House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Jul 1990

Column 464

that system. That is why we are giving aid to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. That is quite right, because it will help them to come to that system. Poland is going most quickly along that road.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton) : Is it not one thing to speak with the G7 countries about free trade but another to remember that the textile industry, for example, faces competition from countries which are not represented in that group and have shown no inclination whatever to liberalise their trade? If the negotiations are left to GATT, the textile industry may find that the multi-fibre arrangement has been eliminated altogether. Our textile industry will face free trade but will not have an opportunity to export to many other countries. Will the Prime Minister keep it in mind that in Britain we have lost 45 mills in the past 12 months?

The Prime Minister : We have asked the developing countries to join in GATT. With regard to what they can export, the fact that we subsidise our agricultural exports to other markets deprives them of a market. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we import a lot of textiles from developing countries and we have some special imports outside the multi-fibre arrangement. We must all steadily reduce protectionism. Those developing countries are being asked to join in GATT for freedom of services and intellectual property. If they are to join, however, they must also see that they have markets on the basis of competition. In our debates, we noted that it is not good enough just to talk about aid to developing countries ; they want our markets to be open for trade.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the significant achievements and agreements of the past two weeks, to which she made an outstanding contribution, are to form the sure foundations of a new order--we all hope that they will it is absolutely essential that we do everything possible to build trust among our allies, and not to sow dissention?

The Prime Minister : I entirely agree. Mr. Delors and Mr. Andriessen were in Houston and took part in the debates. I spoke with Mr. Delors and seconded him for a further term as President of the European Commission. They are looking forward to the new challenge on agriculture, and I am sure that they will tackle it vigorously.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : Agricultural protection damages developing countries and the newly independent countries of eastern Europe. Is it not a fact that the common agricultural policy, with its wholly effective device of variable levies, is the most perfect system of agricultural protection ever invented? Is it not time that that system, with all its aspects, was placed firmly on the agenda of, first, the Uruguay conference? I am not at all clear that it has been. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, it should be a major subject at the intergovernmental conferences to be convened in December with the objective of removing the central clauses from the Rome treaty, which gives the CAP such a damaging and powerful position in that legislation.

The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that, for a time, the CAP was the most obvious manifestation of the European Community. We do not argue that it is not protectionist--it is. In a way, it has sent

Column 465

that message out to other countries and they feared that, with the coming of 1992, other markets would not be opened and that a new fortress Europe would be built. They feared that we would go the same way with other goods. It is absolutely vital to make it clear that we wanted a change of direction and that, on agriculture, we should become less protectionist, get subsidies down and have more open markets.

The purpose of 1992 is to get barriers down within Europe as an example of getting them down in the outside world. The external tariff on the Common Market is one of the lowest in the world. We shall go in the right way, as we have done in the past few years, to get surpluses down. We shall go in the right way to reduce subsidies and to achieve more open markets. We shall give a much better time to those of our family farms that do not fear competition because they will get a larger slice of the market if less efficient production ceases to be protected.

Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point) : Does my right hon. Friend realise that her reference a moment ago to giving hope to Poland will give great pleasure to a vast number of people in this country, coming as it does only a few weeks after we celebrated the battle of Britain in which one in seven of the pilots who defended this country was a Pole?

The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is an impressive figure, and we shall remember it again in September with the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain. Poland has been immensely courageous in tackling economic problems. She has done so as fast as she possibly can and there is solidarity, in the normal sense, among her people and a will to succeed. We are giving as much help as we possibly can through the Community and separately.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : Is it conceivable that at a major international conference of this order no discussions were pursued about the dangers to peace in the middle east caused by the policies of the Israeli Government and the activities of the Israeli military and police? Was there no discussion about the sufferings of the Palestinians? Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to try to educate President Bush about the damage done by Zionist pressures to America's real interests in the middle east?

