| Previous Section | Home Page |
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wareing, Robert N.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Wilson, Brian
Winnick, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Worthington, Tony
Wray, Jimmy
Young, David (Bolton SE)
Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. Frank Haynes and
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Just a moment--I am on my feet.
Column 261
Export and Investment Guarantees Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill ( the Act'), it is expedient to authorise--
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments or defraying his administrative expenses under the Act and the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums not paid out of money provided by Parliament which are required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling his liabilities under the Act, and
(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act.-- [Mr. Sainsbury.] 10.13 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I am sorry about the point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I had to get in, or the money resolution would have gone through on the nod, and I know that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House would not like that. It is rather strange that the Government are making such a fuss over this Bill instead of renewing it, because every stage of the original Bill, the Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act 1978, which is mentioned in the explanatory and financial memorandum, went through on the nod on 13 June 1978. Where were the Tory Opposition in 1978, if such legislation is now so unnecessary tht it was allowed to go through without protest? The only difference that I can see is this : whereas we had an export surplus then, we now have a £20 billion deficit, and the Government are proposing to jettison an important component of assistance.
I hope that the Government will not be prejudiced in favour of the Bill, and the financial support for it granted under clauses 5 and 6, by the fact that, as recently as March 1989--unaware, apparently, of the true character of the Iraqi regime--they increased ECGD provision for Iraq from £175 million to £340 million. You will be surprised to learn, Mr. Speaker, that that was done shortly after the regime gassed the Kurds.
It is a bit startling that the Government should use money for that purpose. I hope that the privatisation provisions in clause 8 have not been brought about by prejudice as a result of political decisions in favour of the Iraqi regime that were made by the Government of which both Ministers were officers.
Mr. Nellist : Is my hon. Friend aware that the same thing happened on another occasion? In October 1988, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office--now Secretary of State for Health--reported to the House that people known colloquially as "marsh Arabs", living in villages north of Basra--
Mr. Speaker : Order. What has this to do with the ECGD?
Mr. Nellist : I am explaining that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Well, try and explain it to me.
Mr. Nellist : I am not making a point of order, Mr. Speaker ; this is an intervention, and you would see its relevance if you allowed me to complete it.
Column 262
Mr. Speaker : I am anxious to find out whether the hon. Gentleman is in order.
Mr. Nellist : My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)--without being challenged on the ground that he is out of order--has mentioned an occasion when a certain event in Iraq resulted in a reward : the doubling of trade credits by the Government, under ECGD provision. I was reminding him that a similar event took place in October 1988, when the present Secretary of State for Health reported to the House that thousands of people were being killed in Iraq. Nine days later, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who was responsible for the Department that we are discussing tonight, increased trade credits to Iraq by another £440 million.
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman's remarks might have been very relevant to the main debate, but the House is now debating the money resolution.
Mr. Cryer : I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Before the Minister points out that I missed his opening speech, let me explain that I have been chairing the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and then attending the Select Committee on Members' Interests, and was therefore unable to listen to what he had to say. He may have given a comprehensive explanation of the position ; when winding up, however, the Minister failed to do so, so it is fair for me to raise these points. I know that the Minister is anxious to provide an explanation.
What concerns me is the amount of money under clause 6, which limits our commitments in sterling to £35 million ; this figure cannot be exceeded. In the case of commitments in foreign currency, special drawing rights must not exceed 15,000 million. I take it that the 15,000 million is in any specific currency that the Secretary of State may choose, because no currency is defined in the Bill. It would seem reasonable to do so. I hope that the Minister can give that explanation.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the changes at ECGD and the proposed privatisation are matters of concern to our exporters who seek Government assistance. As has been made clear during the debate, the premiums charged by ECGD are far from the lowest in the Common Market ; they cannot therefore be regarded as state assistance and hence in breach of the treaty of Rome. On balance, the charges for the United Kingdom are generally higher than in other countries, so surely the ECGD cannot possibly be criticised as state assistance and therefore a distortion of competition under the lunatic treaty of Rome.
