Mr Neville Sandelson: I have listened, as, I am sure, have all hon. Members, with considerable interest and respect to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells). He is clearly versed in the affairs of the Caribbean and the two tiny islands with which we are dealing today in a way which goes far beyond my knowledge of that area and the problems to which he has referred. I therefore await with equal...
Mr Neville Sandelson: Everything that can possibly be said has been said, and I merely echo with great sincerity the sentiments that have been expressed. I agreed with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) when he said that the Minister has been rather modest about the importance of the Bill. It is an extremely important measure and the right hon. Gentleman need not be modest about it or his...
Mr Neville Sandelson: A similar new clause was debated in Committee. I hope that it will not be suggested by the Minister that I did not pay attention to what was said on that occasion. It became clear that the real point at issue was whether even the Secretary of State for the Environment had any right to interfere with the way in which his colleagues ran their Departments and was entitled to maintain any...
Mr Neville Sandelson: I listened to the Minister with great interest, but I am not persuaded that he has established any philosophic justification for keeping the two bodies separate. He said that there is a body of opinion, both inside and outside the two Houses, which supports his case. Will he explain the philosophic basis for maintaining two separate bodies concerned essentially with the same task? I recognise...
Mr Neville Sandelson: Most of the arguments that I support on this enabling clause have already been advanced by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). However, I wish to add my comments, because this is the most contentious issue that we shall discuss this evening. The Government appear to have dug in their heels, or even to have dug a trench,...
Mr Neville Sandelson: The hon. Gentleman will be older than Mr. MacGregor when that happens.
Mr Neville Sandelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more straightforward and explicit? He talks about propaganda of that kind being used to enlist people who may join in terrorist activity. Does he really believe in the strength of that argument? Will he inform the House more explicitly and sincerely of his real views in this matter?
Mr Neville Sandelson: rose—
Mr Neville Sandelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, in his heart and mind as he addresses the House today, that he is simply a shop window for the most subtle and scurrilous anti-police campaign that is being waged? Hon. Members all know the truth. We all know the truth. Does the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr Neville Sandelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be that in addressing hon. Members rather than yourself I was in breach of the rules of the House., but I was coming to a point of some substance about the Metropolitan police and I shall be most grateful if you will allow me to continue.
Mr Neville Sandelson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he is putting a most respectable case to the House, there are those in the Labour party who are putting a different and scurrilous case throughout every constituency party in the metropolis, as the people of London well know?
Mr Neville Sandelson: I shall be brief, because many points have already been made and I do not wish to be unduly repetitive. I congratulate the Minister on bringing this beneficial measure before the House, but, first and foremost, I pay tribute to those in the House of Lords who made unique contributions to the debates and to the noble peers in Committee who dissected clauses and schedules of bewildering...
Mr Neville Sandelson: I take no exception or offence to the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) seeking to leave the Chamber. I disagree strongly with the views he expressed on admission charges. I shall probably refer to them later, but if I do not I am sure that others will. Our society has political vandals who would seek to demolish that other House of our Parliament, itself a vital...
Mr Neville Sandelson: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Does he agree, as a Member of the Labour party, with me, as a Social Democrat, that we do not want our immigrant population to be tied to one political affiliation? Does he agree that many of those entrepreneurs are potential supporters of the Conservative party? Will he share with me, divorcing our party political attachments, the...
Mr Neville Sandelson: rose—
Mr Neville Sandelson: rose—
Mr Neville Sandelson: Will my hon. Friend note that, in spite of their much vaunted concern about these matters, only three Labour Members are present for this extremely important debate?
Mr Neville Sandelson: I pressed for that and am grateful to the Minister for taking action.
Mr Neville Sandelson: I did not intend to make any criticism of the management of Callard and Bowser. Having had discussions with the management, I fully realise the reasons for its decision to leave Hayes. I merely mentioned it as an example of a firm being driven out of the area by factors such as the high rates that many companies in my constituency have to endure.
Mr Neville Sandelson: That argument can apply in reverse in other areas. For example—I make no complaint of this—the Conservative Party is at present advancing a programme of trade union reform that is simply—