The Prime Minister : Foreign Ministers, and sometimes Heads of Government, discuss the middle east at almost every summit they have. We have had three summits recently--the European Community, where there was an extensive communique on the middle east, the NATO summit, and this one, where we did not discuss the subject in such detail. But the United States Secretary of State, James Baker, is active. We are very much aware of the need to get a new initiative going, and the problem is being addressed. The situation is one of the most serious, with no obvious initiative at present. It is difficult to work out precisely the right initiative ; every time we come close to getting the two sides together, something seems to happen to upset that. The Government in Israel are not the world's most stable Government with which to negotiate.

Sir Giles Shaw (Pudsey) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her outstanding personal contribution to the

Column 466

success of the G7 conference and the NATO conference the previous week. Is my right hon. Friend sure that the GATT rounds will not be torpedoed by the time factor that has to be allowed for restructuring agricultural subsidies?

The Prime Minister : We shall strain to ensure that the communique is translated into fact. It is based on a report from the GATT negotiating committee on agriculture by a Dutchman called De Zeeuw, who recommended that we should all get down subsidies, particularly export subsidies. I hope that that is a good basis for negotiation. I spoke to Mr. Delors afterwards and, as I intimated, he is determined to get action under way and the new regime sorted out.

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South) : I appreciate the need to ensure that aid to the Soviet Union is spent wisely--that is quite right-- but will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that imposed projects simply will not work? Proposals must dovetail with the efforts of the Soviet Union. If that country is not consulted, or feels, that it is being patronised, the initiatives could create more problems that they solved.

The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, the Soviet Union is being consulted and the International Monetary Fund, which leads the team, will go to study the Soviet Union's economy and consult with the Soviets about what could best be done. We have asked for the report to be completed by the end of the year so that we know, and have the best advice, about how the help can be targeted. We shall then have to decide how much of us is prepared to give to that country--we shall do that jointly, as G7. I am sure that this is the best way to go about it : expert advice plus consultation, including consultation with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes) : My right hon. Friend has made much mention of the important issue of helping the Soviet Union. Was help to the other developing democracies in central and eastern Europe also covered in the discussions?

The Prime Minister : Yes, indeed, because, as I said, we are already giving help to Poland and Hungary and extending some of the know-how to Czechoslavakia. At present, we do not have a particular fund to Czechoslovakia, but we are extending the help we give it. It will probably be easier to get those countries from a centrally planned and controlled economy to a freer market economy because they are much smaller. It is an enormous task to do that in a country as large as the Soviet Union. One of the keys do doing so successfully will be to devolve responsibility through some of the republics that hitherto have had to put every decision back to Moscow for approval.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Does the Prime Minister recall that, in 1978 and 1979, she chided the Labour Prime Minister about going to a few summits? She said that, generally speaking, summitry was a waste of time and that nothing was achieved. Since coming to power she has been to an average of five or six summits a year at a cost to the British taxpayer of £4.25 million, while thousands of people are living in cardboard boxes on the Embankment and at Waterloo. If she is so concerned, why has she set up another three or four photo opportunities

Column 467

before July next year? I suggest that it is not just the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who should be sacked for making a mockery of collective responsibility ; it is time that she left and took the lot with her.

The Prime Minister : I know that it will disappoint the hon. Gentleman when I tell him that we achieve things at the summits that we attend. We have achieved a great deal in Europe, including a repayment to this country from the European budget of about £7 billion. We have reduced the subsidies in Europe and are now tackling the subsidies of the agriculture policies. We are to have a full common market in Europe, which is one of the original aims of the treaty of Rome. The Opposition did not do a single thing about that. We have done a great deal for the environment, which the Opposition did not do. Their only action was to cut capital expenditure at the behest of the International Monetary Fund. We have also kept NATO going, and it is probably because, like the United States, we have been such a staunch ally of NATO that the changes in the Soviet Union have been brought about.

The summits are very productive. [Interruption.] A different lot were negotiating then, but now there is a great improvement. We have reduced the European summits to one a presidency. However, because great events were taking place in eastern Europe, we had two under the French presidency. Perhaps we shall have two under the Irish presidency, but I hope that there will not be two under the Italian presidency. In the latter half of 1992, when we hold the presidency, we shall have one.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The trouble with multiple questions is that they lead to multiple answers. I have an obligation to protect the business of the House, and I think that I have called all hon. Members who were not called to put questions to the Prime Minister on 1 May and 28 June except the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr Banks), whom I shall call. I shall allow three more questions from each side and then we must move on because the House has other important business today.

