Business of the House (Hansard, 27 November 1986)

§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY I DECEMBER—Until about seven o'clock Second Reading of the Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill followed by Second Reading of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill.
Afterwards there will be a debate on a Government motion to take note of EC documents on emergency measures in the dairy sector. Details of the documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 2 DECEMBER—Opposition day (2nd Allotted Day), until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Scandal of Insider Dealing". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Misery of Fuel Poverty". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
There will be a debate on EC documents relating to the multi-fibre arrangement, new protocol and bilateral agreements. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the House of Commons Disqualification Act.
Motion on the European Assembly elections Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 3 DECEMBER—Opposition day (3rd Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on the need for a Select Committee of Privy Councillors to oversee the security services. Afterwards there will be a debate on defence. Both debates will arise on motions in the names of the Leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties.
Afterwards there will be a debate on an EC document relating to research and technological development. details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 4 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill.
Motions on the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order and the Health and personal Social Services and Public Health (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 5 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 8 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Education Bill.

§ Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
Does he accept that yesterday's announcement of 1,500 redundancies at Scott Lithgow is a devastating blow to the people of the lower Clyde and underlines the urgent need for support for the Scottish economy, initiatives to deal with the effects of the reduction in the North sea oil industry and action on the long-term decline in the shipbuilding sector which has been accelerated by the Government's policy of malign neglect? In view of the tragic results for workers losing their livelihood in an area where male unemployment is already more than 25 per cent., does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for the Government to provide time for a debate very soon on this and related issues?
It has become apparent that the Government are injecting £100 million of taxpayers' money to assist the privatisation of Rolls-Royce 1971. This follows the writing off in 1985 of £372 million of losses since the company's collapse as a private operation in 1971. When will the House be able to debate this further attempt by the Government to use public resources to promote the selling off of public assets?
The Government have imposed a £1.3 million cut on the Sports Council budget although the council requires extra help for schemes specifically related to work in deprived areas. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange time for a debate as soon as possible so that the Government can answer for their mean and entirely negative policy towards the Sports Council?
Finally, there is to be a debate next Wednesday evening on research and technological development. May I remind the Leader of the House of my question on 30 October asking that time be given to debate the widely supported idea of an office of technology assessment for Members of the House of Commons? On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would examine the possibility of a debate. Has he done so, and what is the result?

§ Mr. Biffen
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for putting those four points. I shall take them in the order presented.
I am sure that the whole House is united in appreciating the difficulties arising from the proposed redundancies at Scott Lithgow. I note the request for a debate on that and related matters, covering heavy engineering generally and in Scotland. Perhaps that could be looked at through the usual channels.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that our approach to the privatisation of Rolls-Royce will be characterised by the same strong sense of fiscal rectitude and general imagination—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman must not get too emotional about these things. One of the Government's striking successes has been our record on privatisation and I have no reason to suppose that it will not be sustained in respect of Rolls-Royce. Meanwhile, I note the right hon. Gentleman's interest in giving the topic wider publicity through a debate in the House and I will take account of that.
I understand that the Sports Council was informed some time ago of the amount that would be available so 451 that the figure could be taken into account in the council's budget. I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate, but we can look at the subject through the usual channels.
I have taken an interest in the facilities available for the House in technological terms and it would be appropriate for me to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the matter that he has raised was recently considered by the House of Commons Commission. I have no plans for a debate on the subject.

§ Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has always been a pleasure on Thursdays for the House to put questions to my right hon. Friend or his predecessors about almost any subject under the sun which could not be raised in the ordinary way? Indeed, it used to be referred to as "Back Benchers' Playtime". There is now another period occurring after questions, which might be called "Private Eye Time" when spurious points of order go on and on and people outside are maligned by hon. Members who would not dare to make the same comments outside the doors of this Chamber. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is intolerable, and may I suggest to him—you, Mr. Speaker, may listen in, of course—that it might be a good idea to allow just one point of order from each side on any subject after questions and take the rest at 10 o'clock at night? If my right hon. Friend can think of any better way to deal with the problem, perhaps he will tell us, as we need to do something about this problem.

§ Mr. Biffen
I thank my hon. Friend for his good-natured observations. He raises a very serious point. How we conduct ourselves in the House is a matter for the House itself, in the light of recommendations and guidance proffered by the Procedure Committee. I tend to be traditionalist and conservative in all these matters when innovations are proposed, but, looking back over the years, I believe that continence is essential if we are to maintain our traditional procedures. [Interruption.] I deflect my eyes from looking at the Opposition Front Bench to determine who are the more incontinent. The number of oral questions has been restricted and formalised and the 10-minute limit on speeches is increasingly accepted. In all these matters, when the House judges that there is abuse it will find a remedy. I hope that we shall all bear that in mind.

§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke on Trent, South)
That may well have been a good-natured observation by the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis), but it is nonsense because it would limit the rights of Back Benchers and would be unacceptable. It is always a pleasure to put a point to the Leader of the House, but he has an easy wicket and he is not giving substantive replies. I should like to ask one simple question. The Prime Minister has offered countless excuses for not replying to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about why the Australian case is continuing. May we take it for granted that the moment the case is concluded one way or another, the Prime Minister will make a full, frank and comprehensive major statement in the House answering all the points made by my right hon. Friend?

