| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Speaker : Order. I will bear in mind those hon. Members who have not been called when we debate the matter. There are Home Office questions on Thursday, and I shall look with some sympathy on those who have not been called today if there are relevant questions on the Order Paper.
Column 179
Points of Order
4.21 pm
Mrs. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter which should be of some concern to hon. Members and where there is a danger that the views of the House will be ignored.
Yesterday, the Government announced in a written parliamentary answer to a presumably planted question the details of the sell-off of the short-term division of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, despite the fact that the privatisation Bill has not completed its parliamentary proceedings and that this is a highly controversial matter about which many hon. Members have expressed concern, particularly because of their worries about the services that will be provided to British exporters by the preferred bidder, a Dutch company. Surely the Minister responsible should be prepared to come to the House and defend his views publicly and to answer as fully as possible the concerns and questions of hon. Members.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a Member of Parliament for the Cardiff area where all the staff of the division of ECGD that is being privatised work. Those people are shocked that their fate has been consigned by way of a written answer, that the decision has apparently been taken by the Government even though the legislation may come back to this place in the light of the fearful hammering that it received on Second Reading in another place, and that the decision is being made that Amsterdam is the proper place for deciding the fate of the financing and reinsuring of Britain's exports. I consider that Cardiff is a proper place for insuring Britain's exports and it is open to question whether the democratic process in this House and in the other place has yet resulted in that decision.
Therefore, under what rule, other than the rule that the Government believe that it will go to Amsterdam--it is all part of the deep laid plot for the British Government to go from clogs to clogs in three generations
Mr. Speaker : Order. We seem to be entering into the arguments of the matter. I have had no intimation from the Government that a statement is to be made on this subject, but doubtless the fact that it has been raised from the Front Bench will be borne in mind. If a statement is required, I suggest that negotiations take place through the usual channels.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : I shall take the point of order from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) first, as I was given notice of it.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has emerged today that the Secretary of State for Scotland was told at a private meeting on Tuesday 4 June of the impending closure of the Dalzell platemill. At the meeting, the right hon. Gentleman told British Steel that the closure was solely a matter for the company.
On the same day, the Prime Minister sent a letter of public support to the Dalzell shop stewards. Surely the House is entitled to a statement from the Secretary of State
Column 180
for Scotland--or at least an intervention in Thursday's debate--explaining exactly why the Conservative party can say one thing publicly in Scotland, while at the same time selling the workers down the river by saying something else at a private meeting in London.Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. An opportunity will arise on Thursday to probe the matter.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I have two points of order, Mr. Speaker, but they are related.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think so.
Mr. Banks : In that case, I shall try one.
We have just heard a long statement from the Home Secretary in which many of us have a considerable constituency interest. It is most annoying for us to see copies of such statements being distributed in the Press Gallery when none are made available to us by the Vote Office. Those of us who have not been called find ourselves in double jeopardy, as we cannot even make our own remarks on the Home Secretary's statement because copies are not in the Vote Office.
My second point concerns procedure. When a Minister seeks permission to link two parliamentary questions, I assume that you, Mr. Speaker, can deny him that permission. It strikes me as entirely inappropriate for a Minister to link questions 6 and 18 when it is clear that question 18 will not be reached, and that certain assiduous Back Benchers will not be called as a result.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman himself is an assiduous Back Bencher, and he has asked two questions. I will answer the first. I assume that copies of today's statement were embargoed until after it had been made. This is, however, an important point, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) might well put to the Procedure Committee. It has often occurred to me that it would benefit the House if copies were issued the day before statements were made, so that hon. Members could ask their questions against a background knowledge.
Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I asked this morning for a private notice question--
Mr. Speaker : Order. It is not in order to mention such matters in the Chamber.
