§ Ql. Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended the funeral of President Andropov in Moscow this morning. She will be meeting General Secretary Chernenko this afternoon.
§ Mr. CanavanIf the Tory Government are really serious about freedom of expression for the media, why are they using political pressure to twist Alasdair Milne's arm? If the Tory party is serious about denouncing all support for racism within its ranks, will the Leader of the House denounce the 105 Tory Members of Parliament who signed early-day motion 485 supporting the English rugby tour of South Africa, which is completely contrary to the Government's official policy of supporting the Gleneagles agreement?
§ Mr. WilkinsonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Points of order will be taken after Prime Minister's Questions.
§ Mr. WilkinsonIt relates specifically to the question.
§ Mr. SpeakerLater.
§ Mr. BiffenIt is a grotesque insult to Mr. Alasdair Milne to suggest that he is the kind of person who could have his arm twisted. The BBC has an enviable reputation for current affairs presentation, which is secured only by constant vigilance. A number of my hon. Friends very understandably feel that a recent programme fell well below those standards and have intimated that they intend to take legal proceedings. In those circumstances, I propose to let the matter rest.
With regard to remarks concerning the early-day motion on sport in South Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said last night, in the context of the Gleneagles agreement, that we shall seek to "persuade, to advise, to discourage not to prevent."—[Official Report, 13 February 1984; Vol 54, c. 104.] That is a sound and commonsense view, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not engage in a lot of scaring.
§ Mr. WilkinsonMay I say — —[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman may ask his question.
§ Mr. WilkinsonMay I ask, Mr. Speaker, why you would not accept my point of order?—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has lost an opportunity.
§ Mr. HattersleyI hope that the Leader of the House understands that he cannot brush off lightly the speech made last Sunday by the chairman of the Conservative party. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House three direct and specific questions? First, was that speech seen and approved by the Prime Minister before she left for Moscow? Secondly, does the threat of "very serious action" against the BBC—those are the actual words of the Conservative party chairman—represent Government policy? Does a threat of very serious action imply that the Government will discriminate against the BBC unless it says what is of interest to, and approved by, Conservative Central Office? Thirdly, in a free society where individuals can pursue their complaints against broadcasters in court, what is the possible justification for the Conservative Government trying to intimidate the BBC?
§ Mr. BiffenThere is absolutely no question of the Government trying to intimidate the BBC. When the right hon. Gentleman makes such remarks, he is making a far greater slur against the BBC than against his political opponents. In his speech, my hon. Friend the chairman of the Conservative party presented a robust point of view about a subject which I now regard as sub judice.
§ Mr. HattersleyLet me ask the leader of the House a precise question in the hope of a precise answer. When a member of the Government in which he serves, and the chairman of the party of which he is a member, threatened "very serious action", what did he mean?
§ Mr. BiffenAnyone reading that speech could not conceive that, in the context in which those words were said, a threat against the BBC was intended. I stand by my observation. The matter is sub judice, and I shall not be drawn further.
§ Mr. Hattersleyrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. In fairness to him, I shall call the right hon. Gentleman once more. [Interruption.] However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the time for other hon. Members to ask questions is being reduced.
§ Mr. HattersleyI shall fulfil your instruction precisely, Mr. Speaker. Once more, what did the chairman of the Conservative party mean?
§ Mr. BiffenThe meaning is apparent from a proper and balanced reading of the text.
§ Mr. MarlowHave the Americans told Her Majesty's Government what their reasons are for shelling various targets in the Lebanon, including Druze villages containing large numbers of civilian refugees? What is Her Majesty's Government's reaction to such action?
§ Mr. BiffenThe Government's view is that any action undertaken in the Lebanon has to be judged by the extent to which it will contribute to the process of reconciliation. The American Government are well aware of our view, and in that context it must mean reservations about the bombardment carried out from the sea.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryDoes my right hon. Friend agree that although Mr. Andropov has given way to an older man, there is an opportunity now for new initiatives on arms control? The change in the Soviet leadership enables that country to shift its position on arms control without loss of face. Will my right hon. Friend urge our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to follow up her useful and constructive visits to Hungary and the Soviet Union with further meetings to try to secure a lasting reduction in nuclear weapons on both sides?
§ Mr. BiffenWith the establishment of a new Soviet leadership it will be possible, I hope, to enter into more stable circumstances for the negotiations. I am sure that the initiative carried out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be widely welcomed in this country and seen in the context of a detente that will engage all the major forces on both the Soviet and Western side.
§ Q2. Mr. Hoyleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. HoyleWill the right hon. Gentleman confirm that only 2,000 people at GCHQ in Cheltenham have accepted the thousand pieces of silver, less tax? How many of those people were members of trade unions? In view of the lack of success of the Government's policy, will they reverse their disastrous diktat, or will they sack all the other people who refuse to sign the document?
§ Mr. BiffenI cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures. It is far too early for him to assert that the Government's policy has failed.