The Secretary of State is given powers under clause 6 to increase the limits of various subsections, and they are set out clearly in the Bill as being under affirmative order. In clause 15(3), the powers to make orders under clauses 5 or 6--that includes increases of money and so comes within the financial resolution--come in the form of an affirmative resolution. Everyone welcomes that, because it gives us the opportunity to debate the issue.
But there is another important part which is affected by the money resolution, because it relates to the costs to the Minister arising out of this Bill. Under clause 8, the Minister has the power to provide a scheme to transfer or delegate ECGD functions. This is the privatisation part.
Column 263
I have looked at the legislation, because it uses rather strange language in clause 8 : it apparently gives the Secretary of State power to issue certificates. The clause is written in such a way that it sounds as though it is a statutory instrument issued by the Minister, but it is not ; it is a scheme to"transfer to any person or persons such property, rights and liabilities as are specified in or determined in accordance with the scheme".
Do I take it from this that the Minister is being given power to produce a scheme without further reference to the House, because the provisions in clause 8 have the ring of delegated legislation-making powers? If that is the case, surely clause 8 should also be subject to clause 15(3). If I look at clause 15, however, I can find no reference to clause 8 of the Bill. In this question of delegated powers, it is very important that the Minister be accountable to the House and that, in a scheme like this, which gives the Minister power to hive off a perfectly proper, efficient and, in one part, profitable provision for our exporters--we have an enormous balance of payments deficit and need every possible assistance--
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : The war will make it worse. Mr. Cryer --the Minister should come to the House and provide an account of the scheme, so that we can approve or reject it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) points out, our economic position will not be improved by this war, but rather made worse. That means an even more important obligation on the Minister, who is being given power under the motion to pay the costs of the scheme, and to bring the scheme back to the House for approval on an affirmative resolution. I hope that he will say that the point will be considered in Committee, and that he will accept that the House should have proper accountability, so that he does not do just what he wants with the money in the privatisation proposal.
Column 264
10.25 pmThe Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury) : I am sure that the House appreciates that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has had extremely important things to do in connection with the business of the House and the Committees to which he has referred. We share his regret that he could not be present for any of the proceedings on Second Reading of this important Bill. If he could have been present, in spite of his other commitments, I suspect that he would have found that many of the points that he has raised were answered in the debate. When he reads Hansard tomorrow with his usual care, I am sure that he will find that to be the position. If there remain any points that he feels have not been answered, I shall be happy to answer them.
Mr. Cryer : The Minister has been misinformed about my not being present for any part of the debate. That is not true. I was present for the latter part of the debate and, had there been time, I might have spoken earlier. I listened to the whole reply of his hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will accept that correction.
Mr. Sainsbury : I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He missed an excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), which he might have found helpful. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matters before us have no connection whatever with Iraq. The increases in clause 6 to which he referred follow normal procedure. Incidentally, I may point out to him that the amount involved is not £35 million but £35 billion, which is a fairly substantial sum. The clause follows the normal procedure.
These matters will be examined carefully in Committee. I hope that we may have the pleasure of the hon. Gentleman's presence in Committee to ensure that they are so examined.
Question put and agreed to.
Column 265
The Gulf
10.27 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During your careful reply to my request at 3.30 pm for an adjournment under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss the detonation and ignition of Kuwaiti oilfields by Iraq, you said that it would indeed be a serious matter if it could be shown to be true. Alas, it is only too true, as pictures have shown the Al Wafra oilfield blazing and billowing out the blackest of smoke.
The House might also expect some response to the tragic loss of a fifth Tornado and, most urgently, because it is self-evidently a matter of extreme urgency, to the attack on Tel Aviv tonight. The Leader of the House or another senior Minister may be able to outline what the Government's response will be.
The Leader of the House (Mr. John MacGregor) : It may be for the convenience of the House if I respond to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that it is premature to make a statement now. I am advised that there is no firm evidence to confirm media reports. I suggest that we make a judgment tomorrow, in the light of confirmed facts, as to whether a statement is justified.
