Business of the House

HC Deb 12 December 1985 vol 88 cc1065-75 3.30 pm

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 16 DECEMBER—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.

Remaining stages of the Education (Amendment) Bill. Motion on the Education Support Grants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

TUESDAY 17 DECEMBER—Estimates Day (1st Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock, consideration of the following Estimate: Class II, Vote 7 (Overseas Aid in respect of Famine Relief in Africa).

The appropriate reports will be shown on the Order Paper as relevant. The House will be asked to agree the civil and defence Votes on Account and the winter Supplementary Estimates.

Afterwards, there will be a debate on the first report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Session 1984–85).

Motion relating to the Water Authorities (Return on Assets) (No. 2) Order.

WEDNESDAY 18 DECEMBER—Motion for the Christmas Adjournment. It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 20 December until Monday 13 January.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

THURSDAY 19 DECEMBER — Second Reading of the Building Societies Bill.

Motion on the Legal Advice and Assistance (Prospective Cost) Regulations.

Motion relating to the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations.

FRIDAY 20 DECEMBER—Adjournment motions.

Mr. Hattersley

I wish to ask the Leader of the House three questions. First, may we be assured that there will be no change in visa regulations for Commonwealth citizens whilst the House is in recess, and that before any such change is made the Home Secretary will make a statement to the House?

Secondly, may I repeat the Opposition's request for a general debate on the conduct and character of the City of London? The Prime Minister re-established her anxiety about those matters this afternoon. The House is entitled to a full statement of the Government's position on issues which go far wider than the Financial Services Bill.

Thirdly, will the Leader of the House give urgent consideration to finding time, ideally before Christmas, for a debate on the future of the Scottish steel industry? The Opposition have a genuine fear that the BSC management and the Government may take advantage of the shabby tactics employed by some Conservative Members on the Select Committee this week to take irreversible decisions about the Scottish steel industry whilst the House is in recess. For the sake of the future of Select Committees in general, the Leader of the House should regard that as intolerable and best pre-empted by a statement on the subject.

Mr. Biffen

I shall take the three points in the order in which the right hon. Gentleman presented them. I shall, of course, take account of what has been said about changes in visa regulations for Commonwealth citizens. I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Secondly, there will be a debate on the Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman quite properly referred. I note his wish that there should be a general debate on the wider aspect of affairs in the City. Perhaps that could be considered further through the usual channels.

Thirdly, I note the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I think that deep feelings have been aroused by recent events, and perhaps a little time would do no harm in making a measured judgment on how best to proceed in the present position. I should be heroic, but wholly unrealistic, if I were to suggest that there was a prospoect of a debate on the steel industry before the Christmas recess. Doubtless we can consider the matter further in the new year.

Sir William Clark (Croydon, South)

Can my right hon. friend say when the Financial Services Bill is likely to be published? If it is published before Christmas, will we have an early opportunity to debate it when we return from the recess?

Mr. Biffen

I hope that it will be possible to publish the Bill before we adjourn for Christmas. I certainly hope that we will debate it shortly after our return.

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that before telling the City to put its affairs in order this House must be seen to be doing the same? Does he further agree that the debate on Members' interests should be on a substantive motion, that it should be amendable and that it should include within its terms the question of lobbyists?

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a debate in the new year on the vexed problem of law and order?

Mr. Biffen

The hon. Gentleman will find that the debate on Members' interests will arise on a substantive motion, that it deals with the topics to which he has referred and that it is amendable. I hope that in that state of initial fraternity we can proceed on that delicate topic.

There is, of course, a general interest in law and order matters. The House has had opportunities in the recent past to discuss that matter on the initiative of private Members. However, I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

Can my right hon. Friend say when a restriction on the length of speeches to 10 minutes will be introduced? Will that restriction be at the discretion of Mr. Speaker, will he decide when it is imposed, and will it apply to Privy Councillors?

Mr. Biffen

I very much hope that the matter will be brought before the House for resolution fairly soon after we return from the recess. It will be presented in the terms of the recommendation of the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

On the debate on the Register of Members' Interests, will the right hon. Gentleman note that the leader of the Social Democratic party said in a statement published today that it would be a good idea to stop all Members of Parliament from moonlighting? That is an excellent idea, and one which I have canvassed for many years.

However, I find it strange that the SDP should put forward that idea because, having checked on the number of moonlighting jobs undertaken by the 20 or so alliance members, I find that they have more than 20 such jobs between them. I reckon that the leader of the SDP is in trouble.

