| Home Page |
Column 427
Business of the House
3.32 pm
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : The business for next week will be asfollows :
Monday 20 May----Debate on "Next Steps" in the civil service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion to take note of EC Document No. 4936/91 relating to the European energy charter. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Tuesday 21 May----Until about seven o'clock consideration of Lords amendments to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, followed by :
Motion on the Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Order. Wednesday 22 May----Remaining stages of the New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords].
Motion on Members' resettlement grant.
Thursday 23 May----Debates on the Adjournment.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet to consider European Community documents as follows : Wednesday 22 May at 10.30 am
Committee A--Document Nos. 8149/88, 9204/89, 5807/90 and 4684/91 relating to natural habitats ; and
Committee B--Document No. 10146/90 relating to labelling of tobacco products.
(£ million)
Year |Sports |Uprated by
|Council Grant|GDP Index
--------------------------------------------------------
1986-87<1> |37.4 |37.4
1987-88<1> |37.1 |39.4
1988-89<1> |39.0 |42.3
1989-90<1> |41.9 |45.0
1990-92<2> |44.7 |48.5
<1> Outturn.
<2> Estimated outturn.
Wednesday 22 May :
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community documents
(a) 8149/88 Protection of Wildlife and Natural Habitats (b) 9204/89 Protection of Wildlife and Natural Habitats (c) 5807/90 Protection of Wildlife and Natural Habitats (d) 4684/91 Protection of Wildlife and Natural Habitats (e) 6553/90 Import Ban on Furs
(f) 5618/91 Import Ban on Furs
(g) 6719/90
ADD 1 Nature Conservation (ACNAT)
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
(a)
HC 43-xxxix (1987-88)
(b)
HC 11-iii (1989-90)
(c)
HC 11-xxiv (1989-90)
(d)
HC 29-xvi (1990-91) and HC 29-xx (1990-91)
(e)
HC 15-xxx (1988-89)
(f)
HC 29-xx (1990-91)
(g)
HC 11-xxxii (1989-90)
Column 428
European Standing Committee BRelevant European Community document
10146/90 Labelling of Tobacco Products
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
HC 29-xi (1990-91) and HC 29-xx (1990-91)]
Dr. Cunningham : Can the Leader of the House confirm what the press has apparently already been told--that the much-delayed White Paper on education and training will be published on Monday next week? If the right hon. Gentleman can confirm that, as I expect that he should be able to do, will he assure us that there will be an oral statement in the Chamber on the publication of this important White Paper? It can hardly be argued that next week is a particularly heavy week for business. Indeed, I was tempted to say when I put the question : "Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, if there is any?"
May we have an assurance that the appropriate Ministers will come to the House of Commons to announce their proposals and policies and will not announce them in a press conference outside Parliament? I am sure that Members on both sides of the House were dismayed by today's unemployment figures. I share the view that Tory Members are concerned--they certainly should be as concerned as we are--about the awful, record rise in unemployment last month, the worst figures for April since the war.
That was coupled with two surveys, one from the engineering union pointing out that about 100,000 jobs had been lost in manufacturing industry, and one from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations showing that about 33,000 training places for people with disabilities had been lost because of Government cuts. May we have an early debate on the Government's employment policies? It must be in the interests of the reputation of the House of Commons that we should have such a debate, and one would have thought that the Government would want an opportunity to give an explanation of what has happened in that context. I hope, therefore, that the Leader of the House will arrange for an early debate on employment policy and the disastrous consequences of the Government's economic policy failures in respect of jobs.
It is clear that the Government do not have much business for the House to conduct. In those circumstances, why do they continue to refuse our offer to co-operate now on legislation to abolish the poll tax? Why must we wait for the abolition of that detested tax when there is all the parliamentary time in the world to introduce a Bill right now? Why are the Government declining our offer?
Mr. MacGregor : I will answer first the first and last points made by the hon. Gentleman. On the first, the hon. Gentleman tries to pretend every week that there is not a great deal of Government business. The House will have noted that we have been very busy this week, and I suspect that we shall be very busy today dealing with amendments to the Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords]. Is he suggesting that we have no business to conduct today? If so, and if, as he said, we have little business to conduct, does he agree that we shall get through today's business extremely quickly and that the House will rise shortly?
Dr. Cunningham : Answer the question.