Mr. Hind : Have you, Mr. Speaker, received a request from the Department of Health for permission to make a statement on the licensing of the drug RU486? Many of my colleagues have noted from The Sunday Times and yesterday's Evening Standard --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I dealt with that point of order yesterday, when I told the hon. Gentleman that I had received no notice that the Government wished to make a statement on the subject. I have nothing more to add.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. Today is an Opposition day, and hon. Members are taking time out of the debate.
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to go over the ground of this afternoon's statement, but I should like to know
Column 181
whether you have received a request for the Government to explain, by means of another statement, whether they have any powers to prevent the entry into the United Kingdom of an EEC national--M. Le Pen, who is due to address a conference in two days' time at the--Mr. Speaker : Order. That is a bogus point of order if I ever heard one.
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to abuse the procedure.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I have tabled a ten-minute Bill dealing with the question of refugees and asylum-seekers, and, like other hon. Members, I am now being asked to respond to the Home Secretary's statement. I wish to reflect accurately what the Home Secretary said.
Given that copies were not available in the Vote Office--which has just confirmed that it had no idea when the statement was coming, although I have seen journalists brandishing copies--will you make the strongest possible representations to the Home Office? Will you tell the Home Office that, if a Minister makes a statement here and copies are given to members of the Press Gallery, that is fine, but hon. Members expect to have copies as well--at the same time, if not earlier ?
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has a fair point. Hon. Members should be treated equally with members of the press-- [Interruption.] Order. I am trying to be helpful.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your knowledge that the Scottish Grand Committee is not sitting this week because the Secretary of State for Scotland has to accompany the Queen on royal duties in Scotland. Do you think that the Secretary of State should be at the royal garden party on Thursday or at the House of Commons answering questions on the closure of the Dalzell works?
Mr. Speaker : I do not know what is happening in Scotland on Thursday.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. On the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), if Mr. Le Pen wishes to come to Britain and he is an EC national, I judge that he will have no problems. There is no point of order for me in that matter.
Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from your comments about the distribution of statements. I am not in a position to complain about that because minority parties and the Opposition Front Bench receive copies, so I am being objective. You said, Mr. Speaker, that in your view Back-Bench Members should be treated equally with the press. Perhaps you should reconsider that because there is a significant difference between us and the press in that we are elected to represent people.
Column 182
Mr. Speaker : I do not quite understand the point. But I repeat that hon. Members should be able to ask their questions against a background of knowledge. It is particularly distasteful for Members of Parliament to be asked detailed questions by the press in the Lobby when they have not seen the statement.
Mr. Nellist : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I finish the point of order that I raised earlier? This place is, in a sense, the guardian of law and order in this country. I am asking for your ruling on how we seek to raise the fact that, given the nature of the individual concerned, there might be problems on Thursday with a noted racist such as Le Pen addressing a conference a few hundred yards from this building in which Sessional Orders pertain of which you are the guardian. Can something be done about it?
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : May I help on this point?
Mr. Speaker : I do not need help. The hon. Gentleman is not yet Mr. Speaker. This is a matter for the police, not for me.
BILLS PRESENTED
Community Charge(Disqualification for Non-payment)
Mr. Michael Shersby, supported by Mr. John Wilkinson and Mr. Terry Dicks, presented a Bill to provide that a person who by 1st August 1991 has not paid to a charging authority the community charge owed by him in respect of the year ended 31st March 1991 shall be disqualified for a period of five years from elected membership of a charging authority or a precepting authority : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 196.]
Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland)
Mr. Bill Walker presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 relating to the transfer of licences ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read a First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 198.]
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Patnick.]
Question agreed to.
SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),
That the Matter of the National Health Service in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.-- [Mr. Patnick.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),
Column 183
That the Matter of fishing and fish farming in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.-- [Mr. Patnick.]Question agreed to.
Column 184
Ministers of the Crown (Financial Interests)
4.33 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent Ministers of the Crown from having outside financial interests ; and for connected purposes.
