| Home Page |
Column 597
Atlas Steel Foundry
3.33 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Under Standing Order No. 20, and in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), chairman and secretary respectively of the Amalgamated Engineering Union group, I seek leave to raise an issue which I believe should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the action of the Department of Trade and Industry on the Atlas steel foundry in my constituency and on its referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in the light of the verdict in the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Friday afternoon giving an interdict."
I should like to acknowledge the presence of the hon. Member for Mid- Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
That matter is important because it concerns the future of basic heavy manufacturing industry in Britain. It is definite because it was the subject of court proceedings on Friday. I can put the matter no better in terms of urgency than the letter from the solicitors concerned to Nigel Harris of the AEU. Mrs. Laura Walker says : "May I stress that, although the Interim Interdict stands until it is recalled, we anticipate that Cooks will now attempt to recall it. It is therefore imperative that the Union ascertains from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and from the Office of Fair Trading what they are going to do about the breach of the undertaking so that they can take appropriate action, as they are the bodies who, in the eyes of the Court, have both title and interest to sue." The debate is urgent because of the need to ascertain what the Department of Trade and Industry will do in
Column 598
relation to section 74(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973, under which a Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, "(a) prohibit or restrict the doing of things which in his opinion would constitute action to which this subsection applies, or (b) impose on any person concerned obligations as to the carrying on of any activities or the safeguarding of any assets".It is the Armadale assets that are vital to continue the heavy industry, which this country would not have if Armadale ceased to exist.
The Act continues :
"(c) provide for the carrying on of any activities or the safeguarding of any assets either by the appointment of a person to conduct or supervise the conduct of any activities (on such terms and with such powers as may be specified or described in the order) or in any other manner, or
(d) exercise any of the powers which, by virtue of paragraph 12 of Schedule 8"--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely :
"The Department of Trade and Industry action in the light of Lord Milligan's granting interdict in the Atlas case."
As the House knows, I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. As the hon. Gentleman equally knows, I have listened with care to what he has said, but I must determine whether his application comes within the scope of the Standing Order. I regret that in this case the matter does not meet those requirements, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
Column 599
Points of Order
3.37 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would be grateful to know if you have had any indication from the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Health that there will be a statement later today, or tomorrow, about the many recently reported cases of people posing as health visitors or social workers on visits to the homes of families with young children in Manchester and many other parts of the country. There is now deep and widespread public concern about these visits and a statement is urgently necessary. It would be especially helpful to the House to have a statement from the Home Secretary about the outcome of today's meeting in Sheffield on the co-ordination of police activity in this important matter.
Mr. Speaker : I have had no request for a statement, but if a meeting is taking place today, there may be a statement tomorrow. I am sure that what the right hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by the Leader of the House and by the Patronage Secretary.
Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I trust that your attention has been drawn to an article in today's "Londoner's Diary" of the Evening Standard, which suggests that you, Mr. Speaker, would open the pigeon loft to hon. Members. I discussed the matter with a reporter from "Londoner's Diary", as the elected Chairman of the New Building Sub-Committee. When we discussed the allocation of rooms that could become available above Speaker's House, I gave him no indication that I or any members of the Sub-Committee had barged into Speaker's House. It was on your invitation, Mr. Speaker.
Knowing full well that there were available rooms there, you asked the Sub- Committee to investigate to see if those rooms would be acceptable to hon. Members. The reporter might have suggested that he had written a light- hearted article, but earlier this afternoon I reminded him on the telephone that it is not a light-hearted matter for Members of Parliament who have been waiting five or six years for suitable accommodation in which to undertake their work.
To ensure that the record is set straight, I should like to make it clear that the members of the Committee came to Speaker's House at your invitation, Mr. Speaker, and examined the rooms. I hope that, in the not- too-distant future, these rooms will be made available for allocation to Members. I thought that I should make the position clear to ensure that you, Sir, are not implicated.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) mentioned an article in today's Evening Standard. I have not seen today's article, but I saw last Friday's. I am grateful to the hon. Member for having put the record straight.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Mind the stool pigeons!
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is an important matter for Members. It was mentioned to me by several Members and by several people this weekend.