Sir Ian Lloyd (Havant) : Hon. Members on both sides, whether unregenerate federalists or reconstructed confederalists, will regard with the greatest possible approval and warmth the decision of the Group of Seven to enlarge the scope and responsibilities of Churchill's great creation, the Council of Europe. Has it been decided whether the representation on that council will be on the present delegate basis or whether those serving on it will be elected?

The Prime Minister : There are 17 Council of Europe countries and, as the NATO communique states, we are extending that Council so that it will become an assembly of the CSCE, and will take in parliamentary representatives from all the Helsinki accord countries. Anything beyond that is a matter for negotiation, but appointment would be on the basis of the way that delegates are appointed to the Council of Europe. We felt it vital to include in our assemblies people from the United States, the Soviet Union and the whole of central Europe.

Mr. Tony Banks : When does the Prime Minister propose to stop using President Gorbachev as a source of international photo-call opportunities and start extending to him the sort of economic assistance that has been

Column 468

approved by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl? What is the difference between the attitude of those two Governments and that of the British Government? Will she assure the House that, whatever else she sends to the Soviet Union by way of assistance, it will not be her doppelganger, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

The Prime Minister : The answer is quite simple. Germany has extended a line of credit through her banks. We too have previously extended through our banks a line of credit--which has not yet been exhausted, as I have said several times. The two countries are doing a similar thing.

When we are faced at a meeting with a demand for $15 billion of aid for the Soviet Union with no papers, details or structure, I do not think it right for a Minister answerable to the House to agree without going into the matter thoroughly. After all, it is our taxpayers' money that is being committed.

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : Many people in this country do not realise how important my right hon. Friend's battle for free trade is for people here. Will she remind the House how much the common agricultural policy costs the British housewife each week?

The Prime Minister : The Council has calculated that the average family of four pays about £16 a week more because of the agricultural support. The farm price review, which was used before we went into the common agricultural policy, would have cost the taxpayer about as much. By one means or another, we have all supported our farmers. If we had not supported them in the early days, we would not have the prosperous and efficient farming industry that we have.

Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North) : In view of the absolute necessity for the Common Market countries to present and maintain a united front in discussions on trade matters with the United States and Japan, is the Prime Minister satisfied that her Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can maintain harmonious relations with German Trade Ministers and with the European Commissioner for Trade?

The Prime Minister : I am satisfied that this country will maintain an advantageous and co-operative relationship in matters of trade, as in other things, in the European Community. In the past 11 years, the Government have achieved great things in Europe, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) : Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will be widespread gratitude for her personal contribution to the summit--not least for her injection of a much-needed note of realism into the discussion of aid for eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? We simply cannot commit ourselves to carry an economy the size of the Soviet Union's. To do so through forced saving and taxation would have major recessionary consequences for us, while to do so by credit creation would have horrific inflationary consequences for the western world.

The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but that is not the only point. If the Soviet Union took up credit purely for short- term consumer goods, they would rapidly disappear from the shelves and it would be left with

Column 469

an increased debt. We believe that its current total debt is already about £48 billion. Therefore, any extra that we give, on loan, should go to specific targeted causes.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) : Does the Prime Minister accept that every sane person in this country is glad to see the coming together of the peoples of Europe, including the peoples of Germany? When she next meets Mr. Haughey, President Mitterrand and Mr. Kohl, will she feel it necessary to apologise to them for the words of her Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend has expressed his great regret and fully withdrawn his remarks. As I have said, they do not in any way represent the policy or beliefs of the Government, or mine. They do not represent any of our views.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her huge achievements. To avoid a possible misunderstanding with an ally, will she further clarify a comment made in America by one of her Cabinet Ministers, who said that American agriculture was aided to a greater extent than the EEC--especially in view of the fact that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report showed a difference of about 50 per cent. the other way? Does she think that the day will ever come when we have the same standards of accuracy and vision from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that we always have from the Treasury and from the Department of Trade and Industry?