I hope that the Government support the Bill because it will demonstrate that they are setting their face against the prevailing greed in the boardrooms of privatised companies and that they are setting an example. So far, they have done nothing about this. The May edition of the monthly bulletin "Labour Research" drew attention to the fact that 56 Conservative Members--it was not quite accurate because the figure is 62--are members of the Lloyd's insurance club. The 62 include 15 Ministers, among whom are four Cabinet Ministers--the Secretaries of State for Energy, for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales. On Wednesday 29 May that information appeared in a diary column in the London Evening Standard and an anonymous junior Minister was asked to comment. He said :
"There's no conceivable conflict of interest. Names are non-working members of Lloyds."
In the past, "non-working" meant that it was usual for the names to receive their profit and loss account, called a bordereau, and regularly pick up fat cheques. But losses have been incurred, so the claim of no conflict of interest for Ministers clearly did not, does not and will not hold true.
The chairman of Lloyd's sent a letter dated 17 May to members of Lloyd's making clear his attempts to influence the Government to obtain massive tax concessions for this rich elite, who, I remind the House, have to pledge £250,000, as a minimum, to join the club. Apparently, the chairman had abandoned belief in the marketplace, the unique advantages of Lloyd's and the sturdy independence and judgment of Lloyd's members--all of which were advanced as reasons for special powers and privileges to be given in a Bill which was passed by the House in 1982, against the Labour party's opposition.
The letter stated :
"I have been pursuing with the Government for some time certain aspects of the tax arrangements for Names. I had a meeting with the Chancellor last week when I received a sympathetic hearing. We discussed both reserving and the extension of a relief proposed in the Budget to Names."
The letter continued :
"The benefit to Names of such a carry-back of relief is clear. Extending the period of carry-back from one year, as at present, to three would increase the amount of income against which relief could be sought and repayment claimed. It would increase the likelihood that losses at Lloyd's would be relieved in full."
That could amount to more than £100 million. That was the claim that the chairman was seeking by attempting to influence the Government. He concluded his letter by saying :
"When I met the Chancellor I put to him in some detail the case for the provision to apply to the underwriting losses of Names. I received, as I have said, a sympathetic hearing and I hope that I shall be able to report a successful outcome to you in my June address."
In case hon. Members think that Lloyd's is at a disadvantage, it should be made clear that Lloyd's underwriters are, in effect, entitled to the same relief for a
Column 185
trading loss as any other trader, including premiums of £3,000 a year for stop-loss policies which eradicate losses of more than £40, 000.The rules governing the conflict between Ministers' public duty and their private interests are set down in a confidential document called "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". A resume was sent to the Salmon royal commission on standards of conduct in public life, but curiously the commission did not include it as an appendix. The relevant section is paragraph 76 in the document issued by the former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, but the principles set out were summed up as follows :
"Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties."
Paragraph 76, which is headed " Names' at Lloyds", states : "A Minister cannot properly continue to be a name' at Lloyds while holding office as Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer or Secretary of State for Trade All Ministers are therefore required, on appointment whether to their first or to any subsequent Ministerial office, to obtain the permission of the Prime Minister before continuing a connection with Lloyds, however nominal, which they had established before appointment or establishing any such connection during their term of appointment."
Clearly, successive Prime Ministers have allowed the 15 Ministers to retain their holdings in Lloyd's after the Ministers had approached them under the rules.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Bill would require all Ministers to resign from Lloyd's. It may be argued that the Prime Minister's rules are adequate, but they are secret and we do not know how strictly they are applied. I have received many letters about the matter since it was raised in the House. One constituent said that he has been making a loss on the pools and if tax concessions are given to members of Lloyd's, he too deserves one.
I want to read one letter in particular which shows that the conflict of interests does not stop at the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The writer said :
"I would only add that, if such an approach can be justified by Lloyd's in respect of current Names, then one is entitled to ask why no such effort was made on behalf of victims of the PCW scandal who had ultimately to bear the full brunt of Cameron-Webb's dishonesty, without receiving even an expression of sympathy, let alone any form of monetary contribution, from the Government.