It might be for the benefit of all concerned if I were to add that it has always been the intention to implement plans to make these rooms available for the benefit of
Column 600
Members, subject to the necessary financial provisions being made available and to provision of a means of access, without which the rooms could not be used at all.As the completion of phase 1 is now in prospect, I thought that it would facilitate planning for members of the New Building Sub-Committee to see for themselves what these rooms were like. Accordingly, as the hon. Member said, it was at my invitation that the members of the Sub-Committee came to Speaker's House last week. I thank the hon. Member for putting that matter right.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you have seen the excellent 250-page report on low flying which was produced this morning by the Select Committee on Defence. There is a hole in the report, which raises an important procedural question and which shows the perverse effects of our rules. The report criticises the Royal Air Force's resistance to the use of simulators, yet the public expected the report to deal at some length with simulators for the training of pilots.
The Committee asked a firm called Link-Miles to write a letter setting out its position but, contrary to what the public would want, the Committee failed to take evidence from that firm. I put it to you, Sir, that it did not take evidence from Link-Miles because the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence is a consultant to that company--
Mr. Campbell-Savours : The Committee was plainly compromised-- [Interruption.] It is quite unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member is making very serious allegations about an hon. Member of this House. If he wishes to make those allegations, he knows that he must not do so under the guise of a point of order, but should do so by a motion on the Order Paper. This is not a matter for me.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : It is not a matter of allegation, Sir. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) has declared his interests in the Register of Members' Interests and--
Mr. Campbell-Savours : --and-- [Interruption.] --compromises the work of the Committee.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am not prepared to have allegations of this kind made about an hon. Member under the guise of a point of order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : Well, why--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member must take up the matter in the proper way and make his allegations to the Select Committee concerned. I will not have such allegations made in the Chamber. That is reprehensible.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Returning to the previous point of order about those spare rooms you seem to have, Mr. Speaker. I find myself in rather straitened circumstances, as I have to share a room. As you obviously carry some clout in this place, Sir, I wonder whether, if I volunteered to powder your wig and polish your buckles, I might stand a chance of having one of those rooms.
Column 601
Mr. Speaker : It may take a little while for the rooms to become available, but if the hon. Gentleman sets about procuring some powder and some polish, they may stand him in good stead with my successor.Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you are aware that, with the new polished-up image of the Labour party, no Labour Member is allowed to appear on television unless he is wearing a collar and tie, and also that no Member of the Italian Parliament is allowed to enter the parliamentary building unless he is wearing a collar and tie. Given that we are trying to set examples to deter would-be football hooligans, is it not time that you exercised your authority to ensure that no Member of Parliament disports himself here in a manner that would prevent him from being admitted to the Italian parliamentary building?
Mr. Speaker : I am responsible for a great many things, but the way in which hon. Members dress is not one of them.
Mr. Holt : It is in "Erskine May".
Mr. Speaker : It may be in "Erskine May". The hon. Gentleman must not press me to give reasons why I call or do not call hon. Members, although I must say that those who appear in what I would call casual dress do not stand quite as good a chance as some other hon. Members.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on this matter? I am sure that you will agree that being a Member of Parliament is an important job but that what is most important is that a Member of Parliament should represent the interests of the constituents who elect him or her, rather than those of commercial pressure groups or similar organisations. Will you confirm that it is most important that Members of Parliament should do that? Will you also confirm that at least three hon. Members in the Chamber are not wearing ties--including yourself? I should not dream of saying that you or any of my female comrades were improperly dressed.
Mr. Speaker : Perhaps I should declare an interest. I suppose that I could be said to have a commercial interest in the way in which hon. Members dress, so I am not prepared to give a judgment on the matter.
Column 602
Mr. Campbell-Savours : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : No, I am not taking a point of order
Mr. Campbell-Savours : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : I say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not propose to take a point of order--
Mr. Campbell-Savours : On a point of order--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member must sit down when I am on my feet. I am not prepared to take a point of order on the matter that he has just raised. He must deal with it through the proper channels.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : Mr. Speaker--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the matter in the proper way, through the Select Committee on Members' Interests. It is not a matter that he can raise in the Chamber. I am saying that to him straight, and I do not expect him to raise the matter again if I call him.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : This is the question that I want to raise with you, Mr. Speaker. What is the Speaker of the House of Commons responsible for? If he is responsible for preserving the integrity of Parliament, he should surely wish to concern himself with the matter that I have raised, which goes to the heart of what Parliament is all about. If a Select Committee report has a hole in it because of the commercial interests of the Chairman of that Committee, Mr. Speaker surely has a responsibility in relation to the matter. It cannot be left to other Committees, which are often a little reticent about making decisions.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman sought to speculate on the motives of a Committee in failing to take evidence from a certain company. That is certainly not a point of order, and it is not a matter for me. The companies from which the Select Committee takes evidence are a matter for that Committee and not for me.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 4704/90 relating to motor vehicle emissions be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.-- [Mr. Lightbown.]
