House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 May 1991

Column 929

Business of the House

3.30 pm

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for the first week after the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : Yes, Sir. The business for the week following the spring adjournment will be as follows :

Monday 3 June----Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill.

Tuesday 4 June----Second Reading of the Child Support Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 5 June----Opposition day (12th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.

Thursday 6 June----Remaining stages of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill.

Friday 7 June----Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Subject for debate to be announced.

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet to consider European Community documents as follows : Tuesday 4 June at 4.30 pm :

Committee A will consider document No. 5518/91 relating to the import of animals.

Wednesday 5 June at 10.30 am :

Committee A will consider documents Nos. 10749/90 and 10837/90 relating to the specific character and origin marking of foodstuffs. Committee B will consider document No. 8460/90 relating to data protection.

[Tuesday 4 June

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Committee Document

5518/91 Third Country Imports of Live Animals

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 29-xviii (1990-91)

Wednesday 5 June

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 10749/90 Foodstuffs : Certificates of Specific Character (b) 10837/90 Foodstuffs : Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-xii (1990-91) and HC 29-xx (1990-91)

(b) HC 29-xi (1990-91) and HC 29-xix (1990-91)

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document

8460/90 Processing of Personal Data and Information Security Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 29-iv (1990-91).]

Dr. Cunningham : Given the urgent need to act on the issue of vicious dogs, why is not legislation to take the

Column 930

necessary action being introduced at the earliest opportunity, in the first week after the recess? As the Government have deliberately and consistently blocked proposals to introduce a dog registration scheme--against which the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House have voted, against the advice even of their hon. Friends--may we have some assurance that when the legislation is published it will include provisions for a dog registration scheme? We are to have yet another Local Government Finance Bill from this Government. People have lost count of the number of Local Government Finance Bills that we have had and of the changes that have been made. Does the Leader of the House recall the assurances that were given to hon. Members in all parts of the House during the debates on the Local Government Act 1984--that councils with small budgets would never be the subject of capping proposals under this Government? Does he recall that just a year ago the present Secretary of State for the Environment said, when he wrote to The Times on 10 May 1990--

Mr. Speaker : Order. These are business questions. The hon. Gentleman should ask about the business for the week following the spring recess.

Dr. Cunningham : I am speaking about the very business that is to occupy the House after the recess. Does the Leader of the House recall that the present Secretary of State for the Environment said that universal capping would be an act of centralisation which the nation could well do without? What has changed since May of last year when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that? Can we be told when this Bill, the most centralising and the most ignominious control of local government ever introduced, is to be published? When will the Bill be in the Vote Office? As the Leader of the House-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I know that we are going into recess tomorrow, but could we just settle down and deal with today's business in a serious manner?

Dr. Cunningham : Has the Leader of the House seen the decision of the Royal College of Nursing, unanimously taken, to press the Government yet again to stop--

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I have heard nothing out of order, but what is it?

Mr. Holt : It is only a short while ago that, when it came to business questions, the Leader of the Opposition undertook that role. Arbitrarily, the Labour party changed that. One of the reasons that it changed it was the verbosity of the Leader of the Opposition. He is now

Mr. Speaker : Order. [Interruption.] Well, I am afraid some points of order are bogus.

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for whom the Opposition Front Bench designate for business questions. It is not a point of order.

Dr. Cunningham rose--

Mr. Holt : It is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please resume his seat?

Column 931

Mr. Holt : The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that you will not allow this side of the House to speak. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is behaving in his usual boorish fashion.

Dr. Cunningham : We are well used to the whingeing from the Conservative side of the House.

Has the Leader of the House seen the decision, unanimously taken, by the Royal College of Nursing to press the Government yet again to stop proposals for the creation of new national health service trusts? As the Government have a day in the first week after the recess, the Friday, to which they have not yet allocated a subject, why can we not have a debate in Government time about the crisis in the national health service so that, if the Government have such a good story to tell, the nation can hear it?