The whole business stinks, the more especially as it looks very much as if the Names who are Ministers are taking advantage of their political offices for their private gain. In this context I cannot forget how different was this
Column 186
Government's reaction to the Cameron-Webb affair, when the then Attorney-General not only refused to take any steps to have that criminal extradited from the United States but even threatened to enter a nolle prosequi' if any private person were to attempt to institute any proceedings against him."I shall read another section of the letter in case anyone thinks that it was written by a left-wing critic of Lloyd's. The writer said :
"I am in no way a man of the far Left--I was, indeed, a Tory MP for a long time".
I leave it to the House to guess which one.
There is a long history of trying to prevent Government Ministers from legislating for their own benefit. Campbell-Bannerman made a statement in 1906, as did Neville Chamberlain in 1939 and Winston Churchill in 1952. Those statements followed conflicts of interests among Ministers.
My Bill would provide a remedy for the present conflict over Lloyds by requiring Ministers to divest themselves of membership of Lloyd's. It would incorporate the relevant rules as currently applied by the Prime Minister and would provide powers for him to extend prohibitions by the affirmative resolution. It would be public and certain and it would, I hope, ensure legally that conflicts of interest could not occur in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.
Ministers of the Crown (Financial Interests)
Mr. Bob Cryer accordingly presented a Bill to prevent Ministers of the Crown from having outside financial interests ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 199.]
Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened to the ten-minute Bill presented by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and I was interested in some of the evidence that he cited, especially the letters. I should like to research those letters a little further. As the hon. Gentleman read them out in the Chamber, should he allow them to be placed in the Library so that we can investigate them and find out who are the people involved ?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. That is a debating point, and if the hon. Gentleman had wished to debate it, he should have raised it during the hon. Member's speech.
Column 187
Opposition Day
[16th allotted day]
Housing
4.43 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham) : I beg to move,
That this House notes the abysmal failure of the Government's housing policy which after 12 years has resulted in record mortgage levels, record homelessness, the collapse of the public and private rented sector and a crisis in the construction industry ; and calls on the Government to put forward proposals for a mortgage rescue scheme, an emergency programme to deal with homelessness and a phased release of the capital receipts from the sale of council houses to fund a planned increase in housing investment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : I have to tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Gould : There is no mystery about housing in Britain. There is a growing housing crisis for two main and obvious reasons. First, we have failed to build enough houses and, secondly, the cost of housing has risen so fast that decent housing is now beyond the reach of a significant number of people. Those factors are a direct consequence of Government policy and there will be no improvement until there is a change of policy or, indeed, a change of Government.
The facts can be stated simply. The number of houses built in the 1980s was the lowest in any peacetime decade in this century. The 1990s have started even less promisingly. Housing starts for 1990 totalled only 184,000 and few people doubt that there will be a still sharper fall this year.
Mr. Conal Gregory (York) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gould : No, I have only just started. I shall give way very sparingly in view of the short time available.
The total figures are bad enough. However, the real pain is felt when we consider social and affordable housing. That is the sector where there has been the most damaging decline and where it hurts most. In 1978--the last year of the Labour Government--local authorities built 92,000 houses in England and Wales. That figure had fallen to a mere 13,000 by 1990 and it will fall still further this year. Indeed, it is the deliberate aim of Government policy--so we are told--that the figure should fall to zero very soon. Presumably, the intention is for the gap to be made up by housing associations and by the private sector. That has not happened.
Housing associations completed a mere 8,873 homes for rent in 1989--that is a welcome contribution, but nowhere near the scale required. The private sector--after a period in the mid-1980s when, it must be said, it was not social but luxury housing that was built--also suffered a sharp decline. In fact, it is gripped by the severest recession for decades.
The latest state of trade survey conducted in March and published in May by the Building Employers Confederation shows that the steep downward trend in output continues. The balance between those reporting higher and lower output has fallen for the ninth successive
| Next Section
| Home Page |