Column 603
Taxation (Opposition Policies)
3.49 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : I beg to move, That this House notes the Labour Party's continued commitment to massive increases in public expenditure funded by the imposition of new taxes on savings, jobs and property and increases in rates of income tax and national insurance ; contrasts the Labour Party's refusal to reveal its plans for the basic rate of income tax with the Government's goal for the basic rate of just 20p ; believes that Labour will be forced substantially to increase the burden of tax on many lower and middle income earners to realise their public expenditure plans ; notes that Labour plans run counter to the growing international consensus on the case for low taxes ; and believes that the imposition of higher taxes and new taxes would stifle enterprise, drive firms and individuals abroad and gravely weaken the wealth-creating capacity of the United Kingdom economy and create unemployment.
I hunted around for a text from which I might take the keynote of my speech today, and I thought that it would be appropriate to quote a little bit of Lewis Carroll. The quotation begins "The time has come", and indeed the time has come. The quotation also reflects the way in which the Labour party is trying to delude the public about the way in which it might take decisions if it was in office. My quotation begins :
" The time has come '
To talk of many things :
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings.' "
Hon. Members may recall that that little piece ended after the conversation between the Walrus and the Carpenter and there was no reply from the oysters which had been carrying on a conversation on the beach. There was no reply, because the oysters had all been eaten.
I suggest that the result of the Labour party's tax policy would be that incomes in this country were reduced to a very low level. Indeed, taxpayers would not be able to pay for the expensive policies instituted by the Labour party.
The time has come to speak of these things because many people, misguidedly, have elected to vote Labour in recent elections. The Labour party increased its number of seats in the local government elections and it is essential that we should warn the electorate and make them clear about the consequences for taxation policy of electing a Labour Government. When we talk about tax policies, we are talking about a reflection of the Labour party's priorities and philosophy in its approach to government.
Labour's dilemma is that it seeks to spend more and more money on social services, health services, and education and local government services. The Labour party promises the electorate that that spending can be achieved without an increase in taxation. Where taxation will be increased, the Labour party tries to suggest that that will be met by taxing the rich. However, we have yet to define "rich". I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) would not like me to remind the electorate that he thinks that anyone earning more than £17,000 a year is rich. The Labour party believes that by taxing the rich it can somehow pay for excessively expensive social and public services.
Income tax is now reaching down the income levels, and is continuing to do so, down to those who are on very humble incomes, which may be little more than the basic
Column 604
state pension. Labour will tax the vast majority of people who earn humble incomes. It will take money from those people and redistribute it to those whom the Labour party in its arrogance believes should receive more. That is the problem that has faced Labour parties in this country, in eastern Europe, in the Soviet Union or in the Third world.Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose --
Mr. Wells : The Labour party cannot carry out its very expensive programmes unless tax is raised. Only then can it carry out the demands of clause 4 of its constitution.
Mr. Skinner : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Before the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) intervenes, I should like to remind him exactly what clause iv-- of the Labour party's constitution states, because it illustrates what the Labour party intends. The party has never been able to abolish clause iv-- of its constitution, paragraph (iv) of which states :
"To secure for the workers, by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and the best attainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."
Mr. Skinner : The hon. Gentleman has said that the Labour party would have some difficulty financing its programme. I read the other day in a Tory newspaper that the Government are also in a serious predicament because they have to find £15 billion in this current year--not after an election--to finance their programmes. The problem for the Treasury is where to find that money. Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, I should like to know where he would get that £15 billion from to balance the books this year. He would give us a bit of direction if he could tell us whether he has any ideas about where to get that money from, so that he can tell his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. Remember the figure--it is £15 billion.
Mr. Wells : It is our very good fortune that, after 11 years of Conservative government, the Government are running a surplus on their current account. Although we cannot predict what that surplus may be in the coming year, the Treasury will have little difficulty in financing that extra £15 billion. The question is whether it would be wise to do so and whether my right hon. and hon. Friends should insist on a reduction in public spending.
