Business of the House (Hansard, 19 December 1985)

HC Deb 19 December 1985 vol 89 cc573-83 573 3.46 pm

§ Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn)
Will the Leader of the House state the business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment?

§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)
Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:

§ MONDAY 13 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Public Order Bill.

§ There will be a debate on a motion on seat belt regulations.

§ TUESDAY 14 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill.

§ There will be a debate on a motion to take note of EC document 7283/85 relating to vehicle gaseous emissions.

§ WEDNESDAY 15 JANUARY—Opposition Day (Third Allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, the subject for debate to be announced.

§ Motion on the Statutory Sick Pay Up-rating Order.

§ THURSDAY 16 JANUARY—Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on a motion to take note of EC documents relating to European fisheries policy. Details of the documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.

§ There will be a debate on the draft Hong Kong Nationality Order in Council (Cmnd. 9367) on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

§ Afterwards, motions on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 3) Order and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order.

§ FRIDAY 17 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

§ [Debate on Tuesday 14 December

§ Relevant Documents

(a) 7283/85

Vehicle gaseous emissions

§ Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 5-xxx (1984–85) paragraph 6

§ Debate on Thursday 16 January

§ Relevant Documents

(b) 9284/85	Fishing controls
(c) 8662/85	Allocation of certain fishing possibilities to Spain
(d) 10047/85	Fish Guide Prices 1986
(e) 10015/84	Reduction of Spanish fishing capacity
(f) Unnumbered	Fisheries: Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and quotas 1986
(g) Unnumbered	Fisheries: amended TACs and quotas 1986
(h) Unnumbered	Fisheries agreement with Norway 1986

§ Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

(b) HC 5-xxxi (1984–85) paragraph 2
(c) HC 5-xxx (1984–85) paragraph 12
(d) HC 21–i (1985–86) paragraph 3
(e) HC 5-vii (1984–85) paragraph 1
(f) HC 21–v (1985–86) paragraph 2
(g) HC 21–v (1985–86) paragraph 3
(h) HC 21–v (1985–86) paragraph 4]

§ Mr. Kinnock
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As the Prime Minister did not find herself able to respond to the point of order that I raised earlier—

§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)
It was not a point of order.

§ Mr. Kinnock
You, Mr. Speaker, will be the judge of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was."] In view of the decision apparently taken by today's Cabinet, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made to the House before we rise tomorrow by either the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State for Defence, or both, about the Government's current attitude towards the Westland deal and whether the Government are willing to accept the clear obligations of national interest which arise in that case?
On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that the Roskill report on fraud trials, which contains 117 recommendations, was in the Government's possession. Will it be published in good time for the debate on the Financial Services Bill on 14 January? Why can it not be published now, or at least during the recess? It is clearly in a form which would enable it to be printed and published for the general consideration of hon. Members.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has today written to the stewards at Gartcosh, effectively tearing up the Select Committee report and glibly accepting British Steel's rather unconvincing view that the future of Ravenscraig is unaffected by the closure of Gartcosh? Does not the Secretary of State for Scotland owe the House an explanation of the way in which he is abandoning—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Cynically."]—indeed, cynically abandoning—steel workers and steel communities in Scotland? Can the right hon. Gentleman at least arrange for a statement to be made to the House tomorrow, before we rise for the Christmas recess?
In view of the Government's continuing failure to undertake any productive initiative in settling the teachers' pay dispute, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to a debate, in Government time, early in the new Session so that the House can ask the Secretary of State to account for his hapless attitude towards the profession, towards parents and, most of all, towards the pupils who are suffering as a result of the Government's intransigence and their lack of interest in the education system?
Now that the White Paper on the reform of social security has been published, when will legislation to implement those proposals be introduced? Are there any draft proposals to phase out heating additions for claimants, especially the elderly, on supplementary benefit?