Mr. MacGregor : First of all, the hon. Gentleman asked me about dogs. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making a statement about legislation immediately after this business statement. We shall introduce legislation as soon as possible, and that means very soon. I note that the Labour party has given its broad support to the objectives of this measure. As my right hon. Friend will make clear, we are endeavouring to make the Bill concentrate on the key issue of the breeds of dog that are causing the present difficulties. I voted against dog registration for a variety of reasons, one of which was that it did not seem to focus on this key issue, which is what the Bill is about. The country expects us to act on this issue as soon as possible, and will want speedy action on the relevant measures. The country will not forgive the Labour party if it tries to obstruct the measure. I hope that it will not, but will co-operate fully to achieve the objectives of the Bill as quickly as possible.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the Local Government Finance Bill. One of the issues on which that Bill focuses is an increase in capping on authorities with a turnover of less than £15 million. The hon. Gentleman will know that since last year there has been a major change, which is that we propose to introduce the council tax. That tax has many merits and, unlike the Labour proposals, it deals with the criticisms of both the domestic rating system and the community charge. As we said in the consultative documents on the council tax, it is necessary to ensure that we have some protection against authorities that substantially increase expenditure. For the hon. Gentleman to claim that this is a great centralising measure is, like so many of his remarks on these issues, right over the top. We already have considerable capping powers. As I have explained to him, we now propose a council tax rather than the community charge.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the Bill is likely to be published. It will be published by the time the House rises tomorrow. Therefore, we shall be giving the normal two weekends for the Bill to be considered before the debate on Monday 3 June.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about national health service trusts. I am glad that he used the phrase "national health service trusts" which, of course, makes it absolutely clear that the trusts are part of the national health service. We have made it clear that we will continue this policy because it is very much in the interests of the

Column 932

funding of the national health service that all its expenditure is as efficient as possible. The NHS trusts are a way of achieving that.

As for Friday's debate, the hon. Gentleman will know that on recent business statements I have been urged to find time for debates on a wide range of issues. We now have an embarrassment of choices. We have already had many debates on the national health service, and the House has urged me to consider other subjects on which we have not had a recent debate. We are endeavouring to decide which of those many subjects should be chosen for 7 June.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : Will my right hon. Friend find time to make a statement to the House not only to confirm that questions to the Secretary of State for Health on hospital trusts within the national health service are in order, but to follow up inquiries which I trust he has made into yesterday's activities in the House when the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) sought to mislead the House and, even more disgracefully, sought to involve in a party political charade a Clerk of the Table Office?

Mr. MacGregor : I should make the position clear, as it was made clear yesterday by you, Mr. Speaker, when you said :

"The answer to that question is yes."

That is absolutely unequivocal, and you went on to say : "I have already said that the Table Office is accepting questions."--[ Official Report, 21 May 1991 ; Vol. 191, c.782.] This is the second time that the Labour party has raised a wholly inaccurate and wrong scare about NHS trusts. I am sure that the House will regret the fact that, on both occasions, the Labour party has not seen fit to withdraw.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : The Leader of the House has mentioned legislation on dogs but, although he might reasonably expect co-operation to get it through speedily, does he accept that there should be careful consideration of the terms of such legislation? Will he guarantee that adequate time will be given in both Houses for consideration of the Bill?

In the first week after the recess, what measures will create one more job or do something to decrease the growing number of the unemployed in this country ? Can we have a debate on the growing scandal of unemployment ?

Mr. MacGregor : On the second point, I have already said on many occasions that I am perfectly happy for the question of unemployment to be raised in the House as often as possible, because our record on unemployment measures is streets ahead of that of the Opposition. We have had many opportunities to debate that issue.

On the first point, we are anxious to publish the Bill as soon as possible, so that the House will have the opportunity to consider it. Clearly, we want proper parliamentary consideration of it in both Houses. Given the urgency of the situation and the desirability of ensuring that the dreadful incidents that have occurred recently do not recur or, at least, that we take every possible action to prevent them from recurring, I am sure that the House will agree that it is important to act quickly.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton) : Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Government's response to the previous two Procedure Committee reports showed considerable

Column 933

agreement with many of its recommendations ? They need to be debated in the House, as does the resolution for them to come into operation. I wonder whether we might have a debate on that next week, or, if not, very soon afterwards.

Mr. MacGregor : I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to his work as Chairman of that Committee and to all the members of the Committee. The effectiveness of the Committee's work is shown by the fact that, as he says, the Government have accepted many of its recommendations. The first stage is clearly for me to put the orders on the Order Paper, which I hope to do fairly shortly after we return. I should then wish to give the House a short time to consider them, and I hope to be able to deal with that before the House rises.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Did the Leader of the House see the excellent publicity and does he know of the great public interest in the launch of the Labour party's proposal to set up a Greater London authority to act as a strategic authority for London ? I have a copy here if he would like to see it. In view of the fact that he has not announced-- [ Hon. Members :-- "Give back the silver."] I will give it back when we have the Greater London authority. As the Leader of the House has not announced a subject for the Adjournment debate on 7 June, may we have a debate on strategic planning in London and on the fact that, under this Government, the standard of living and of life in London has deteriorated rapidly ?