It might be helpful if I add that we are obviously keen to keep the House fully informed. We have already amply demonstrated that. Equally, it is not realistic to expect a statement on every new incident in the Gulf as it occurs. It will be necessary to make judgments as and when the need arises to justify a specific statement. We can discuss that matter as appropriate through the usual channels.
Several Hon. Members : On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker : I am not certain that any points of order can arise out of that, but I will call Mr. Ewing.
Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House has generously said that statements will be made as the occasion arises, but that the Government cannot make a statement on every incident. The attack on Tel Aviv is not just any incident. I do not need to spell out to the House or to those beyond the House the consequences which may flow from that attack. We could be overnight in the most catastrophic and serious position of all time. I hope that the House of Commons is not being denied a statement by the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary while at the same time they are holding press conferences outside. If that practice is adopted, in my judgment the House will wholly reject it.
Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly the point. The entire world this evening is discussing the incredibly dramatic developments in this affair. There are flames from Tel Aviv to Saudi Arabia. There are dead people in the streets from Tel Aviv to Saudi Arabia. Why cannot the House of Commons hear from the Government their perception of what has happened, and debate it, as the whole world is doing this evening?
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the key point is that it is clear from statements by the Israeli ambassador to Britain that Israel reserves the right to respond to the attack undoubtedly made upon it in recent hours. It is clear also
Column 266
that the British Government are making representations to the Israeli Government, presumably urging that they do not retaliate, because if they did this would be an extremely serious escalation of the war in the Gulf.Secondly, surely, as this is a United Nations-authorised war, the Security Council should be in permanent session to consider--
Mr. Speaker : Order. Perhaps that is so, but it is not a matter for me on a point of order. I repeat what I said this afternoon, that these are very serious matters, but the whole House has heard what the Leader of the House has said--that he will carefully consider whether a statement should be made about this tomorrow. I have nothing further to add ; it is not my responsibility. Mr. Hood.
Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House tells the House that he is not in a position to confirm any of the stories that have been going round this place all day. I can tell him that American television has been running and confirming the same stories all day. It is a bit unbelievable when our Government say that they cannot confirm stories that have already been confirmed by American television. We want to know why the right hon. Gentleman cannot come to the Dispatch Box and give us some explanation of what has happened.
Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who spent some hours the other night speculating on television about a chemical attack on Tel Aviv, can I say that it really is quite wise for the Government to wait until facts are confirmed rather than this House joining in general speculation on television and radio reports that may turn out to be unjustified? In return for that, would the Leader of the House assure us that such statements will be made regularly, daily, as required, to the House?
Mr. MacGregor : I appreciate the opening comments of the right hon. Gentleman. I think that we have to judge all these developments as and when they occur and the need arises. It would be a mistake to say that we will make daily statements to the House, because I think it is necessary to judge each of the incidents. But I should have thought that we had made it very clear by what we have done in the past week that the Government are taking every step to keep the House fully informed both of the facts and of our attitude towards them.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think there is anything more that can be said about that.
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : If it is a completely different point of order.
Mr. Nellist : I do not intend to refer to the substance of any points raised, Mr. Speaker, but you will recall that, on a number of occasions, when a Minister of the Crown has responded to a point of order in this way, particularly on a second occasion as in this case--first to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and then to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir David Steel)--and given substantial answers at the Box
Column 267
Mr. Nellist : No. Let me finish my point. You have treatedMr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that I invited the Leader of the House--for the benefit of the House--to state exactly what the position was. That was not a statement ; it was for the benefit of the House. We have very important business in front of us, and I think we should now move on. I will take one final point of order : Mr. Tony Benn.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point relates not to you, Mr. Speaker, but to what the Leader of the House said. There is no doubt from television reports and from statements by the Prime Minister on television that the attack on Israel is taken gravely by the Government. The Leader of the House could well have said that he will make a statement tomorrow, in which case the matter would have been disposed of. He did make a statement--that he could not guarantee a statement. Therefore, you are inevitably brought into this, because it is your task to defend the House--
Mr. Benn : Please do not prevent me from making my submission.