Mr. Biffen

One thing is certain: if an argument is jointly shared between the hon. Gentleman and the leader of the SDP, one or other of them is in trouble.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the request by the Opposition Front Bench that the House should debate the steel industry in Scotland at an early date? Will he bear in mind the fact that there have been problems in the debates of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Conservative Members have supported the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in his wish that the Committee's report should not be published.

Mr. Biffen

I should like to confine myself to the question of a debate upon the Scottish steel industry. I realise that that is an important topic, but it was originally suggested to me that the debate should take place next week and I simply do not see how time can be found for it then.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

Can the Leader of the House appreciate that I want to do him a favour in underlining the considerable importance of an early statement from the Home Secretary about the intentions of the Home Office on visa requirements, bearing in mind the fact that in evidence to the Select Committee this week the Minister of State said that the Home Office was considering visa requirements for citizens of Bangladesh seeking to visit Britain?

May I also draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an extremely important ruling yesterday by an immigration appeal tribunal which upheld the right of the children of British citizens who seek to enter Britain, if refused, to appeal and, pending appeal, to remain in Britain? It is estimated that a large number of children seek to enter under the terms upheld yesterday by the tribunal. If visas were introduced, that right would be effectively frustrated.

Bearing in mind the allegation of the Minister of State against Members of Parliament, including myself, that we were abusing immigration procedures and rules by giving advice to our constituents, and bearing in mind that our advice will be sought by constituents who are British citizens who originate from Bangladesh as to what their children should do in that situation, will he arrange for an early statement to be made so that we can seek the advice of the Home Secretary and do not upset the Minister of State any more?

Mr. Biffen

I said in response to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that I would raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and, of course, I shall also draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the points that have just been made by the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he too will have noticed that on both Wednesday and Friday he may well have the opportunity to raise exactly the points that he is seeking to make today.

Mr. Ian Lloyd (Havant)

I have just learnt that it is the Government's intention that the first meeting of the Standing Committee on the Gas Bill should take place next Tuesday morning. As it had been arranged for the Secretary of State for Energy to give evidence to the Select Committee on that morning, is there any possibility of that meeting of the Standing Committee being postponed until Thursday?

Mr. Biffen

I am not sure whether it falls within my terms of responsibility, but I shall most certainly look into it.

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent,South)

Is the Leader of the House aware that the legislation which provides anonymity for women who are victims of rape does not apply when they seek compensation in civil courts and that that will naturally undermine the intention of that legislation and deter women from applying for compensation? Will he discuss that with the Home Secretary and see what can be done next week?

Mr. Biffen

I shall most certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

My right hon. Friend will have heard the Prime Minister say during Question Time in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that the Government feel unable to make a statement on the tin crisis until the meeting of the International Tin Council comes to a decision. Bearing that in mind, can he give me an assurance that the Government will make a statement on the crisis as soon as that meeting is over, particularly as Ministers have said nothing about the situation to the House in the past seven weeks while this serious crisis has been with us'?

Mr. Biffen

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and his constituency interest in it. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the desirability of making a statement as early as practicable having relation to the factors mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. John Ryman (Blyth Valley)

Will the Leader of the House give us a sensible answer about the independent colliery review procedure? He wrote a letter to me about it last week which was totally unhelpful. Is he now aware of the fact that three pits are due to be closed soon after Christmas and that unless the procedure is understood by the Government and the coal mining unions it will be impossible to have any hearings before that date? I have asked the Leader of the House on several occasions to arrange for a debate on this important topic, which is now very urgent indeed. Can he tell us—the Secretary of State for energy just does not know—when the tribunal will begin to sit to hear the appeals against the closures, including the closure of Bate's colliery in Blyth where 1,400 jobs will be lost if the pit is closed?

Mr. Biffen

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not found our correspondence satisfactory hitherto. Perhaps on the basis of the business that I have announced for next week he will have as good an opportunity as he is likely to have to raise the matter on the business for Wednesday or on an Adjournment motion on Friday.

Mr. W. Benyon (Milton Keynes)

Does my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) mean that the other recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure, particularly those appertaining to Committee procedure, will be laid before the House?

Mr. Biffen

Certainly, but I want to make it clear that it will not be immediately on our return from the recess; it will be fairly soon afterwards.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie (Glasgow, Rutherglen)

Will the Leader of the House reconsider the answer that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about the Scottish steel industry vis-à-vis the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the decisions taken yesterday? Is he aware that there is a great deal of bitterness in the steel industry about the attitude and the actions of some of his hon. Friends, and that the steel workers from my part of the country feel that the shenanigans of the Tory party in Scotland should not result in punishment for steel workers in Gartcosh?

