Adjournment (Easter and May Day) (Hansard, 25 March 1986)

§ Mr. Williams
I am sorry. I thought that I might have talked the debate out. [Interruption.] It is one of the few occasions on which a Whip has given me good advice. It may be symptomatic that it is not a Labour Whip.
We have had an entertaining period, which makes me recognise with some regret that we are about to go down for holidays. Nevertheless, I live in hope. One shining opportunity was raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). He raised hopes that these glorious, delightful moments that we have all shared in the weeks since Christmas will be revived when we come to the Shops Bill. He asked the Government what concessions they would make because it would be a matter of great difficulty for them. That makes me savour the prospect of a renewal of internal Government hostilities on the other side of our recess.

§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)
I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for reminding us how the modest difficulties concerning Westland are already so far behind us that we could almost be in another Parliament, let alone in another year. All the other difficulties will be put in a wholly revealing context as the economy proceeds, the success of Fulham are consolidated in the local authority elections, and the Labour party consoles itself with the new great ideological inquests that it must have as, once again, Socialism is rejected by the country. However, it is not the purpose of this mini debate on the most innocuous resolution that we should take a few days off at Easter to engage in that sort of contentious politics. Rather, it is my privilege to respond briefly, but comprehensively, to the questions raised.
877 I shall start with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who explained the reasons for his absence. In all quarters of the House there will be great sympathy with the cause of speech therapists. I understand that they have now presented a claim which is with the management side, and there we must leave the matter. However, I assure him that I shall raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) drew general support for his anxiety about the effective working of the powers of the General Medical Council, and I shall report his views. Meanwhile, I am certain that he and many other hon. Members will be sympathetic to the efforts of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) with his private Member's Bill. My hon. Friend can judge its prospective fortunes when he examines the Order Paper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) asked for a strategy for agriculture. I am certain that he is absolutely right in saying that the movement from a position of relative balance in food supplies and consumption to one which seems to be of endemic surplus in most major commodities calls for the most serious reconsideration of the strategy on which agricultural support is to proceed. I have also noted my hon. Friend's concern about the closure of Ministry of Defence establishments in his constituency. I will see that his anxieties have my reinforcement. I also notice that he hopes, in respect of the Shops Bill, for an open mind from the Government. Of course, my hon. Friend is asking for something that is perfectly obvious and it is not necessary for me to underline that.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) raised an issue that is familiar to the House, thanks to his persistent advocacy. I will of course do as he requested and forward the report of this debate to the Secretary of State for Defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) spoke about the problems of gipsies. Although we talk about human rights in other countries, I wonder how we would relish the United Nations telling us how gipsy encampments should be dealt with in this country. However, I will leave that matter to one side. That is not a jocular point but one of very real substance and I will of course do as requested by my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is much concerned about the closure of the company in his constituency. I take note of what he says and of his belief that the companies legislation has been ignored. That is very serious, if it should be so demonstrated, and I am certain that my hon. Friend will he putting his evidence prima facie to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I will report to my right hon. Friend the points that have been made.
My hon. Friends the Members for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) argued with great force their feelings about the NIREX proposals and I understand their procedural point about the relationship between the special development order and the Select Committee report. I will take a sympathetic view of that and I may be in touch with my hon. Friends in due course.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), with no constituency interest, I am sure, but out of concern for the wider national good, argued for 878 more flexible drinking laws. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I both gave answers on that topic within the past 10 days or so. Although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton lives in hope, as indeed everyone does, of the Government changing heart, I do not think that I can change that quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) hopes that the Government can avoid pilotage legislation. I have a vested interest in any arrangement which can do just as well what is proposed through legislation and which takes the place of legislation. I will therefore look with utmost interest and sympathy at whatever my hon. Friend has to say further on that matter.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) argued about the AOR fleet replacement vessel—with great fluency and with, I thought, the most commendable ideological elasticity. I have never heard a Labour Member argue the case for a free enterprise concern confronted by subsidised competition from a collectivist competitor. However, the hon. Gentleman speaks for the entire north-east, irrespective of party affiliation and I will pass on his remarks.
I would like to return to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North about the growing use of crossbows. I have the utmost sympathy with my hon. Friend's point and I will gladly refer to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the possibility of introducing a system of licensing. I have no doubt that that is a subject which could feature in private Members' legislation in the next Session of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) argued with great persuasiveness, although I am not in any position to comment on the virtue of her argument. Everyone in the House, however, will be concerned about our national procurement policy, and the importance of national sources, not to be exclusive, but to have the dominant role in that situation. As requested, I will pass on the hon. Lady's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Indeed, I think that next time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence might be at the Dispatch Box answering this debate rather than myself as he seemed to feature more prominently in the general requests than I did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) talked about the tercentenary celebrations that are planned, and I will ensure that his views are passed on to the organising committee. I was delighted that he gave a first-class historical survey. Hon. Members should realise that those were the very events on which we have based our traditions and allegiance. He also mercifully suggested a banquet, which added a certain lift to the whole subject.
I liked the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge to the bishops. Was it not wonderful that, in those days, seven bishops were prepared to stand apart from the modus, convention and commitment to the fashions of the day and, were prepared, on a point of principle, to become the noncomformists, CT the non-jurors? I wanted to say that about bishops.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish again raised the serious subject of places in higher education. I shall, of course, draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. 879 The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) demonstrated a most formidable case on the strategic defence initiative. I could not even begin to answer a fraction of his points. I hope, therefore, that he will excuse me if I merely say that, whatever our views about defence policy, is it not important to consider the fact that the defence system may become so important and dominant that the policy serves the defence system but really the defence system should serve the policy? I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in this topic. I hope that he will remain the good, sound, radical, irritating Member of Parliament he has been these 20-odd years. Those attributes have given him a place of special affection, at least in my eyes, in the House.
I shall look at the points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about Jim Smith and shall get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I understand the analogy the hon. Gentleman drew with the pit prop case in the 1960s and 1970s.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Will the right hon. Gentleman raise Jim Smith's case with the Treasury?.

§ Mr. Biffen
Yes, certainly.
I do not want to become involved in an internal dispute about Manchester, but the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Silvester) drew attention—the so-called graffiti case—is not the property of Manchester; it belongs to a much wider national debate. I therefore see no reason why the House 880 should not have the opportunity to take a view on those matters. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to the treatment of Nepalese Christians. Of course, a country with a strong tradition of association with the Gurkhas would take a keen interest in Nepal as a friendly neighbouring country and would wish to exercise friendship and tolerance in its appreciation of that country's social customs. I shall refer my hon. Friend's points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to realise the strict limits to which one can push the question of the influence which can be successfully harnessed to the spirit of friendship. Beyond those limits, it becomes an irksome and ineffectual attempt to interfere in the social arrangements of other countries.
The important point of this evening's debate is the motion. Without it, we could not have this short break. We work longer hours than any other Parliament in western Europe, and I think that we earn and deserve the break.