Mr. MacGregor : I have certainly seen the publicity and I have also read some of the leaders about the Labour party's proposals, which were pretty devastating critiques. It is clear that the bureaucratic, profligate and extremist Greater London council, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, was deservedly unloved and that its passing was understandably unlamented. The proposal to reincarnate son of GLC will go down extremely badly with the electorate because it was not a period or an institution that was popular or effective.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on London so that the widest possible publicity can be given to the Labour party's document? The Labour party speaks about creating a vision of quality, but the people of London will see that the creation of a Greater London authority means a vision of filthy streets, uncollected rents, rotten services and overweaning bureaucracy. Is not the Labour party trying merely to saddle all Londoners with more red ink, more red tape and more red Ken?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that point has been made by commentators this morning. There is no doubt that no one was sad to see the Greater London council go except for people such as the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). No one else was. Its passing was unlamented and it will remain so.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : In view of the typically charming, friendly and generous refusal of the

Column 934

Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), to reply to the question on Mr. Gore-Booth, may we have a debate on whether civil servants who speak in so-called private meetings attended by more than 100 people are entitled to put forward their views in a private capacity and continue in their jobs when in the process they are palpably speaking against Government policy as expressed by everyone other than the Minister of State?

Mr. MacGregor : I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with the matter during Question Time and I have nothing to add to what he said.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : May we have a debate as soon as possible on priorities in public spending? Bearing in mind that Nye Bevan once said that socialism is the language of priorities, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a copy of the book "What Nye said" to be placed in the Library of the House? Unfortunately, although the Leader of the Opposition claims authorship of the book in several of his "Who's Who" entries, the Library can find absolutely no trace of it. Would it not benefit all hon. Members to have the views of the Leader of the Opposition on priorities as an absolute, overriding and top priority?

Mr. MacGregor : I have certainly noted my hon. Friend's remarks. I would recommend another book which, if I recall correctly, was called "Inside the Treasury", written by Lord Barnett--Joel Barnett--Chief Secretary to the Treasury during a horrendous period under the previous Labour Government when public expenditure went completely out of control. It is an interesting book because it is riddled with quotations on how the Labour party succumbed to every spending pressure and simply did not control public expenditure. In the coming months, we need many more opportunities to debate that, because it is exactly what would happen again.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. In view of the pressure on business today, will hon. Members concentrate on the business statement and not deal with matters which might more correctly be dealt with on a different platform?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : The Leader of the House will be aware of the important statement that was made earlier this week about post- school education in Scotland, as it is a matter in which he takes a great interest. Given the continuing contravention by the House of its Standing Orders, in that there is not a Scottish Select Committee to discuss such vital matters, does the right hon. Gentleman expect that such a Committee will be established after the recess? At the very least, will the Scottish Grand Committee, which has not met for virtually a year, be convened, or have the usual channels clogged up?

Mr. MacGregor : I have nothing to add to what I have said on several occasions in the House about a Scottish Select Committee and I do not expect to add anything more after the recess. I am happy to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the means by which we can debate his excellent proposals.

Mr. Conal Gregory (York) : In view of the increase in crime, especially auto crime, in north Yorkshire, will my

Column 935

right hon. Friend arrange a debate at the earliest opportunity on whether we need to extend the powers available to the judiciary and why magistrates in York have never in the last year used the maximum penalties available to them? Does he agree that such a debate would clearly illustrate that crime does not pay?

Mr. MacGregor : Obviously, my hon. Friend's message is important and we wish to find every opportunity to put that message over. I cannot promise any Government time to debate that matter in the near future, but he will know that other means are available to him to raise the matter in the House.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe) : Will the Leader of the House provide time for an early debate on this week's Home Affairs Select Committee report on horse racing? Will he explain to the Home Secretary that all my hon. Friends, with the exception of one, who are active members of the all-party group on bloodstock industries and horse racing-- incidentally, none of them were called as witnesses by the Committee--wish to express dissent on two or three of the recommendations? They particularly wish to dissent from the criticism of the Jockey Club and the recommendation that it should be replaced.

