morning, based on official figures, that 42.5 per cent. of people liable for the tax in Glasgow have still not paid it after 11
Column 1010
months? When those people get 10 million reinforcements from England and Wales, the Prime Minister's flagship will be turned into a Titanic.Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. Gentleman's question does not relate to the business of the House, but it gives me the opportunity of commenting yet again on the way in which so many Opposition Members--the number seems to increase with every report--are encouraging people to refuse to pay a tax which has been lawfully and effectively put in place by the House. That is the matter for concern, together with the violence of the opposition to the tax which has been generated.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us thought yesterday that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was too languid and laid back about the Al- Fayed/Harrods report? Does he not also accept that for the reputation of this country and the City there can be no neutrals as far as fraud is concerned? Does he also agree that the idea that the 750-page report should be sent to a Select Committee, when the Chairman of the Select Committee has said, "It ain't me, guv," is not on? The report is before the House. I believe that the country and the City will demand that there is a debate on it in Government time. If we can debate the conduct of one Member for six hours, why can we not spare three hours to talk about the conduct of these discreditable and loathsome creatures?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : I have already said that the possibility of a debate on that topic must be discussed through the usual channels. I have taken note of the fact that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged upon me the case for such a debate. I can do no more than that.
Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West) : Does the Leader of the House recall that a couple of weeks ago I asked for a statement about the threat to the jobs of some 2,000 workers at the James Seddon clothing factories, including some 1,000 jobs in the Falkirk district? Now that that company has gone into receivership and more than 100 people have been made redundant in Denny and Falkirk, will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement or, more important, to take urgent action to intervene to stop what could be one of the most serious threats of redundancy to affect Falkirk district for many years?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : While there can be no presumption that the Secretary of State can or should intervene in every matter of this kind, I know that he will be following very closely the events referred to by the hon. Member, and I shall bring to his attention the matter the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend try to provide time at an early opportunity either in the context of the EEC or of industry to discuss the moves which were taking place in the Commission even on Tuesday during our debate on the economy, whereby Japanese firms building cars in Britain with a British content will have those cars deducted from their quota, whereas cars built in America by the same Japanese firms will not have them deducted? How are we to view the Common Market and the operation of the single market if,
Column 1011
as a member state, we are to be discriminated against in this fashion in favour of a non-member state? That is a serious question for people in the midlands in particular, and we want a robust statement of Government policy on that issue. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will seek to provide an opportunity for it.Sir Geoffrey Howe : The only reason for our resisting demands for a debate on that subject is that the Government's position--and, indeed, that of the House--is already clear. It would be quite improper for British cars produced by British workers in Britain to be treated differently from other cars produced in the Community. There is no case whatever for treating such cars as though they were produced in Japan.
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The case is being pressed energetically in the Community by all my right hon. Friends, and is receiving substantial support from a number of partner nations. It is important that that case should prevail.
Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : Will the Leader of the House consider the question of education in the London borough of Newham, where a huge increase in population is projected as a result of docklands developments? As he knows, when similar circumstances arose in the new towns, special arrangements were put in place to finance the infrastructure, including schools, and I feel that such arrangements should be introduced in Newham. Deputations from the borough have been unable to persuade Education Ministers, however : they say that the money will be allocated when the population is there.
Building schools involves a lead time of five years. Unless something is done, people moving into the brave new world of docklands will find that their children are bussed out of the area for five years before the schools are built. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate so that the matter can be properly discussed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The House will certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's commendation of the prosperity and successful expansion in and around his constituency that has resulted from Government initiatives. We welcome his support, and I shall certainly draw the aspect that he has mentioned to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Sir Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead) : We are all very grateful that at last there is to be a debate on war crimes, but is not a war crime a war crime wherever it is committed? Surely the agenda should not be confined to German territory which might well have been occupied temporarily by the Russians.
Sir Geoffrey Howe : The scope of the Bill--which my hon. Friend will be able to study before long--has been shaped after careful consideration, in the light of the report by Messrs. Hetherington and Chalmers. If my hon. Friend wishes to suggest that that scope be extended, he can no doubt do so when the time comes to debate the Bill.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to the possibility of a debate on the poll tax? Does he recognise the growing anger and resentment that is felt all over the country and
Column 1012
is reflected in our postbags? I entirely repudiate any violence perpetrated by a few outsiders ; Opposition Members have no time for violence of any kind-- [Interruption.] I am surprised that I should ever be accused of condoning violence. Why does the Leader of the House not recognise that the tax is the most unpopular that has been introduced for centuries, and that hundreds of thousands of people all over the country--many in Conservative constituencies--are expressing their views and will continue to do so? Now is the time for a debate--in Government time.
| Next Section
| Home Page |