§ Mr. Biffen
I shall respond to the right hon. Gentleman's questions in the sequence in which they were presented.
First, on the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Prime Minister confirming the statement made earlier this week on Westland by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I can confirm that that statement was confirmed at a Cabinet meeting this morning. I do not think that there is anything devastatingly 575 novel about such a revelation, but I shall have the matter considered further through the usual channels to see whether it is to feature in our business before we retire for the Christmas recess. I say in all sincerity to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] It gets better as we go along. I shall do my utmost to ensure that the House has the advantage of possessing the Roskill report before the Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill. It is a fairly formidable document, but I do not think that it is in quite the advanced stage suggested in the right hon. Gentleman's question. As to the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my right hon. Friend's remarks, I think that that covers the full spectrum, but of course I shall look into the matter.
On the question of Gartcosh, I must confess that I was not entirely able to recognise from the right hon. Gentleman's comments the position of and the role being played by my right hon. Friend th Secretary of State for Scotland. However, I know that in this, as in all matters, one should proceed charitably. I shall look into the matter about the Select Committee report and, through the usual channels, consider whether an early statement is appropriate.
I am sure that we all recognise the very serious position that is developing through the protracted industrial action being undertaken by the teaching profession. Perhaps we could look at the question of a debate through the usual channels.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that legislation will be introduced setting out the proposals of the White Paper on the social services reasonably soon after we reassemble following the Christmas recess.

§ Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is considerable interest in the Shops Bill and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill. I appreciate that they are now in their final stages in another place. Will he give some rough indication of when they are likely to arrive here for their Second Reading—sooner or later?

§ Mr. Biffen
There are some lively competitors for our time and affection in the period from mid-January onwards. I cannot answer my hon. Friend in the specific terms that he desires, but if he presses the matter when we return perhaps I can then give him a more forthcoming reply.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
The Leader of the House knows from last night's debate on the motion for the Christmas Adjournment that there is very deep concern in the north-west about the future control and operation of Manchester international airport. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to communicate urgently to the Secretary of State for Transport the call for an oral statement today about the airport's future. How did the right hon. Gentleman get on? Would it not be grossly contemptuous of the House for the airport's future to be decided without any opportunity for hon. Members to question the Government's decision?

§ Mr. Biffen
I undertook, as the right hon. Gentleman says, to communicate to my right hon. Friend the sense of the first of the debates on the Adjournment motion. I take note of his remarks about the importance of the House taking a view before the decision is taken. I shall convey that observation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

576

§ Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)
Has my right hon. Friend noticed the increasing pressure from many reputable organisations and from all quarters of the House for the establishment of family courts? Can my right hon. Friend provide an opportunity to debate the matter early in the new year?

§ Mr. Biffen
I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend's observation. I cannot be very forthcoming about guaranteeing such time, although I recognise the importance of the issue.

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent)
May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to his first reply on whether there should be a statement tomorrow on Westland? The right hon. Gentleman has great mollifying qualities but he must understand that an intolerable state of affairs exists. Is the Secretary of State for Defence holding a press conference at this moment to repudiate what has been said by a Minister in the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us on his own account, and without the wisdom of the usual channels, an absolute assurance that there will be a statement on the matter tomorrow?

§ Mr. Biffen
The right hon. Gentleman, for so many years of his distinguished career, was part of the usual channels. He knows that there is no wisdom superior to that of the usual channels.

§ Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale)
I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion No. 277, which raises the matter of the chief constable of Greater Manchester.
[That this House views with grave disquiet the outrageous treatment of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester by the politically-motivated action of the Greater Manchester Police Committee in seeking to censure him for exercising his right of free speech.]
May I impress upon my right hon. Friend that any inquiry into that matter is unlikely to report before Greater Manchester county goes out of existence? Such an inquiry would be a total waste of ratepayers' money and there are some who feel that it would be a cynical way in which to promote the chairman of the Manchester police committee, Mrs. Gabriella Cox, in her search for a safe Labour seat on Manchester city council. In view of the great public concern in the area and the anger that has been aroused by the treatment of the chief constable, can there be an early debate on the matter?

§ Mr. Biffen
I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
Will the Leader of the House not agree that it is both deplorable and regrettable that the family of a child that was deafened and brain-damaged in a medical accident should have to spend nine years fighting in a court of law for compensation for that child? In Britain we need a no-fault compensation scheme, as they have in other countries. Can we have a debate on that matter as soon as possible?

§ Mr. Biffen
I join at once with the right hon. Gentleman in acknowledging the poignancy of the case that he quoted and I shall consider his request. cannot guarantee that Government time will be available for such a debate in the new year, but doubtless there are other opportunities available to the right hon. Gentleman.