Mr. Skinner : What is the hon. Gentleman's answer?
Mr. Wells : My answer is that the money is already there. We do not have to raise it from anywhere.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : Given that the Labour party's programme involves nationalisation on a mammoth scale, which my hon. Friend has just mentioned, does he agree that not only would the Labour party be incapable of running a public sector debt repayment, but that it would be massively in debt on the public sector, which would hamper the social programmes that it wanted to put into practice? Indeed, it was because the Labour party was in such massive state debt last time it was in power that it had to cut social services and investment in public facilities in real terms.
Column 605
Mr. Wells : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, he has anticipated me, because, while discussing this point, I had wanted to highlight exactly the mess into which the Labour party got this country in 1976 when some of its friends began to realise what it was doing.I should like to quote from the beginning of the "Public Expenditure-- General Review" of 1976, the author of which was the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). The Labour Government were in serious difficulties at the time. The second paragraph of the introduction states :
"In the last three years, public expenditure has grown by nearly 20 per cent. in volume, while output has risen by less than 2 per cent. The ratio of public expenditure to gross domestic product has risen from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. Fifteen years ago, it was 42 per cent. The tax burden has also greatly increased. In 1975-76, a married man on average earnings was paying about a quarter of his earnings in income tax".
We are talking about low-paid people--about people on average or lower than average earnings who were paying about a quarter of their earnings in income tax, compared with one tenth in 1960-61. The paragraph continues :
"On two thirds average earnings a man is paying more than one fifth, compared with less than one twentieth. Tax thresholds have fallen sharply in relation to average earnings. In other words, more poor people are paying tax and people are being drawn into tax on income levels which are below social security and benefit levels. The increase in the tax burden has fallen heavily on low wage earners, those earning less than the average contribute over a quarter of the income tax yield. This cannot be made good simply by increasing the burden at the top. If no taxpayer were left with more than £5,000 per annum after tax"--
swingeing taxes on the rich--
"this would increase the yield by only about 6 per cent." There it is--the right hon. Member for Leeds, East spelled out from experience exactly what happens under Labour Governments. They have to tax their own people, poor people, at the lower end of the income tax levels, in order to achieve the objectives of clause iv----to redistribute the income to those they want, engineer our country's social life and achieve their egalitarian aims, which have not altered.
Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne) : Why has not my hon. Friend brought with him copies of the letters sent by the then Chancellor, to whom he referred, to Dr. Johannes Witteveen? Those letters were the consequence of policies consistently followed by the Labour party, which borrowed where it dared not tax and printed what it could not borrow.
Mr. Wells : If my right hon. Friend had had time to communicate with me during the weekend and had known the line of argument that I was going to take in this debate, I have no doubt that he would have sent me copies of those excellent letters that illustrate so well the point that I was making.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall North) : Instead of dwelling 14 years in the past--perhaps he may want to go back 24 years--would it not be more advisable for the hon. Gentleman to spend part of his speech on the crippling mortgage interest rates being paid by so many of his constituents and the poll tax being levied on many people who are paying double or treble what they were previously paying? Would it not be appropriate to find time to dwell on some of the remarks by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury during the weekend, when he drew a pessimistic
Column 606
picture of the economy? Will not people come to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman is devoting all his speech today to what happened 14 or 20 years ago because he is frightened of dealing with the problems caused by a Conservative Government?Mr. Wells : The hon. Gentleman's intervention leads me nicely to my next point. It also allows me to say that, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that interest rates are too high under this Government, he should imagine what they would be under a Labour Government. They would be a great deal higher. A major problem, and one of the reasons for this debate, is to try to find out exactly what the Labour party's policies will be. The Labour party is inclined to be excessively coy with the public because it does not want the facts and its long-term aim to be known and understood, because once the electorate do so, they will not vote for the Labour party. The job of the House is to point out those facts.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention leads me to the fact that inflation is undoubtedly too high in this country ; the Government, whom I support, have made a mistake. It is not, and has never been, the Government's objective to let inflation increase to this extent, but I am equally responsible, together with all Labour party members, for that dilemma. In 1987, when the stock exchange fell dramatically, many of us thought that we were in for a catastrophic slump. I was one of those who urged the then Chancellor to stoke up demand and--
Mr. Skinner : The hon. Gentleman caused it.
| Next Section
| Home Page |