§ Mr. Biffen
The right hon. Gentleman must put that question at the appropriate moment. His attitude of mind demonstrates that he would not regard any answer as comprehensive and conclusive.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)
Bearing in mind the motion about Privy Councillors, which is due to be debated next week, and that there was a motion down for a Select Committee to investigate the issues raised by the Warnock report some two years ago—which had the substantial support of over 100 hon. Members—will my right hon. Friend consider after the public consultation process and in the light of the recent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) the remits of the public consultation that will take place under the proposed consultation paper that will be referred to a Select Committee next year. Such a Select Committee was appointed in Australia.

§ Mr. Biffen
My hon. Friend has asked me to take a view as soon as the current consultations have concluded. It would be extremely uncharitable of me to say that I would not take a view, because, of course, I shall.

§ Mr. Reg Freeson (Brent, East)
Will the Leader of the House invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House next week, if not before then, to clarify misleading statements that he made in his autumn statement, namely that in the coming year there will be an increase of about £450 million in housing investment for local authorities? Within a day or so of that misleading statement, a reduction was announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In real terms, that reduction is 11 per cent. across the country, and my own authority in the hard-pressed housing area of Brent in north-west London has had a reduction of 18 per cent. in real terms. That is a loss of about £40 million in 1987 compared to expenditure in the current year. How can it be true that £450 million extra is being placed in the hands of local authorities next year? Was that not totally misleading and should not the Chancellor come to the House to explain it?

§ Mr. Biffen
I repudiate at once the charge that that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would utter misleading statements. However, I shall refer to him the right hon. Gentleman's points.

§ Sir Ian Percival (Southport)
My right hon. Friend will no doubt have observed that since he last commented on early-day motion 35, the number of signatories has gone up from 120 to 162.
[That this House congratulates and thanks all those whose efforts contributed to the prevention of the hideous crime planned, executed and so nearly effected by Nezar Hindawi, and to his conviction; recognises the existence of international gangs who are prepared to commit mass murder in pursuit of their objectives and that the maximum penalty permitted by law of life imprisonment does not appear to be a sufficient deterrent; believes that fresh consideration should be given to extending the death penalty, now limited to crimes of treason and piracy; and asks the Leader of the House to give time for these matters to be debated.]
May I draw to his attention the fact that of those signatories at least 12 are hon. Members who voted against the death penalty on the first vote on 13 July 1983? That shows that this may not be such a closed shop as some 453 people would like to think. I point out to my right hon. Friend, first, the number of hon. Members who have signed; secondly, that those hon. Members represent constituents all over Great Britain; thirdly, that they are of all seniorities and ages; and, fourthly, that they are of all kinds. Does he not accept that that combination of factors amounts to a substantial case for the allocation of time for debate?

§ Mr. Biffen
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for updating the statistics of this proposition. Later this afternoon we shall have the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill. I hope that he will consider how that might be used to provide the debate that he seeks.

§ Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)
Following your earlier remarks, Mr. Speaker, will the Leader of the House speak to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure with a view to getting an early report on the use of the Order Paper for early-day motions? Is it not extraordinary that an hon. Member can take a piece of paper, write on it suspicions that Lord Rothschild was a Soviet spy and the fifth man, and can hand it in with allegations that he would not dare to make outside this House?

§ Mr. Biffen
I must remind my hon. Friend that his remarks apply equally to words used in debate. I understand his point and have a lively sympathy for it. The terms that established the Select Committee on Procedure allow it to carry out its work without any initiation from me, but I shall certainly draw to the Chairman's attention the point that my hon. Friend makes.

§ Mr. Nick Raynsford (Fulham)
I should like to ask the Leader of the House about the rather strange procedures governing the Channel Tunnel Bill, which is due to be considered in Standing Committee from next Tuesday, before the special report by the Select Committee has been submitted to the House and considered by hon. Members. Is it not extraordinary that a Standing Committee should be asked to consider a Bill without hon. Members first having had an opportunity to consider a full report from the Select Committee? Will the Leader of the House agree to defer the sitting of the Standing Committee by at least a week to enable hon. Members to see this report and comment upon it?

§ Mr. Biffen
I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point, but I think that the report is to be published tomorrow.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
No doubt my right hon. Friend will be aware of the serious and increasing anxiety in the House about the possible connection between a court case now taking place in Australia and possible communications between people involved in that case and hon. Members. I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares that anxiety, but does he share it sufficiently to allow time in the near future for the House to give the fullest possible consideration to the effects that that may have on the standing of this House and of the possible abuse of its procedures in cases where legal proceedings taking place in another country may somehow be transmitted into the House, thus abusing the sub judice rule in that country or here?

§ Mr. Biffen
My hon. Friend makes his point most delicately and without any offensive naming of names. I shall certainly look at the point that he raises, because I realise that it is causing concern.