577

§ Mr. Fred Silvester (Manchester, Withington)
May I urge my right hon. Friend not to let his natural good will and Christmas spirit lead him to pay too much attention to the siren voice of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), as the matter of Manchester airport is now properly in the hands of the districts of Greater Manchester council. It would be most improper to have any statement or debate while decisions are being made.

§ Mr. Biffen
I had the advantage of listening to the problems as they were rehearsed last night by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). When listening to him, I thought that there was possibly a degree of controversy. The remarks which I have addressed to the right hon. Gentleman must stand.

§ Mr. James Hamilton (Motherwell, North)
The Leader of the House is aware that serious redundancies in the British Steel Corporation in my constituency are imminent, and he will recall that I raised the matter with him last week. Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has been asked that a statement should be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the situation which has arisen over Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, and that the Secretary of State has conveniently washed his hands of responsibility, is it not incumbent on the Secretary of State to make a statement tomorrow against the background of chaos in the Scottish steel industry?

§ Mr. Biffen
I think that the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that it is a matter which could be pursued through the usual channels, and by those remarks I stand. The Department of Trade and Industry will be available for questions on Wednesday 15 January and the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make some of his points then.

§ Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, after the signing of the research programme by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and Caspar Weinberger a short time ago, we are fully committed to involving ourselves in the research programme? Is there not a case to be made for a debate on this subject? Practically every other Parliament in Eurpope has had a debate on the strategic defence initiative and many of the myths need to be cleared from this subject.

§ Mr. Biffen
I join my hon. Friend in underlining the significance of the decision on SDI. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate in Government time after we return, but doubtless my hon. Friend will have other opportunities that he can pursue.

§ Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill)
The Leader of the House has given an assurance over the past three weeks that he will try to provide time to debate the creation of an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier. How long will it be before we have a chance to have that debate?

§ Mr. Biffen
No, I cannot. This is a matter which will require a fairly thoughtful approach. Perhaps some discussions can proceed initially through the usual channels. I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)
May I refer my right hon. Friend again to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) about the disgraceful attempt by the Left-wing loonies of 578 Greater Manchester to attack the chief constable of that area? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the chief constable has a fine record of service to the police force? Is it not appropriate that the House should have an opportunity of debating the matter at a very early date?

§ Mr. Biffen
I think that the record and integrity of the chief constable is so self-evident that it hardly needs debating in the Chamber.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Does the Leader of the House recall that it was October when the Select Committee on Privileges published its report on the confidentiality of deliberations of Select Committees of the House? Does he not think that it is about time that we had a debate on this issue? Is he not aware of the most recent complaints that have been made concerning the Select Committee on the Environment? Is not a debate required urgently?

§ Mr. Biffen
I am not sure that there is an urgency which is comparable with the pressures which exist for many other subjects to be debated. As I was the Chairman of the Select Committee which produced the report, I have all the pride of paternity, but that does not mean that I think it has to exclude other items that should be debated. [Interruption.] I think that the right hon. Gentleman was about the only Privy Councillor who was not a member of the Select Committee. Therefore, I think that his remark is wholly appropriate.

§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern that is felt in Scotland over the outcome of the inquiry of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs into the proposed closure of Gartcosh. Is he aware of the final sentence in the Committee's report, which asks the Secretary of State to review the situation in the light of the evidence presented to the Committee? Anyone who cares to study the evidence—there is a substantial amount of it—will realise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland came up clearly with the correct answer in view of the evidence which the Select Committee accepted.

§ Mr. Biffen
I am most grateful to have my hon. Friend's interpretation of the findings of the departmental Select Committee. Probably, this last week before Christmas is the only occasion on which he might get away with it. I shall leave it at that.

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)
Is the Leader of the House aware of the strength of feeling in Scotland about the threat to the future of its integrated steel industry? Is he aware especially of the massive public support for the resistance of the work force at Gartcosh? Now that even the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, with its distorted representation, has come out in favour of the retention of Gartcosh, can we have an assurance that there will be a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland?

§ Mr. Biffen
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is anxious to place upon the record a rather different interpretation of the Select Committee's report from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I take account of the serious nature of the problem for the Scottish economy and the deep feelings that are engaged by it. I have said that the matter could be considered through the usual channels, and I think that I must stand by that.