The Prime Minister : The figures that I cited were those of the OECD, with which I think we all agree.

Column 470

Business of the House

4.34 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shouldlike to make a statement about the business for next week. Monday-- 16 July---- Remaining stages of the Finance Bill. Motion on the Care of Cathedrals Measure.

Tuesday-- 17 July----Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Motion relating to the Housing Renovation Grants Regulations. Wednesday-- 18 July----Opposition Day (19th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on community care. Motion on the Social Security Benefits (Student Loans and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations.

Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations. The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

Thursday-- 19 July----Consideration of Lords amendments to the Government Trading Bill and to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill.

Debate on motion to approve the first report, Session 1989-90, from the Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House. Friday-- 20 July----Private Members' motions.

Monday-- 23 July----Motion for the summer Adjournment.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : I welcome the fact that, on Thursday, we shall debate a motion to approve the Select Committee's report on televising the proceedings of the House. Will the Leader of the House confirm that, should the House approve it, that vote will be the end of any debate on the question in principle and that any further debates will simply be on procedural matters?

When will the Government make clear their intentions on the poll tax? It is intolerable that we have had to wait as long as we have, and it is particularly intolerable now, in view of the prevarication on community care. Surely the Government owe it to the thousands of people, the sick, the elderly and those who look after them, to make it plain exactly what the Government are back-tracking on on community care and their intentions on the poll tax.

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the Dispatch Box to deal with a number of matters? He almost needs to be put on permanent standby. First, will he come here to explain his comments and apologise directly to the House rather than by means of long-distance press releases from Hungary, and to spell out the deep Cabinet splits on Europe? Will he also, if necessary in a separate statement, spell out the further details of the £411 million in tax concessions on the Rover-British Aerospace deal, on which no one seems to be receiving details from the Department of Trade and Industry? He owes it to the House to explain exactly what has gone on. Is it not a peculiar state of affairs that the Government can always

Column 471

find tens of millions of pounds for undercover deals, but are never able to find the money that is required for the health service or for community care?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : That last matter has already been investigated and disclosed as far as is appropriate. There were no hidden tax concessions to British Aerospace or the Rover Group. Their tax affairs have been dealt with strictly in accordance with United Kingdom tax law, with the exception of a contractual arrangement which limits Rover Group's historic trading tax losses. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will be answering questions in the ordinary way next Wednesday and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said, he is still in Budapest.

My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and the Environment will be making statements to the House at the appropriate time on community care and on the community charge. The Opposition's decision to debate community care next Wednesday may well provide a convenient opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to deal with that.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response to the motion that I shall be tabling on the televising of the proceedings of the House. He is right to say that the vote on that will be yes or no on the principle of whether televising the House should be made permanent. The Select Committee recommends an answer yes to that question, and if it is answered affirmatively, that will be the end of the matter, short of a decision to reverse it. Next year we shall be considering the mechanics of how to give effect to that decision in the most effective way.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I should like to get on to the debate on rate capping at 5 o'clock. Therefore, I shall allow business questions to go on for 20 minutes. I ask hon. Members to ask questions about business next week and not about other matters.

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what the arrangements will be if we continue the experiment of televising the House or make it more permanent? When would television resume broadcasting? Does it automatically cease at the end of the Session? If we approve televising, when is it likely to take place in a more permanent way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : If we agree with the recommendations of the Select Committee, for the next Session, broadcasting will continue under the arrangements that currently exist, in exactly the same way as at present. The Select Committee on Broadcasting--as it will then become--will be considering in the early part of the next Session the best arrangements to put televising on a permanent footing.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : Since the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has just repudiated three pages of his own vitriol, which has been reported today, can I have an assurance that the Secretary of State will not disclaim reports in Hansard, on Thursday, of what he said on Wednesday?