Mr. Biffen

The right hon. Gentleman puts forward the case persuasively, as ever, but I cannot recognise the bahaviour of my hon. Friends who are on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in the terms that he has described. I know that feelings have been aroused by the recent events on the Committee, but I think that it would be helpful to have a little time to reflect.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that teachers in Hereford and Worcester are to refuse to enter pupils for A-level, 0-level and CSE examinations next year and that teachers in other parts of the country are to be asked to follow suit? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to come to the House at an early date to publicise the fact that pupils can enter themselves for public examinations if they wish to do so, and that they are not dependent upon the teachers' whims and strike tactics?

Mr. Biffen

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that subject and bringing it to the attention of the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be before the House at Question Time on Tuesday and perhaps that will prove to be an appropriate occasion for the matter to be further considered.

Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South)

Is the Leader of the House aware that he is creating difficulties by not offering time to debate Gartcosh before the recess? There is a widespread fear in Scotland that the British Steel Corporation will take irretrievable action during the recess, particularly in the declaration of redundancies. It would be inappropriate for Ministers to make up their minds on the evidence submitted to the Select Committee before the House had had an opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Biffen

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The request for time has been made in the context of Government time. I think that I am entitled to point out that it is perfectly possible for that topic to be suggested for the debates that follow the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

Are there any plans for a Government statement to be made on mergers and competition policy? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of the recent spate of announcements about mergers, with some being referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and some approved, there is, to say the least, some confusion as to the parameters within which the policy is operated? It would be helpful to know whether market share is to be the principal criterion or whether, in addition, the interests of the shareholders and the employees are taken into account.

Mr. Biffen

I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the point that my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)

May I force a much more definitive answer from the Leader of the House on the future of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Does he honestly believe that the Select Committee can continue to work on the basis on which it was working yesterday? The draft report was available for a whole week and, with the exception of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), no other Member submitted a written amendment to that draft report. At the last minute, under pressure from the Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries, (Sir H. Monro) submitted an amendment that wrecked the report—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask for a debate on the matter, not give us the history of it.

Mr. Ewing

I have to give the history to justify my asking for a debate, Mr. Speaker. Having given the history, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he believes that such tactics under pressure from the Secretary of State lead to the effective working of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. Biffen

No doubt in the spirit of being helpful, the hon. Gentleman has given the history of the events, but, like so much of history, it is open to more than one interpretation. I appreciate that there has been a drama in the Committee. I believe that the best thing that I can do is to stand back for a short while and let passions calm before we see how best to proceed.

Mr. Michael Forsyth (Stirling)

Will my right hon. Friend resist the request for a debate on the future of the steel industry in Scotland, because Opposition Members, out of pique—because their own side voted down the report as they were unable to reach a conclusion—are now trying to get themselves off an embarrassing hook, the Committee having clearly established that there was not a shred of evidence to link the future of Ravenscraig with Gartcosh?

Mr. Biffen

I note what has been said. Next week's business shows the considerable extent to which the Government are already committed to having debates upon matters of the utmost importance to the House. I have observed—it is a perfectly valid observation—that it might be possible for the matter to be debated on the Consolidated Fund Bill, although not on a substantive motion.

Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington)

Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that you cleverly pretended to forget my name last week so that you could get a bit of publicity on Radio 4.

Does the Leader of the house recall that for the past few weeks I have raised the subject of the imprisonment of members of the Turkish Peace Association, and the appeal —[Interruption.] May I say to the Leader of the House that I do not think that it is a laughing matter. The Supreme Court of Military Appeal will make its decision within seven days. You said on each occasion that I raised it that you would bring the matter to the attention of the Foregin Secretary. I am not suggesting that you have not done so, but I have not heard a word from the Foreign Secretary. In view of the fact that people's lives are at stake, do you not think that at least the Government should—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall not forget the hon. Gentleman, but he should not be using all those "yous".

Mr. Boyes

Does the Leader of the House support my contention that on such a serious matter the Government should have a point of view, and that it is about time the Foreign Secretary spoke about it?