579

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)
Will my right hon. Friend consider giving the House an opportunity to debate prisons and prison buildings? Is he aware that there are 46,900 people in prison and that, although there is some overcrowding, the Government, through the Home Office, have come up with the idea of super-prisons whereby Milton Keynes and Doncaster prisoners will be given the opportunity to have their own individual separate rooms with en suite bathrooms? Does he agree with me that prisons should deter and that they should not be regarded as luxury holiday homes?

§ Mr. Biffen
I suspect that my hon. Friend, like myself, had the advantage of listening to the "Today" programme. I think that that programme brought home the fact that the issue which he has raised is highly topical. I must confess that I can hold out no immediate prospect of a debate upon it in Government time. I recommend that my hon. Friend seeks to pursue the matter through the various other opportunities that are available to a Back-Bench Member.

§ Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington)
Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to note early-day motion 262, which I and a number of my hon. Friends bring to the attention of the House?
[That this House regrets that the United States of America now has congressional authority to develop new chemical weapons in 1987; notes that this approval is dependent upon the agreement of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies; calls upon the Secretary of State for Defence to withhold his agreement and demands that he encourages his counterparts in other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries to do likewise.]
The motion brings to the attention of the House that the President of the United States of America has Congressional authority to develop a new range of chemical weapons commencing in 1987. This is dependent upon the support of the NATO allies. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available to debate this important issue in view of the widespread public abhorrence of these obscene weapons?

§ Mr. Biffen
I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, which I know is one of considerable general interest.

§ Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the attacks on the chief constable of Manchester are but symptomatic of attacks elsewhere by Left-wing authorities which are seeking to undermine the independence of the police and public confidence in them? Will he take an opportunity at an early stage for the House to assert its full support for the police and their operational independence in future?

§ Mr. Biffen
I acknowledge what my hon. Friend has said and share his deep regard for the work and integrity of our police forces. I do not think that I can add to the answers which I have already given on this subject.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Did the Leader of the House notice that, when he read out the business for the week when we return after Christmas, no members of the Social Democratic party were present? Bearing in mind the difficulties of the Christmas post and the sending of the Whip to SDP members, would it not be a good idea if the 580 right hon. Gentleman made a special effort to ensure that they know of the business that will be before the House when we return?
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure also that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who has recently taken on a paid parliamentary consultancy with Barclays Bank—the bank operates in South Africa, which Social Democrats regard as a repugnant regime—is made aware that the House will be debating the Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill on Tuesday 14 January, and that he can come and explain what he is doing? When the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), was talking about Members taking other jobs and moonlighting, his mate in the SDP, the hon. Member for Stockton, South, was picking up several thousand pounds for a moonlighting job for Barclays. We would like to hear explanations from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Biffen
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is in grave danger of becoming a matinée idol. He has made some shrewd and constructive observations about the gap between the smug rhetoric of the leaders of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party and the rather lacklustre performance in the Division during the debate on Members' interests. I understand that many of my hon. Friends do not know whether those right hon. Gentlemen were in the television studios or on the ballroom floor, but, in either place, that is no way to lead a great political campaign.

Mr. Bruce Milian (Glasgow, Govan)
Returning to the question of Gartcosh, has the Leader of the House seen the letter that the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to the convener of the shop stewards, which was written on the same day as the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs reported and which repudiated that report? Since when have Select Committee reports been dealt with in that way by the Government? Is this not a disgraceful way in which to behave?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has said over recent months that, if he were presented with evidence, he would carefully consider it? Was not the behaviour of the Secretary of State yesterday a demonstration that that was a complete sham? The right hon. Gentleman has not considered the evidence. He has gone against the overwhelming evidence to the Select Committee which was brought out in its endorsement of the evidence in its recommendations. It is no good the Leader of the House saying that we can wait until 15 January to ask questions of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Decisions may have been taken by that time. Will the Leader of the House give an absolute assurance that we shall have a statement and a debate before the Government take any final decision on Gartcosh? There is overwhelming support in Scotland for the retention of Gartcosh. We want it to be retained. We do not want anything to happen by default through Government decisions taken while the House is in recess.

§ Mr. Biffen
In my experience, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is a courteous and most fair-minded man. I cannot conceive that he fits the description that is sought to be applied to him. This matter can be pursued through the usual channels.