Column 472

Sir Geoffrey Howe : No connection of that kind could possibly be drawn.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to draw the attention of the House to the motion on the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure on questions, which will save approximately £500,000? Ought that not to be on the Order Paper, so that it can be put into operation the moment that we return in October?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : As my hon. Friend knows, I share his affection for the recommendations of the Select Committee on that topic, and I intend to table the necessary amendments to Standing Orders as soon as that is convenient.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I recognise that the Leader of the House cannot speak for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but will he convey to him that the House expects him not to rely upon a vicarious apology, but to deliver a personal statement next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : It is not for the Leader of the House to make arrangements for statements of that kind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will no doubt read Hansard, as other hon. Members do.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : Has my right hon. and learned Friend had time to examine the statement made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) last week in business questions about the pay of Members of Parliament, which my right hon. and learned Friend said he would consider? Can he say when it is likely that the allowances that we receive to pay our staff are likely to be approved for this year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : Hon. Members' pay is tied, in the appropriate proportion, the national rate for civil service grade 6. Most civil servants with a settlement date of 1 April have settled. The settlement date for grades 5, 6 and 7 is 1 August. Negotiations are continuing. It is not yet possible to say what the revised salary of hon. Members will be. I should make it clear, in the light of what was said last week, that the introduction of merit awards for grade 6 will not affect settlements for Members. I shall look into my hon. Friend's point about staff pay and let him know as soon as possible.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week saying whether the Prime Minister and the Cabinet were aware of the contents of the article in The Spectator prior to the summit? If they were, did the Prime Minister inform Chancellor Kohl of the article, and the offensive remark of which he would be the subject? Did she know?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : That is surely clear from the way in which and the speed with which my right hon. Friend unreservedly withdrew his remarks. They were withdrawn as soon as they reached the light of day.

Mr. John Browne (Winchester) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a serious and rising problem of under-age drinking, which is often caused by adults who buy drink and give it to under-age people, knowing that its consumption will not be supervised? Is there time for a debate on this serious issue?

Column 473

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am sure that the House is concerned about under-age drinking, whatever form it takes, but there must be a practical limit to how far we can supervise the extent to which everyone supervises everyone else.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : Further to the request for a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I emphasise that we do not want a personal statement because that would not be the subject of questioning and would finish the whole issue. The Secretary of State gave an interview related to his ministerial responsibilities-- trading relations in Europe. We want a proper ministerial statement, subject to questions.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : The right hon. Gentleman must acknowledge the importance of the observation made not once but many times in the course of the afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--that my right hon. Friend's observations do not correspond to Government policy and have been unreservedly withdrawn.

Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford) : Is the Leader of the House aware that many Conservative Members would be happy to give up some Government time next week so that the Opposition have the opportunity to make clear their proposals for the replacement of the community charge? Secondly, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members are happy to welcome the success of the rents-to-mortgages scheme currently being tested in Scotland? Will he make time next week for an early statement on that policy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I cannot offer the prospect of a statement on that, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already commended the case for a study of the Scotland experience. I do not think that there is anything that we can do to induce the Opposition to come here and give their proposals for the community charge.

Mr. D. N. Campbell Savours (Workington) : The Government have totally underestimated the impact of the statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Can we have a statement from him? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that, in every European capital, the Secretary of State will now be held in contempt? He will be viewed with suspcicion and treated with derision--yet he represents British interests. On behalf of British industry, the Government should sack that man, because he no longer represents British industry and trade.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : There is nothing whatever to be added to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about that. The Secretary of State's remarks do not in any respect correspond to Government policy. They have been unreservedly withdrawn, and the House will long wish that the day never comes when the hon. Gentleman becomes the spokesman for British trade and industry.