Mr. Biffen

I shall defend myself against the sneering innuendo in the hon. Gentleman's remarks that I was laughing about what he was saying about the prisoners in Turkey. I was distracted by the Al barracking which is a constant feature from below the Gangway and which happened to have a humorous content. I am not complaining about that, but I understand the seriousness that the hon. Gentleman invests in that topic and the problem. I have been in touch with the Foreign Office and will go back and continue my representations.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)

With Christmas less than two weeks away and with many office parties in full swing, will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on drunken driving, in particular on the very worrying fact that during the last 12 months 1,000 people have lost their lives because they have driven their cars after drinking alcohol? May we have a debate next week? May we also have a policy statement that one does not drink and then drive?

Mr. Biffen

No provision has been made for a debate next week in Government time. However, there are ample opportunities for initiatives by hon. Members, and it is in those initiatives that my hon. Friend is so skilled.

Mr. Clement Freud (Cambridgeshire, North-East)

Is the Leader of the House aware that over 170 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed early-day motion 51 dealing with the Open University? [That this House confirms its belief in the Open University and regrets the repeated grant reductions imposed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, which involve cuts in real terms for seven years up to 1987 and which ignore the recommendations of the Visiting Committee; furthermore acknowledges the excellent and vital work of the Open University in providing educational Opportunities, especially for the unemployed, disabled and those in remote areas; applauds its work in science, technology and professional updating; recognises the cost-effectiveness of their provision; and urges the Secretary of State to reconsider the grant allocation to recognise that investment in the Open University will enable it to realise its full potential and bring much-needed economic benefits to the United Kingdom.] In view of the widespread concern about the future wellbeing of the Open University, may we have a debate on this subject soon, or does a magic number of names have to be added to an early-day motion before one is allotted a debate?

Mr. Biffen

If there were a magic number of names that then earned an entitlement to a debate on an early-day motion, our pattern of debates would be somewhat bizarre. I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the interest that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. He in turn might like to try to make the point at Question Time next Tuesday.

Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, North-East)

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that if the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs had reported to the House it would have intensified the argument for a debate on the Scottish steel industry? However, as the Committee, led by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) decided not to report to the House, it diminishes the feeling that the House should urgently debate this matter. Does my right hon. Friend believe that it would be more valuable to debate the Rural Forum report which made some important suggestions about improving the situation in the rural areas of Scotland?

Mr. Biffen

I take note of all contributions, particularly those from Members of the Select Committee, but they do not help me to understand the problem that much more clearly. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go beyond what I have already said.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)

In view of the numerous references during the last hour or so to my constituency, will the Leader of the House accept from me that the people of Monklands, West are not daft? They recognised, when they saw it, an attempt first to weaken and then to sabotage the Select Committee's report. Above all, will the Leader of the House accept that when it decided unanimously today to continue the fight for Ravenscraig and Gartcosh it reaffirmed its commitment to the parliamentary democracy that appears to be missing on the Government Benches and that will be well reflected if we have the debate which the Committee and Opposition Members want to take place?

Mr. Biffen

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are among some of the wisest and most perceptive people in Scotland, if not in the United Kingdom. Therefore, they will see that there is perhaps a certain amount of drama and high passion this afternoon about the affair, which will abate into a better perspective if we leave it for a little while.

Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)

When we have our debate next week on Members' interests, we expect and hope to have robust speeches from those hon. Members who have interests explaining exactly the value to Parliament and to the country of having those interests outside their parliamentary work. May we also hope that we shall hear similar speeches from Opposition Members who have outside interests but who tend to try to hide them?

Mr. Biffen

I do not think that I could make any such judgment, but I join my hon. Friend in hoping that there will be a balanced and vigorous debate because this is a matter not merely of great concern to the House but of very great public interest.

Several Hon

. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. An important debate is to follow business questions. I shall allow business questions to continue for 10 more minutes. During that time I hope that every hon. Member who has been standing will be called.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Harking back to the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) on the colliery review procedure, this is of course a matter of desperate urgency for Polkemmet. What is needed is not a Wednesday or Friday Adjournment debate, or a Consolidated Fund debate, but a statement of policy from the Government and decisions. After the Leader of the House has been to the Foreign Office, will he please go to the Department of Energy and try to get an answer out of it on this Byzantine question?

Mr. Biffen

I shall most certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's point to the Department of Energy.

Mr. James Hamilton (Motherwell, North)

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, my constituents face redundancies and short-time working. Before the summer recess, I tabled a question requesting that no statement be made during the recess about the corporate plan. The Government reneged on their promise. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in no circumstances will the position be aggravated for Gartcosh and Ravenscraig and that the matter will be held in abeyance until we return from the Christmas recess?