Column 429
Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman is obviously getting embarrassed by this line of response. He says each week that we do not have much to do, when it is obvious that the House has a great deal of legislation to take through, and that will be clear today as it will be next week. So he cannot go on peddling that line, which is far from reality. In fact, the House has been dealing with 35 Bills, with quite a number still to come, leaving aside the Finance Bill. That is more than in the past two Sessions. The House still has a great deal of business to do.The hon. Gentleman employs the trick of asking for a debate on one thing or another and then, when I grant it--as I did with the public expenditure debate this week, which he knew I was keen to have--he claims that it is a light week. He cannot have it all ways. The hon. Gentleman talks total nonsense.
As for next week, the hon. Gentleman will know that on Tuesday we shall be dealing with two major items, one of which involves 63 amendments from the House of Lords--the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, and the remaining stages of the New Roads and Street Works Bill. That is a major undertaking. He cannot claim that the House is facing a light load when the position is entirely the opposite. There is a great deal of work to be done. That is partly the answer to the point the hon. Gentleman made about unemployment. A number of the debates that we have had --on the Finance Bill, public expenditure plans and so on--all enabled employment issues to be raised, as they were raised in the debate yesterday, when it was clear that the Opposition proposals would greatly add to unemployment, rather than the reverse.
I noted that, when the hon. Gentleman talked about Government cuts in relation to employment measures, he added yet again to the range of issues where the Labour party is proposing to spend a great deal more money and is not prepared to face up to the need for higher taxation that would be involved under its policies.
I can confirm that there will be a White Paper on education and training, although I cannot at this stage confirm exactly when. But I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request--that there should be an oral statement in the House--and I hope to agree to that.
Mr. Speaker : The House has just heard what the Leader of the House said. Thirty-four groups of amendments have been tabled to the Bill under consideration this afternoon. Will hon. Members therefore ask questions about next week's business and not make general points?
Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton) : Will my right hon. Friend allow time for an early statement on the adequacy of safety precautions for the transport of toxic or flammable goods by rail? Is he aware that, in the early hours of this morning, at Bradford-on-Tone near Wellington in my constituency, there was a derailment followed by an immense fire in which, thankfully, no one appears to have been injured? However, great concern and alarm has been caused in the surrounding community. We must thank providence that the accident did not happen as the train passed through a built-up area. May we have an urgent inquiry into the causes of the accident, and can the results be brought before the House?
Column 430
Mr. MacGregor : I understand entirely my hon. Friend's point and agree that it was fortunate that no injuries were reported. As he knows, as a result of the fire, the line is likely to be closed for about two days. It is too early for the cause to be established, but I confirm that British Rail will be holding an internal inquiry. The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is in close touch with British Rail. I have noted my hon. Friend's request that the results of the inquiry should come before the House once the inquiry has been completed.
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on unemployment which will allow us to examine not only the Government's abysmal record but the unemployment consequences of Labour's national minimum wage policy? Can the right hon. Gentleman also make time for repealing the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, given the welcome statement by the Prime Minister that there will be a moratorium on mining in the Antarctic?
The Leader of the House has not stated the business for the first week after the recess. Does he know something that we do not?
Mr. MacGregor : On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if he had been present on the numerous occasions when that question has been raised--I am sure that he was here--he would know that much attention has been focused on unemployment issues, especially on the point that he raised--the serious consequences for higher unemployment of the Labour party's proposal for a minimum wage.
As for a Bill to repeal the Antarctic Minerals Act, we still have a great deal of legislation to take through the House this Session and I do not contemplate adding such a Bill to the already heavy load. The significance of my not making a statement on business for the first week after the recess is that I am embarrassed by the choice of business still to be conducted in the House. There is no lack of choice but rather too much, and I hope to be able to make that choice soon. It is difficult to do so today, but I intend to make a statement on that subject next week.
Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although it is important to have a debate on the civil service, an issue that concerns not only the House but the whole country is the world environment? It is time that we had a debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on tropical rain forests and other such matters, all of which are vital to us and future generations. The report seems to have been shelved for so long that there are inches of dust on it.
Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend that that issue is important. I have said in past business statements that I hope at some stage to find time to discuss it. It is a question not simply of the Select Committee report but of the Government's response to it. I hope that we can debate those matters, because they are important. I know that my hon. Friend did not wish to underestimate the importance of the debate that we shall have for half a day on Monday. He will have noticed that we shall deal with opposed private business at 7 o'clock.