Mr. MacGregor : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government will respond to all Select Committee reports in the normal way and within the normal time scale. It may be appropriate to find time for a debate after that.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover) : Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of many hon. Members on his excellent speech pointing out that many building societies are not reducing their interest rates as fast as the Government are reducing the bank base rate? If that continues and banks do not reduce their mortgage lending rates as fast as the Chancellor is reducing the minimum lending rate, it may be necessary to have a debate in the House on competition in the financial services sector.

Mr. MacGregor : I hope that more building societies will follow the lead of some that have already offered greater choice and flexibility to borrowers who had previously had annual repayment schemes. That was the real point that I was making last night. It is a matter for the building societies and their borrowers, because I believe in choice and variety.

Mr. Dennis Turner (Wolverhampton, South-East) : Is the Leader of the House as concerned as some Opposition Members at the development of the European Commission's drafting of food legislation on certain important British products that we have enjoyed in this country for many years, such as mince and beautiful sausages? Our flavoured crisps are now being attacked. Those are important items in the lives of many people. We should have a debate in the House on behalf of the people of this country who want to continue to enjoy products against which the Commission is discriminating.

Mr. MacGregor : I have long experience of those matters. Sometimes, inappropriate proposals are made at an early stage and they should not be pursued by the Commission. The proposal to prohibit flavoured crisps falls into that category. It is not necessary to debate the matter in the House, because any moves to prohibit the production of that food item, which has been marketed

Column 936

safely for years in the United Kingdom, will be opposed by the Government, and we are already making our position clear.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East) : Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), does the Leader of the House agree that it is high time that we had a debate on procedure and abuse thereof? That would ensure that we did not have the disgraceful scenes that occurred on the Floor of the House yesterday when, under the guise of bogus points of order, the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) wantonly misled the House by saying that the Table Office--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that no Member wantonly or deliberately misleads the House. Will he withdraw that comment, please?

Mr. MacKay : I withdraw the word "wantonly", Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacGregor : I thought that there was more to come.

It was uncharacteristic of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to pursue a matter that turned out to be inaccurate. He does not normally do so and is falling into the trap of some of his hon. Friends who are pursuing wrong issues and giving an inaccurate impression of NHS trusts.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : Since, in South Africa today, so many political prisoners are on hunger strike and the peace process there is at a dangerous stage, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Government will use the recess to put pressure on President de Klerk to honour his obligations and guarantee that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement immediately after the recess?

Mr. MacGregor : Obviously, I cannot give any guarantees about statements, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on dog registration that could go wider than the debate on the Bill? Would not that give the House an opportunity to remind the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the essence of a dog registration scheme is ownership, and that in none of the attacks with which the Bill will deal has the issue of ownership been in any doubt, so the idea that a dog registration scheme is relevant to this issue is wrong?

Mr. MacGregor : I agree very much with my hon. Friend and think that, if the Bill is to progress speedily through both Houses--as we wish it to do and as, I think, the country wants us to ensure--it will be important to concentrate precisely on the matters in question and find solutions that are entirely pertinent to the problem.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Why does the Leader of the House not have a debate about unemployment? For the past 13 months the figures have soared and there are now probably many more than 3 million people unemployed if we include women who do not appear on the register and the half a million young people who are on slave labour schemes. Is it not a fact that the jobs of

Column 937

ambulance men and women up and down the country are now placed in jeopardy because the NHS and the trusts are refusing to cart people back and forward from hospital? Therefore, the 3 million unemployed will be added to by numerous ambulance workers up and down the country. Let us have a debate on unemployment.

Mr. MacGregor : I have said already that we are happy to debate the issue all the time, because our employment policies are very much more designed to deal with ensuring permanent, secure, long-term jobs, which are viable and deliver goods and services effectively. That is part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about NHS trusts. It is open to the Opposition to use their Supply day for a debate on the subject. I hope that they will, because it will enable us to contrast our policies and proposals with theirs, and demonstrate yet again the point on which they seem to be so sensitive--a national minimum wage will destroy many jobs. I shall be happy for us to have a Supply day debate on the subject. The hon. Gentleman might suggest it to the relevant Opposition spokesmen.

Next Section

Home Page