Mr. Biffen

I understand the hon. Gentleman's points and their significance for his constituency. I shall draw those points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

In view of the growing volume of press speculation surrounding the placement by the Ministry of Defence of orders for three diesel electric submarines, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement in the next few days on the placement of those orders? This issue is vital to my constituency and several others.

Mr. Biffen

I shall certainly convey that request to the right quarter.

Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Riverside)

Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 225, which has been signed by 135 hon. Members? [That this House, recognising Human Rights Day, congratulates Amnesty International Campaign on behalf of prisoners of conscience; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make its views known to all countries which repress human rights, carry out torture and imprisonment without trial, and to monitor carefully the sale of arms which may be used to repress human rights and prohibit the export of instruments which could be used for the torture of prisoners.] Will he arrange for a debate after the recess on the general question of human rights, especially the sale of arms which could be used to repress human rights and the export of weapons or instruments which could be used against political prisoners?

Mr. Biffen

I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to that early-day motion. I shall get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

Will the right hon. Gentleman take time out to discuss with the Home Secretary the question of making a statement or arranging a general debate immediately after the recess on staffing levels in the prison service? As there is gross overcrowding in all our remand prisons, some of which have reached crisis point, and prisoners are not being produced at courts throughout the metropolitan districts to stand trial or to appear on remand, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a statement should be made or that a debate should take place as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Biffen

I realise that this is a topical matter. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the Government introduced temporary visa requirements for Tamil applicants in May this year, their immigration policy has been one of subterfuge and deception? We require a clear statement from the Home Secretary before the House rises for the recess to the effect that the visa requirements for Sri Lankan entrants will be withdrawn, that no decision will be taken during the Christmas recess on visa requirements for anyone from the subcontinent and that extra staff will be sent immediately to all the high commissions on the Indian subcontinent to remove the fear of the queue? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Minister of State, Home Office withdraws his scurrilous accusations against 23 hon. Members and ends the worry among the Asian community that Members of Parliament can no longer take up immigration cases because of deliberate misreporting by the press?

Mr. Biffen

It is offensive and inaccurate to suggest that Government immigration policy proceeds by deception and subterfuge. I responded to a request on this matter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), and I do not think that I can reasonably go beyond that.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

The City Takeover Panel has just announced that Scottish and Newcastle Breweries has failed to take over Matthew Brown. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are many lessons to be learnt from that takeover, both in the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry handled it in the early days and in the way in which City institutions reacted? Could not these matters be raised in an early debate—a debate on which the right hon. Gentleman can decide? May we have a general debate on City institutions?

Mr. Biffen

I have not yet seen the report of the City Takeover Panel because it has only just come out. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to comment. As to the wider matter of a debate on City institutions, I cannot go beyond what I said in my reply to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. From the point of view of private initiative, next week's business gives a good deal of scope.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

Will the Minister responsible for consumer protection make a statement on the grave danger of innocent people being wrongfully arrested for shoplifting due to a moment of forgetfulness? As this peril is at its height during the Christmas period, will the Leader of the House treat this as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Biffen

I shall draw those points to the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Ministers who reply next week to debates will reply and that we will not have a repetition of the occasion when the chairman of the Tory party was deeply insulting and offensive to all those people in the inner cities suffering from great housing hardship? Is there any truth in the rumour that the Secretary of State for Defence was celebrating last night?

Mr. Biffen

The circumstances surrounding the reply to that debate, which touched on serious social, economic and political issues, deserve better treatment than that question and, above all, better treatment than that displayed last night when the Minister seeking to reply was not given a hearing.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

Will the Prime Minister speak in the debate on Tuesday on the Register of Members' Interests to reassure the House that her enthusiasm for pursuing local authorities in the inner cities, especially Labour authorities such as that in Liverpool, compared with her lack of enthusiasm for pursuing the inner city gambling exchanges of Johnson Matthey Bankers and Lloyd's, has nothing to do with the fact that one in eight Tory Members of Parliament is a member of the gambling syndicate, Lloyd's?

Mr. Biffen

I hope, even if I do not expect, that we shall conduct the debate at a slightly higher level than low-grade McCarthyism.

Mr. Speaker

I call Mr. Marlow, as a Christmas present.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

A merry Christmas to you, too, Mr. Speaker from all of us.

When we are debating procedure, will it be possible to look at the Standing Orders so that we can prevent a repetition of what happened last night when there was a premeditated tactic of controlled giggling by the Opposition Front Bench? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be regrettable if the political tactics of Mr. Bernie Grant came to the Chamber before we had the misfortune of seeing him?

Mr. Biffen

Conduct in the House and its control are, happily, not matters for me.