424
425
and orist
buse
rder
hich
iend tion
has
two
work
my
ers.
for
hed.
dery
me
nal
his
ho
nal
the
ng
ce.
ur-
ne
Ve
by
ad
nd
be
at
W
DEERE 322
ne
ty
RK E
Je
1)
H
Oral Answers
22 JANUARY 1981
Second Reading of this Bill, which is the absolute minimum within which it could be reasonably debated, even on Second Reading?
Mr. Pym: It appears that fewer and fewer Bills get more than one day. Perhaps that is a matter for regret. However, this Session started very late. [HON. MEMBERS ; "Oh."] Of course there are constraints on time. What certainly am prepared to do is to extend the normal time for one or two hours, or whatever is thought appropriate. and I shall institute discussions with that in mind.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): While I do not doubt for a moment the importance of the British Nationality Bill, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will spare a thought for events in Poland, the changed situation in the Gulf since the release of the hostages, and the emergence of a new Adininistration in the United States, which are also matters of some concern to this House? Will my right hon. Friend be able to arrange a foreign affairs debate in the reasonably near future and, if possible, before the Prime Minister goes to Washington, so that she may know the views of this House before she has talks with President Reagan?
Mr. Pym: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I should certainly like to find time for that. I doubt whether I can do so in the time scale that my hon. Friend has suggested. For all the reasons that he suggests, I appreciate that the House would like the earliest possible and practical opportunity of a debate on foreign affairs.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread concern that ownership of Times Newspapers Limited will fall into the hands of a person who has already very substantial press holdings in Britain, even leaving aside his controversial political role in another country? Is it not important that once the announcement is made-there are strong rumours that it is to be made very shortly-there should be an immediate statement in the House?
Mr. Pym: I do not know about the question of a statement, but obviously events will unfold in the course of the day, and I think that we shall have to assess the position after that.
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): In view of the distressing but not unexpected announcement today of a major closure by the Tate and Lyle company, which refines 90 per cent. of all imports of cane sugar into Europe, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement early next week on the question whether it will still be possible to fulfil the solemn agreement with the underdeveloped countries on the import of 1.3 million tonnes of cane sugar?
Mr. Pym: I shall consider that point with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Lord Privy Seal.
Several Hon. Members rose--—-
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should tell the House that I have received a Standing Order No. 9 application on that question.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton): In view of the fact that Merseyside has the highest concentration of unemployment in the United Kingdom, and particularly as Tate and Lyle has now indicated that it intends to close its
214 G
Oral Answers
426
Love Lane factory, which has been there for a very long time, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we can have a debate not on unemployment in general but on the problems of Merseyside, the continual closures there, and the terrible high level of unemployment, the deprivation, the poverty and the misery that exist in my area?
Mr. Pym: I share the hon. Gentleman's opinion about the sadness of the closure of Tate and Lyle's Love Lane factory. It is a very serious matter for Merseyside, which is already having a difficult time with its economy. I cannot hold out hope for a debate in the near future. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can raise the matter in other ways. I am sensitive to the point that he inakes, but there is not the time in the near future. It would be misleading for me to pretend to the House that it would be likely to happen.
Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury): May I raise a rather smaller subject than has been mentioned up to now about a rather large item? I am referring to the new-size Hansard that we have today. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was widely reported that I used to read Hansard in bed? This now has become quite impossible. It is like reading the London telephone directory. It is exactly the same size. This is a small matter, and it is early days in which my right hon. Friend is leading the House. However, is he also aware that the present Leader of the Opposition misled the House, in my view, after three debates on the subject? Will my right hon. Friend consider, if not next week, before very long, providing time for a short debate on this question to see how the new Hansard is being received in this House and by those outside who have to receive it?
Mr. Pym: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has difficulty in reading Hansard in bed. I am told that there are some Ministers who have been known to do their boxes in bed. I have never quite understood how that would be possible. Anyway, the fact is that the decision to produce this size of Hansard was taken after proper consultation and after a proper motion in this House, tabled, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition. It was decided upon, and I do not think that it would be sensible to reopen the matter at this stage.
Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire): Is the Leader of the House now able to answer the question that I asked last week, when he understandably asked for further notice? When are we likely to receive the recommenda- tions of the all-party committee on the conduct of Scottish business in this House, and when may we have an opportunity to debate that subject?
Mr. Pym: In the middle future, shall I say; in a few weeks' time.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Following up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the more legislation that comes before the House the less competently the House can deal with the government of this country? Should we not be debating broad issues? Will he, therefore, find time for a debate on trade and unemployment in the general sense? The unfair competition faced by so many British industries is leading directly to the increased levels of unemployment. This is a vital issue to the North-West, and