---

Campbell Soups

Q3. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit a Campbell Soups exhibition stand at a United Kingdom food trade fair. [12663]

The Prime Minister: I have no plans at present to do so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister will be aware of the call for an international boycott of Campbell Soups and Fray Bentos products, arising out of the appalling decision by the company to close down the highly profitable Homepride plant in my constituency--having purchased it for £58.6 million only 11 weeks earlier. Are not the real stakeholders in Homepride not the greedy shareholders in America who do not give a damn about the people of Maryport, but the work force who have invested their lives in making that company a success and who are now being put on the scrap heap? Will the Prime Minister join the 341 Members of Parliament--a majority of this House--who have called on the company to reverse its decision?

The Prime Minister: I realise the extent of the disappointment that must be felt at Maryport over the decision. I understand that Campbell's has offered employees jobs at one of its five other plants--although, self-evidently, that will not be appropriate for many employees. I also understand the depth of the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents, but I hope that he and everyone else will bear in mind the fact that Campbell's has been in the United Kingdom for over 30 years. It employs more than 2,000 people here and has shown its commitment to the United Kingdom by investing more than £100 million here in the past 12 months. I would not wish to threaten and damage those investments, or the jobs that are safeguarded and are being created as a result of those investments.

Engagements

Q4. Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February. [12664]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Chidgey: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Social Security Secretary, who has described today's proposed cuts of £1 billion in the social security budget as devastating?

8 Feb 1996 : Column 469

The Prime Minister: That is in no sense what my right hon. Friend has said about the outcome of the public expenditure round. The whole House will recall that, in recent weeks, I have been criticised by the Opposition for administrative costs being too high. Here we have a practical illustration of the Government seeking to cut administrative costs, in the interests of the taxpayer, to preserve the resources available for benefits--yet on that point the Opposition criticise me as well.

The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind: does he criticise the Government for not cutting administrative costs or for making administrative savings? Even though he is a Liberal Democrat, he cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy to maintain that one is committed to the elimination of state subsidy and then to do the reverse? Do not the recent decisions by the Transport Commissioner show that the Labour party--whether old Labour or new Labour, in Westminster or in Brussels--is committed to state subsidy and to Spanish practices?

The Prime Minister: The whole House will know of our concern about the Iberia decision. It is certainly not in the interests of the air travellers of Europe, and we have made that known to Commissioner Kinnock and to others.

Q5. Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February. [12665]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hoon: In a statement to the House about the setting up of the Scott inquiry, the Attorney-General

8 Feb 1996 : Column 470

stated that matters of form and procedure were a question for the learned judge. Why will not the Prime Minister condemn unequivocally those, such as Lord Howe, who have sought to impugn the integrity of the learned judge and to attack the contents of his report before publication?

The Prime Minister: On attacks on the contents of the report, if anyone has predetermined what the contents of the report might be, it is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and not my noble Friend Lord Howe.

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I refer him to what I said on 13 January 1994 at column 332.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Lord Palmerston, who said that to be born British is like winning the lottery of life? Will my right hon. Friend now go further and say that to be born or to live in Milton Keynes is like winning the national lottery, and join me in welcoming the grant of £19 million to build what will undoubtedly be the best theatre outside London?

The Prime Minister: There may be some challenges about the scheme being the best theatre, but I know that my hon. Friend is proud of the scheme and I congratulate him on it.

As for being proud of being British, I just hope that we do not reach the situation where to live in Scotland is to lose the lottery of taxation because it has to face extra taxation and a tartan tax.

8 Feb 1996 : Column 471

Business of the House

3.30 pm

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows.

Monday 12 February--Opposition Day (5th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on ministerial responsibility. That will be followed by a debate entitled "The Effect of Government Financial Constraints on Local Government Services". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.

Motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act.

Tuesday 13 February--Opposition Day (6th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the morale of NHS staff. That will be followed by a debate on the private security industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Wednesday 14 February--Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Security Service Bill.

Motion relating to the Local Government Reorganisation (Compensation for Loss of Remuneration) regulations.

Thursday 15 February--Motion to approve the agreement between the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the BBC.

Friday 16 February--Private Members' Bills.

Monday 19 February--Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.

Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) order.

In the following three days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, I anticipate taking Government business, including the social security uprating orders. Friday23 February will be a non-sitting day. On Monday26 February I propose a debate on the Scott report on a motion for the Adjournment.

One other piece of information that the House might like to have is that, subject to the progress of business,I propose that the Whitsun recess will be from close of business on Wednesday 22 May until Tuesday 4 June.

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. I am sure that the House will welcome the final piece of information and the advance warning.I thank the right hon. Gentleman also for moving the debate on local government regulations from late on Tuesday evening to Wednesday. I think that that will be for the convenience of the House.

What further information can the Leader of the House give us in response to Madam Speaker's statement yesterday about access to the Scott report? Will he confirm that the Government are proposing that Her Majesty's Official Opposition should have only six hours' prior sight of the report next Thursday morning? What are the Government's intentions about providing access to the

8 Feb 1996 : Column 472

report to Back-Bench Members, about which I could make some suggestions? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is in the spirit of Madam Speaker's statement yesterday that Ministers should have eight days to consider the report while the Opposition have only six hours?

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the debate that he has announced for a week on Monday will be a one-day debate or the start of a two-day debate? There has been some speculation about that.

The Leader of the House has announced that on Monday the House will debate EU matters covered by section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that debate does not negate the need for a debate on the items recommended for consideration on the Floor of the House by a unanimous decision of the European scrutiny committees? That is a matter that I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman for the past three weeks. When does he expect that we shall be able to debate them? When can we expect the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference?

Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us also when there will be further meetings of the European Standing Committees. They were meeting twice a week before Christmas and they still has outstanding business to consider, but it seems that since one of them passed a unanimous decision on the IGC documents, which was embarrassing to the Government, they have been closed down completely. What are the Government's plans for that Committee?

Does the Leader of the House recall the request that I made to him a fortnight ago for a debate on the waste of money due to the mismatch between social security payments and entitlements? Does the righthon. Gentleman think it appropriate to debate the Government's proposals to cut by 25 per cent. the administrative budget of the Department of Social Security? Surely the need for such a debate has become more urgent so that we can ascertain whether what the Secretary of State for Social Security described today as "process re-engineering" will undermine the Government's anti-fraud strategy. We need to debate that issue.

Finally, will the Leader of the House confirm or deny the suggestion that the Government have decided to press ahead with the privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office without any further reference to the House? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the strength of feeling on the issue and will recall that when a debate took place--the House did not divide--right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House said explicitly that the privatisation process should not be finalised without the House being able to make a decision. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a final decision is taken by the House itself and not by Ministers behind closed doors?

---