Mr. Speaker : I know, but at great length. There are other ways of getting a statement. If the Government do not volunteer a statement, applications can be made to me.
Mr. Benn : I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to make a serious point on a day when great events have occurred, yet the Leader of the House has declined to give us an assurance that there will be a statement tomorrow.
Column 268
Apart from anything else, what has happened in Tel Aviv tonight is a threat to security under the United Nations charter. There can be no doubt about that, in the light of the Prime Minister's statement. All I ask is that the Leader of the House takes seriously the points that are being made and undertakes that, tomorrow, he will invite the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence or the Prime Minister to make a statement. All we are asking is that a statement be made tomorrow in the light of what has obviously happened. Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) rose--Mr. Speaker : No. I was not seeking to be discourteous to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). If the Government do not make a statement, there are other means of obtaining information from the Government--applications made to me.
Mr. Cohen : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : We have had enough of it. [Interruption.] Finally--Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen : Back Benchers have the right to question the Executive, and that becomes more important, not less, in time of war. There should be a statement on important incidents such as happened today. I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, as the custodian of Back Benchers' rights, that we have a statement every day in the House on the events of this war, so that Back Benchers have an opportunity to question the Government about them.
Mr. Speaker : I am sure that that will have been heard by those who are responsible.
Column 269
European Standing CommitteesMr. Speaker : I have not selected amendment (a), but I have selected amendment (b) in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), and amendments (c) and (d) in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and his hon. Friends. I suggest that the two motions and all the amendments are debated together and, after one and a half hours or earlier, I shall invite the hon. Members concerned to move their amendments and divide the House on them if that is their wish.
10.38 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I beg to move
That the following Amendments be made to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees) :
in paragraph (1), line 1, leave out three' and insert two'; in paragraph (3), line 15, leave out ten' and insert thirteen'; in paragraph (6), line 34, leave out several' and leave out the table following pargraph (6) and insert the following table :
Scheme |Works cost|Estimated
|£ million |date of
|completion
---------------------------------------------------------------------
West India Dock Road Junction phase |Spring
1 |1.2 |1992
Canning Town Flyover/Ironbridge
widening Advanced Works phase 1
Bridge over A102 |0.5 |Late 1991
I should like to start by explaining to the House why this matter has been brought before it for the second time in less than three months. On 24 October, the House debated and approved several amendments to Standing Orders. Those amendments were made in response to recommendations from the Select Committee on Procedure and were intended to improve our system of scrutiny of European Community legislation.
The main change agreed was the establishment of three new European Standing Committees, whose members would be appointed for a whole Session and in which scrutiny debates would be held.
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : Does the Leader of the House accept that the Select Committee on Procedure recommended five Standing Committees, not three? It agreed to the Government's proposals only on the strict assurance that the Government would consider increasing the number.
Mr. MacGregor : The Procedure Committee proposed five Committees, but I should like to explain why I am bringing forward these proposals tonight.
Mr. MacGregor : If my hon. Friend will allow me, I have hardly started and I am coming to his point. We have only a brief time for the debate, so I would like to explain as quickly as possible the Government's attitude to the amendments.
Column 270
Unfortunately, as hon. Members know, the Committees have not yet been appointed. The effect of that has been that since the start of the Session all scrutiny debates have had to be held on the Floor of the House, directly contrary to the Procedure Committee's intention that fewer debates should be held on the Floor of the House and more should be in Standing Committees. That point is highly relevant to another issue that has been raised with me by a considerable number of hon. Members on both sides of the House--the hours of the House and, in particular, late-night sittings.Three months ago we ran into some difficulties about the composition of the Committees as originally agreed by the House. As it is a House matter and I was keen to proceed on an agreed basis, I engaged in further consultations. It is as a result of those that the Government have now revised some of the proposals which are the subject of this debate. I very much hope that those will find favour on both sides of the House as I am keen to put an end as soon as possible to the delay in establishing the new system for both the reasons that I gave.
| Next Section
| Home Page |