§ Mr. HirstAs my right hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is today proposing measures to control the use of chemical weapons. Does that not represent a far more positive contribution to peace and security in the world than the unilateralist mouthings in Washington of the Leader of the Opposition?
§ Mr. BiffenI am certain that my hon. Friend's proposals at Geneva mark a constructive step in the control of chemical warfare, an area where initiatives are badly needed. I am certain that they will have the wholehearted endorsement of the House and I hope that my hon. Friend will be rather more successful than the Leader of the Opposition seems to have been in Washington.
§ Mr. BeithAs fundamental objections to the Government's White Paper on electoral law have been raised by both the Liberal and Labour parties, what new steps do the Government propose to obtain all-party agreement, or do they propose to renege on the pledge that was given by Lord Whitelaw that such legislation would proceed only by all-party agreement?
§ Mr. BiffenThe first step is to have the debate on the White Paper.
§ Q3. Mr. Flanneryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 14 February.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FlanneryWhen the right hon. Gentleman eventually talks to the Prime Minister, will he try to exert what democratic pressures he can so that she will give the House a full report on the Omani contract and the role played by Mr. Mark Thatcher? Can it be revealed to the House how much money Mr. Mark Thatcher got from that contract?
§ Mr. BiffenI cannot helpfully add to the exchanges that have already taken place on this matter between my right hon. Friend and Labour Members.
§ Mr. Andrew MacKayDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the building societies should have reduced their rate of interest to borrowers several weeks ago? Does he further agree that the £1 billion intake of savings that has been announced today for January means that the building societies, which were keen enough to jack up their interest rates, have no excuse at all for not reducing them forthwith?
§ Mr. BiffenIt is always tempting for politicians to instruct building societies how to conduct themselves. I hope that I shall not disappoint my hon. Friend too much if I resist the temptation. It is encouraging that the general speculation is about how soon interest rates will go down.
§ Mr. Allen McKayWill the Leader of the House consider consulting his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, or his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as it is the appropriate time, on the unfair and inequitable way that concessionary television licences are dealt with in relation to old-age pensioners? Will he remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that for an increase in tax of one third of a penny or an increase of 0.4 per cent. in VAT all old-age pensioners could receive a concessionary TV licence?
§ Mr. BiffenThe hon. Gentleman, more than most, has a well-documented interest in television licence fees. I know that he will realise that, just ahead of the Budget, I could not make comments of the sort that he is inviting me to make.
§ Mr. AdleyI did not hear my right hon. Friend's reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for 125 Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). However, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not the Government's policy to support the current action of the American Government in lobbing heavy shells into the Lebanon? If that is not the Government's policy, will my right hon. Friend tell the Prime Minister when she returns that many hon. Members think that it should be?
§ Mr. BiffenMy answer was not expressed in the most elegant language that I might have chosen and was, therefore, lost to some extent in the chorus of reproach. However, I assure my hon. Friend that when he reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that I expressed sentiments that closely approximate to his.
§ Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. FreudIs the Leader of the House aware of the deal that has been made between the DHSS and the tobacco industry whereby an £11 million health research trust is being set up which is specifically disbarred from investigating the effects of tobacco on health? Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed of that squalid deal?
§ Mr. BiffenI was not aware of it, and as I was not aware of it, I cannot comment on it.
§ Mr. TraceyWill my right hon. Friend confirm that there are now two former Labour Members of Parliament working directly for the Greater London council, and one working indirectly for it? Can he say whether they obtained their jobs through open competition?
§ Mr. BiffenI am being invited to be exceedingly ungenerous. I do not know, and I prefer not to speculate.
§ Mr. WilkinsonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I apologise at the outset to you and the House for appearing to take away the time of other right hon. and hon. Members who wanted to put questions. May I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a serious point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman should rephrase what he said. I am the Speaker.
§ Mr. WilkinsonI am doubly sorry, Mr. Speaker. Would you not agree that the Question Time we have just had has exemplified the worst aspects, the most pernicious aspects, of open questions? Is it not true that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) did not address himself to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who, in listing the Prime Minister's engagements for today, spoke of only two events—the funeral of Mr. Andropov and her meeting with Mr. Chernenko? Thereafter, we had a catalogue of questions on almost every subject under the sun, almost every one of which had nothing to do with the original question.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall be making a statement about open questions to other Departments later this afternoon. As to Prime Minister's Questions, I regret to say that it has ever been thus.
§ Mr. DobsonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I attempt to protect the interests of one of my constituents who, to the best of my knowledge, is going about his lawful business in my constituency? During defence questions the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that a complaint that had gone to him via the Metropolitan Police about something that happened in October was being independently investigated. He went on to assert certain characteristics of the event. I should like to know—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I shall stop the hon. Gentleman there, because it is not a question that I can answer. He must take the matter up with the Minister.
§ Mr. DobsonFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was seeking to protect the interests of my constituent. I seek your guidance about how I can further protect his interests as a result of the Minister interfering with any independent aspect of that inquiry.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is not a matter for me. I say again to the hon. Gentleman that he must take the matter up with the Minister.