The next steps reforms in the civil service are among the greatest undertaken in the civil service for a long time. They will achieve much greater effectiveness and value for money, which is what the Government's policies are
Column 431
about, and are already making considerable progress. The document "Making the most of Next Steps" is being published this afternoon and the debate is therefore relevant.Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South) : In the light of an event this week, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week that there will not be a summer general election?
Mr. MacGregor : That is not a matter for a business statement at this stage, and I certainly do not intend to make such an announcement.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) : As the NATO summit has been postponed from June until the autumn because the allies have been unable to agree on a European strategy, will my right hon. Friend make time for a wide-ranging debate on defence and security, especially as it affects Europe?
Mr. MacGregor : We certainly must find time for our usual defence debates. I hope to find time during the summer. We have already had one such debate.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : Has the Leader of the House any information about whether there might be a statement early next week about the "World in Action" programme on the Larry Goodman agricultural empire, particularly as it affects the economy of Northern Ireland, bank loans and the employment prospects of many people?
Mr. MacGregor : I have no such information.
Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet) : May I urge my right hon. Friend to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for a debate on employment? Given the recent decision by the Sabanci group in Turkey to create several hundred jobs in textile manufacturing in my constituency, we would welcome the opportunity to highlight this Government's policies, which have made Britain the foremost place in Europe for inward investment by those seeking to invest in the heart of the world's manufacturing zone. Such a debate would also give us a wonderful opportunity to contrast those policies with the Opposition's policies, particularly those on minimum wages, which would wipe out millions of jobs in this country.
Mr. MacGregor : I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we want to seek every opportunity to contrast the Government's employment policies with those of the Labour party. We have done so frequently recently, and with increasing effect.
Dr. Cunningham : Let us have a debate.
Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman says, "Let us have a debate", but we debated the subject yesterday. Perhaps he was not here to hear the issues being debated, but I was, and effective arguments were deployed by Conservative Members. It was clear which party had the best policies.
I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said on inward investment, and the specific example that he gave. I hope that he will find opportunities to make that point again.
Column 432
Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : I know that not many of us enjoy vindaloo curry, but may we have the subject of press abuse on the menu next week because it is important to all of us?
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : May we have a debate next week on dogs, and particularly on the increase in the vicious practice of dog fights? May we include in that debate discussions on penalties for the promotion of dog fights, bearing in mind the fact that the Protection of Animals (Penalties) Act 1987 that I introduced a few years ago, which doubled the penalty for such behaviour, is proving inadequate?
Mr. MacGregor : I know of the concern among hon. Members about recent attacks by dogs. The subject has been raised on a number of occasions. I fully understand and share my hon. Friend's concern. As he knows, a number of possible options for toughening the law on dogs were set out in the Government's consultation paper on the control of dogs. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering those options and will bring forward his proposals in the summer. From April 1992, the Government intend to implement the package of dog control measures contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : Will the Lord President seek to find time to debate the future of ICI? Does he agree that it is the wickedest face of capitalism, as well as the unacceptable face of capitalism, for Lord Hanson to buy £250 million-worth of shares in the company and see the price rise again today by 65p so that he can without any effort make a tidy profit on the backs of those on Teesside who work for, are committed to and respect ICI? Are we not seeing the worst aspect of Tory Government in operation across the floor of the stock exchange?
Mr. MacGregor : As the hon. Gentleman well knows, if Hanson does acquire a large enough stake in ICI or makes a takeover bid for that company, it will fall to be considered by the European Commission, under the European Community merger regulations, or by the United Kingdom competition authorities. Obviously, those are hypothetical matters and I am basing my remarks on that hypothesis. The acquisition by Hanson of what I understand to be a 2.82 per cent. shareholding in ICI does not constitute a qualifying merger under the merger control provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the City code on takeovers and mergers lays down the circumstances in which an announcement about a takeover bid is required. That would be a matter for the takeover panel to supervise.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to have employment, not unemployment, figures published? Today the fact has been published that there are more people at work in Scotland than there have ever been, and half a million more than under a Socialist Government. Will he also arrange a debate, next week if possible but soon thereafter if not, to trumpet abroad the fact that under their economic policy the Government have in 10 short years achieved a triumph in the transformation of the life and culture of Scotland? They have housed the Burrell
Column 433
collection, renewed the national gallery of Scotland, the national library and the new museum of modern art, given funds for the new museum of Scotland and done a thousand other things.Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the transformation in Scotland. It has been a good example of the success of the Government's policies in the past 12 years. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend could name a thousand other things, and I could add many to those that he mentioned.