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend initiate a debate next week on early-day motion 1263? [That this House rejects the concept of trial by media ; finds the personal attacks, smears and allegations against the national officials of the National Union of Mineworkers by unscrupulous elements of the media and two former

Column 474

employees of the Union offensive ; notes that payments have been made to Messrs. Windsor and Parker to make accusations against the national officials ; further notes that the Union of Democratic Mineworkers ; use bogus Soviet miners to make false allegations against the National Union of Mineworkers ; congratulates the miners and their families for their magnificent fight against the Government and the full might of the state machine in the 1984-85 strike which cost the taxpayer £8 billion ; welcomes the decision of the NEC to completely clear the national officials of the allegations published in the Daily Mirror and broadcast on Central Television's Cook Report ; further notes that the sequestration and receivership of the National Union of Mineworkers' funds did not end until July 1986, and the continued legal actions on the charge of breach of trust against the national officials and trustees was not dropped until 1988 ; understands the difficulties faced by the Union since the end of the strike in which period all trade union loans have been repaid ; and assures the National Union of Mineworkers of its full support in its struggle to defend the British coal industry.]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this would be an excellent opportunity to discuss the extraordinary shenanigans carried on by the NUM and Mr. Scargill during the miners' strike a few years ago? Is it not truly incredible that 52 Labour Members are prepared even at this stage to associate themselves with and support the doomed and discredited Mr. Scargill?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : It is absolutely right that there should be an investigation of the serious matters to which my hon. Friend has referred. I am sure that the House will feel that Members of the Opposition who are sponsored by that union should give particular attention to the matter.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston) : Is the Leader of the House aware that there has been a second serious spillage of oil in the River Mersey? Does he not agree that the measures taken by the National Rivers Authority are apparently not a deterrent to oil companies which encourage them to take the necessary safeguards? Will he press the Secretary of State to come to the House next week and make a statement on that serious matter so that things can be put right? The penalties appear to be as much of a deterrent as a slap on the wrist with a feather duster.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's propositions in the form in which he puts them ; nor can I promise the prospect of a debate. However, I can certainly bring his remarks to the attention of the chairman of the National Rivers Authority and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time next week to allow a short debate on the affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers to allow Opposition Members--not least the Leader of the Opposition--an opportunity to explain the uncomradely haste with which they are all queuing up to stick the knife into the NUM's leader? Only a few years ago, they were lionising him as a great hero of socialism and of labour, and the Labour party has always been happy to accept his funds.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I cannot offer the prospect of a debate in Government time, but there will be many

Column 475

opportunities during the debate on the motion for the summer Adjournment and in debates on the Consolidated Fund to addres that issue.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West) : Will the Leader of the House reflect on his response to the request for a statement on Government policy on the poll tax? May we have an assurance that there will be two statements --one from the Secretary of State for the Environment and another from the Secretary of State for Scotland? If notice is to be taken of the Scottish experience in respect of house purchase, the House should surely have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Scotland separately on the Scottish experience in relation to the poll tax and about the fact that 500,000 Scots are still resisting payment.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : In so far as the territorial Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales can appropriately make separate statements, that will happen in due course.

Mr. Andy Stewart (Sherwood) : I draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to early-day motion 1263 in the names of 52 Opposition Members.

May I beg and urge my right hon. and learned Friend a third time to allow an early debate next week? That early-day motion is an insult to the people of Nottinghamshire, abuses the privileges of this House, impinges on the integrity of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, and would allow Opposition Members who were right up with the president of the NUM during the miners' dispute to support him still further. If and when he is impugned and has the handcuffs put on him, he will sing like a canary--and God help Opposition Members then.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern, not least in respect of what is said about members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. As I told the House when the matter was raised on Tuesday, I am sure that all who joined the UDM are profoundly glad that they did so. I hope that their colleagues in the National Union of Mineworkers will continue to take effective action in their own union.

Mr. John Hughes (Coventry, North-East) : In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), May I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that the Prime Minister attends a further summit. I refer to the summit that is the subject of early-day motion 1231. [That this House is deeply concerned that an estimated one hundred million or more children will die of hunger over the next decade, if the unequal distribution of food and resources continues ; recognises that Britain's commitment to the attainment of a humane solution to this pressing problem will be demonstrated by the Prime Minister heeding the call of the World Development Movement and attending the World Summit dealing with this priority issue on 29th September 1990.]

That summit will deal with the horrific problem of an estimated 100 million children who are dying of starvation. The Government can demonstrate their priorities by ensuring that the right hon. Lady attends that important conference.

Next Section

Home Page