---

Mr. Newton: Clearly, I am not in a position to comment on a particular case, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has made representations--indeed, he said that he has done so--to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others. I am sure that those representations will be carefully considered.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): Does the Leader of the House realise that there will be deep dissatisfaction in Merseyside, Chester and the Wirral with the unsatisfactory answers given to questions this afternoon about the future of the Ford plant at Halewood? Does he realise that we on Merseyside will expect a Minister--preferably the President of the Board of Trade and preferably after he has had discussions with the management of Ford--to come to the House as soon as possible to explain how he squares the Government's claim that Britain is the enterprise centre of Europe with the failure to maintain jobs at Halewood?

Mr. Newton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reasons for returning to this matter. He will appreciate that I can add little to what I said earlier, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of

16 Jan 1997 : Column 465

Trade will have discussions with the Ford management and I am sure that he will report in any way that he feels is appropriate, whether to the House or otherwise.

Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich): The Leader of the House will be aware of the widespread concern about the number of deaths in prison custody and about the number of people in prison who ought, more appropriately, to be cared for in psychiatric hospitals. I refer him to early-day motion 404, referring to the death of my constituent, Kenneth Severin, on whom an open verdict was recorded recently.

[That this House believes that it is in the interests of justice for all parties to go into an inquest hearing with the same amount of information; notes that there is no formal procedure for disclosure in inquest cases; draws attention to the Annual Report of the Police Complaints Authority 1995-96 which expressed concern that at some inquests those representing the police may have material not available to the representatives of other interested parties, particularly the family of the deceased, thus giving a strong impression of injustice; notes that the former Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Tumim has made similar comments expressing the view that it is in the interests of justice for all parties to go into an inquest hearing with the same amount of information; draws attention to the difficulties faced by the family and representatives of Kenneth Severin who died in suspicious circumstances in HM Prison Belmarsh; and calls upon the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor to review the rights of the deceased person's family in such cases and to institute rights of disclosure as recommended by the Police Complaints Authority.]

The early-day motion highlights the difficulties that Kenneth Severin's family face and the difficulties that are faced by the families and representatives of the deceased in many inquests. These matters have been drawn to the Government's attention by Judge Tumim, the former chief inspector of prisons, and by the Police Complaints Authority. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a early debate on the issue of inquest procedure, so that both the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department can come to the House to answer questions on this serious matter?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking that his concerns should be given careful consideration by the Ministers involved. I shall certainly bring his concerns to their attention.

Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): I know that you, Madam Speaker, are aware that both my hon. Friend

16 Jan 1997 : Column 466

the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I have been approached by the family and friends of Paul Wells in the hope that, following the Prime Minister's discussions with the Governments of India and Pakistan, he might be tempted to say something about the progress he was able to make in respect of determining either the current state of health of Paul Wells, Keith Mangan and the other hostages or what negotiations are taking place for their safe release.

In the event of the Prime Minister not commenting on those matters, would it be possible to arrange for a statement to be made to the House about the current state of knowledge about the well-being and whereabouts of the hostages and about any progress--however tentative--in negotiations for their release? Could that be backed up by a letter from the Prime Minister to the families, setting out what limited knowledge we have about the hostages' present safety and well-being?

Mr. Newton: That is a number of requests to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I will ensure that those requests are conveyed.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): When may we have a debate on genetically modified food and the unique and worrying position that we are in, where such food has been imported to this country and in most outlets cannot be differentiated from other food? The problem with that genetically modified food is that those who take it might not be harmed in any way immediately, but it might in time render certain antibiotics ineffective on people.

I wrote to all supermarkets before Christmas, and the replies that I have so far received show that only one chain of supermarkets, Waitrose, will effectively allow its customers to differentiate between the genetically modified food and other food. That is unsatisfactory and deeply worrying.

Today the Government wisely came out against organ transplants from animals because of the risk. Here we have another experiment which benefits only one company commercially--and that a foreign company. Why on earth should we allow that dangerous experiment with human health?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that those matters have been given very careful consideration on the basis of considerable scientific advice. However, I am sure that his concern will be examined very carefully by my right hon. Friends.

16 Jan 1997 : Column 467

Ford Plant, Halewood

4.10 pm

Madam Speaker: I have an application under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North): The House may be aware that earlier today the Ford Motor Company made a statement in which it announced the following:

"in order to bring Halewood vehicle operations' manned capacity in line with forecast demand, the company announced that it was opening a voluntary separation programme with special enhanced terms for approximately 1,300 employees"--

a series of euphemisms which mean that 1,300 people will lose their jobs on Merseyside.

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who unfortunately is fulfilling a long-standing commitment out of the country but is making strenuous efforts to return, I beg to ask leave to move that the remainder of today's business be suspended so that we may debate that issue.

The issue is specific to Knowsley and Merseyside, for several reasons. On Merseyside, unemployment currently stands at 11.5 per cent. compared to 6.6 per cent. for the country as a whole. However, unemployment is running at just over 13 per cent. in Knowsley and at about 22 per cent. in Halewood. For that reason alone, it is an important matter for Knowsley and the Merseyside region.

The urgency of the position hardly needs stressing. However, the Prime Minister's inadequate response to the question posed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) earlier this afternoon does nothing to lessen--in fact, it increases--the urgency of that situation.

I understand that this afternoon the President of the Board of Trade is meeting Mr. Jack Nasser, chief of automotive operations for the Ford Motor Company, and I believe that the House should have the opportunity to debate this matter urgently so that he may give a full report of those discussions and any conclusions that have been reached.

This is a momentous event locally, because of the effect that it will have on the local economy, and nationally, as a commentary on the sorry state of health of our manufacturing industry. I hope that, for those reasons, we may today have the opportunity to debate that devastating news and possibly have the opportunity to question the President of the Board of Trade as to what action he proposes to take, what discussions are being held and what can be done to reverse that disastrous situation.

Madam Speaker: I have listened most carefully to what the hon. Member has said and of course I have to give my decision without giving any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

Points of Order

4.13 pm

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have received a request from the hon. Member for Richmond--to whom I have given notice that I intend to raise this matter--saying that he wishes to apologise to me for the fact that he has circulated his constituency with a statement saying, first, that I sit on the Labour Front Bench, which is manifestly untrue, and secondly, that I have agreed that any number of slots or pathways for aircraft over his constituency should be allowed to expand.

The hon. Gentleman knows both allegations to be totally untrue. I am surprised that a Member of his standing and experience should choose to make the matter public in this way, without coming to the House to apologise for his inaccuracy and lack of responsibility.

---