581

§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)
Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the Prime Minister's words during Prime Minister's questions this afternoon when she said that the three years between the passing of the Lloyd's Bill and the scandals of today were not long enough to judge the effectiveness of that legislation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this contrasts with the fact that yesterday at 3.30 pm the all-party Select Committee on Scottish Affairs concluded that there was a link between the future of Gartcosh and Ravenscraig; yet, on the same day, the Secretary of State for Scotland chose to pre-empt the evidence and the Select Committee's conclusions by rejecting them in advance?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this will be seen in Scotland as a betrayal of everything that the Secretary of State has said about considering all the evidence on its merits? Will he ensure that the British Steel Corporation makes no irreversible decision before the House has had a chance to debate the conclusions of a very fair-minded report from the Select Committee?

§ Mr. Biffen
The observations of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the Lloyd's legislation were grounded in monumental common sense. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Gartcosh closure and the Select Committee's report. I can only repeat what I have said in respect of the matter being considered through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the return to the United Kingdom of Mr. Bob Astles, who was the right-hand man of that odious murderer Idi Amin? He has been allowed—apparently without much question—to return to this country. Is it correct that he has applied for renewal of his British citizenship? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that that will not be granted without the House having the opportunity to debate the request? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would regard Mr. Astles as a most unwelcome member of our citizenry.

§ Mr. Biffen
There is little that I can say in my capacity as Leader of the House about Mr. Bob Astles. I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations and will ensure that his remarks are put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

§ Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, North-East)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the otherwise excellent report by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was marred by its concluding paragraph, which did not flow from an objective view of the evidence? Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements whereby hon. Members may be encouraged to read not only the report but the evidence to the Committee? If that were done, we would not hear the kind of remarks made by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).

§ Mr. Biffen
I well understand my hon. Friend's point. It puts many of the Opposition's remarks into context. Clearly, this is a matter of great concern in Scotland. It is a matter of controversy. It can be considered through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)
May I thank the Leader of the House for the kind words he uttered—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) has breached privilege.

582

§ Mr. Henderson
No—it has been published.

§ Mr. Clarke
I do not often get the chance to speak, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would be quiet.
I thank the Leader of the House for the kind words he uttered to my constituents last week. Notwithstanding that, they are still confused. They cannot understand why a Select Committee could present, with an overwhelming majority, a recommendation to the House and why that recommendation has not been debated. In spite of that, the Secretary of State for Scotland has issued a letter. Is it not normal practice for a Select Committee to receive a formal response from the Secretary of State? Does that letter not therefore pre-empt the rights of the House? Is this not a serious matter?

§ Mr. Biffen
In no sense does it pre-empt the rights of the House. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to observe just what are the relationships between Select Committees and the Executive. The matter can of course be considered through the usual channels. I made that remark very early on in response to the Leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
Will the right hon. Gentleman turn up the Daily Telegraph of 3 December in which he can find an article written by Blake Baker headlined MPs ready to greet dubious immigrants which is stacked with information compiled by the immigration service management and members of the private office of the Minister of State, Home Office? Will the right hon. Gentleman note that I have tabled a question to the Home Secretary asking him to refer that article to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to ascertaining whether it breaches the Official Secrets Act?
Will the right hon. Gentleman note that it is now six weeks since the Minister of State, Home Office, made serious allegations against a number of hon. Members with regard to representations to the Home Office? Will he note also that the Home Secretary is now talking about preparing a code of practice for Members making such representations? Is it not high time that we had an opportunity for a debate so that this important matter could be discussed by all hon. Members of all parties who are concerned about the issue behind these serious allegations?

§ Mr. Biffen
I note that a question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been tabled, and doubtless the hon. Gentleman will receive the answer in due course. It would be improper for me to try to anticipate that answer. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. I cannot hold out the hope of an early debate, but the hon. Gentleman will have seen that a written answer was tabled on this topic earlier this week.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
As the Secretary of State for Defence has contradicted everything that was said on Monday about Westland by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and as the Secretary of State for Defence has argued his case publicly at every opportunity, including yesterday to the Select Committee on Defence, will the Leader of the House recognise the importance of a further statement on Westland being made before we break for the recess? As the only opportunity is tomorrow, will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the requests by hon. Members, including myself, for such a statement to be made?

583

§ Mr. Biffen
The hon. Gentleman portrays a total caricature of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on this matter and the collective statement on behalf of the Government by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and by the Prime Minister. But, of course, he will have noted how I responded to the Leader of the Opposition, and he would not expect me to respond in a more forthcoming manner to him than I would to his leader.