My hon. and learned Friend was also right about employment. It is important to keep stressing the fact that the work force in employment has increased by more than 3.1 million since March 1983 and that there are almost 27 million jobs in the United Kingdom. The facts of employment show that there were considerable advances during the 1980s.
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : Will the Leader of the House confirm that the rules on ministerial conduct require that on a visit a Minister must ensure separation between his political activities and those that he undertakes in his ministerial role? In that context, will the Secretary of State for Wales make a statement next week to explain why, on a recent series of official engagements, he has been using the official sections of his visits to advance the candidacy of a local prospective parliamentary candidate?
Mr. MacGregor : I know nothing about the right hon. Gentleman's allegations, so I do not wish to say anything about them. However, I do not believe that that is the type of issue on which a statement is required next week.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South) : Without impugning anyone's motives--in the way that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) did-- does my right hon. Friend nevertheless accept that there might be a need for an early debate on or statement about the developing situation at ICI? In view of the strategic and security implications of some parts of ICI's research and development programme, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a public interest dimension as well as a share price dimension to the future of that great British company which must be kept under tight parliamentary scrutiny?
Mr. MacGregor : I note what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think that it would be appropriate to have a statement or a debate next week. However, if there are issues that hon. Members wish to raise, there are a number of ways in which they can raise them.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : May we have a debate on the increased price of water? Is the Minister aware that Yorkshire Water has increased its prices by 15 per cent. and that that hurts people on fixed incomes who receive no rebates? More important, is he aware that small businesses are now being forced to install meters and that the private company can force entry if the businesses object? Such a practice is adding to the difficulties facing many small businesses in my constituency.
Mr. MacGregor : I do not think that the hon. Lady's last point is relevant to the burden on small businesses. It is widely recognised that for businesses, and perhaps increasingly for households, water metering is a fair way to make charges.
Column 434
On the hon. Lady's first point, she knows that the water companies are undertaking massive capital investment to improve water quality and to deal with environmental matters, and that has to be paid for. The Opposition call for improvement in environmental issues and in water quality, but often they are not prepared to face the consequence of who pays for it. That is typical of their approach.Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen) : May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 812 ?
[That this House notes with concern the continuing high level in the United Kingdom of deaths related to the abuse of solvent and volatile substances ; further notes that draft figures for 1990 show that at least 120 people died from solvent abuse in that year, a rise of 6 per cent. over the 1989 level of 113 deaths ; in this light, particularly welcomes the work of Resolv (The Society for the Prevention of Solvent and Volatile Substance Abuse) in helping to combat this problem ; and congratulates those honourable Members who have established a new all-party parliamentary group to examine the issue.]
It draws attention to the continuing high level of deaths related to solvent abuse. Figures for 1990 show that at least 120 people died. Will my right hon. Friend also join me in congratulating Resolv on its work? Will he arrange for an early debate on that important subject ?
Mr. MacGregor : As my hon. Friend knows, there are various ways in which hon. Members can raise issues in the House. In view of the heavy pressure on Government time, I cannot promise a debate on the issue. I had noticed the early-day motion. The Government are well aware of the problem of volatile substance misuse and are naturally concerned by the number of deaths related to such misuse. Our policy is focused on supporting initiatives that concentrate on the information and education not only of young people at risk, but of adults, including parents, professional workers and retailers who may become involved. We have taken a number of steps in that area. My hon. Friend mentioned Resolv. We recognise the important part that it plays, and I point out to my hon. Friend that it receives Government support. The Government are monitoring trends in the nature of solvent misuse to see whether further effective action can be taken.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for an early debate on the Government's policies towards the middle east, so that a clear statement can be made on the Government's attitude towards the peace conference proposed by the United States, on--I hope--the inclusion of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in that conference, and on whether the Government are prepared to recognise the right of self-determination of Kurdish people as the only basis for a long- term peace settlement in the region? Too many lives have already been lost as a result of political instability in the region. Surely we now need a debate on a peaceful solution to all the problems and conflicts in that region.
Mr. MacGregor : As I have said, I am prepared to see whether time can be given, either through statements or a debate at an appropriate time, to deal with those important matters. However, it cannot be next week.
Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington) : Last week, my right hon. Friend said that there would shortly
| Next Section
| Home Page |