§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens South)
The Leader of the House will know that about a fortnight ago I asked him a question about prisons and imprisonment. Bearing in mind that prisons for females may be full and that women are being held in police stations either after remand in custody or, indeed, after sentencing, and that we are about to debate the Criminal Justice Bill which proposes to increase sentences passed by the courts, does he not agree that time should be found between now and Christmas for the sensitive subject of prisons and imprisonment to be debated?

§ Mr. Biffen
I understand the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point. Equally, I am aware of the pressure on the time of the House between now and Christmas. I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman who knows perfectly well that he can make a speech on the matters he mentions later this afternoon.

§ Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)
I am looking forward, if that is the right term, to next Wednesday's debate initiated by the alliance on its proposal to set up a Select Committee on security. Am I right in thinking that my right hon. Friend will reply to that debate? I am sorry that he shakes his head, because I was going to suggest that if he did take part he could point out to the leader of the SDP that the whole essence of having a secret service is to keep it secret.

§ Mr. Biffen
I have no authority over those who are chosen to take the lead parts in debates and for that reason I cannot answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question. In his second point, he neatly made in a sentence a devastating rebuttal of what I suspect will be the essence of the alliance attack, and I congratulate him on doing that.

§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)
We now know that President Reagan supplied arms to Iran in order to finance the Contras, yet the Prime Minister still chooses selectively to condemn state terrorism. In the light of that, will the Leader of the House now reconsider his reply to me at this time last week, about the secret counter-insurgency conference that took place in London earlier this month? The Ministry of Defence has now confirmed that the second-in-command of 2 Para attended and spoke at the conference. The conference was called to discuss terrorist activities against the Governments of Nicaragua, Angola and Mozambique. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement?

§ Mr. Biffen
Of course I well recall the point that the hon. Gentleman raised and I will most certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)
In his consideration of the proceedings of the House and the business for next week, will my right hon. Friend read carefully the question put to the Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) concerning security? That question makes suggestions that could, if implemented, save the Government a great deal 455 of embarrassment and may in the long term save a great deal of parliamentary time-wasting, as happened with Westland.

§ Mr. Biffen
I will of course draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He may have an opportunity to elaborate that argument in Wednesday's debate.

§ Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington)
Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to read the 11th annual report of the European regional development fund which was published in October 1986? Page 108 shows that in the distribution of the regional fund project throughout the United Kingdom, the north of England has the seventh lowest percentage allocation out of the nine regions, one third of what the highest region receives and a half of what it would get if the fund was divided evenly. Yet the north has consistently had the highest level of unemployment in Great Britain, second only to Northern Ireland. Is there not something tragically wrong with that allocation?
As the recent publication "Inequalities of Health in the North" shows quite clearly the relationship between bad health and high unemployment, will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement by the appropriate Minister?

§ Mr. Biffen
The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's linked question is no; the answer to the second is that I conclude from the statistics that he mentioned that it is very difficult to establish any satisfactory relationship between public expenditure and employment creation. With regard to his third point, I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

§ Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that today is the first anniversary of the debate on the Anglo-Irish agreement? Since that agreement has not achieved any of its three objectives of peace, reconciliation and stability, and since there is political stalemate in the Province, which must be harmful in the long term, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that time will be found for the House to debate the success or otherwise of the agreement?

§ Mr. Biffen
I will, of course, bear in mind my hon. Friend's request. I must observe that there is very little available time for general debate between now and Christmas. Northern Ireland business does feature this week. Although it is not drawn as widely as my hon. Friend may wish, I am sure that he can make some of his points then.

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)
May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to an aspect of security which concerns the people of Leicestershire but has not been mentioned in this House? I refer to the Government's persistent refusal not to assure us that when nuclear convoys—vehicles carrying nuclear weapons—pass through the county, prior warning will be given to the emergency services. As there is such a convoy passing through Leicestershire at this moment, and staying overnight either in or near the county, may we have an 456 immediate statement—[Interruption.] This matter is perhaps regarded with humour by others, but certainly not by Opposition Members.

§ Mr. Biffen
I will, of course, consider the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but I am sure that Leicester is no more exposed in this matter than the rest of the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, North-East)
Does my right hon. Friend accept my support for the plea made by the Leader of the Opposition—who has now left the Chamber—for a debate on the Scottish economy? It might then be explained to the right hon. Gentleman that during five years of continuous growth in the British economy and rising standards of living, the position of Scotland has improved relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill is an even more urgent matter for Second Reading debate?

§ Mr. Biffen
I take note of what my hon. Friend said. He will realise that we are anxious for the Scottish rates Bill to be launched as early as possible. Of course I take account of his point about the importance of having debates on Scotland, and the Scottish Grand Committee may provide an appropriate forum for such a debate.

§ Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)
Will the Leader of the House give me clarification over the point I raised earlier about the attendance and invalid care allowances for terminal cases? I do not believe that any hon. Member on either side ever intended when passing the legislation that the six-months rule should apply in such cases. This is an exceptional issue.
On a previous occasion, when we required equipment for the disabled, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) responded by giving emergency supplies, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Will he study this matter and, if legislation is required, help to bring it to the House or ask his right hon. Friend to do so?

§ Mr. Biffen
I heard the hon. Gentleman put his point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I can do nothing but reiterate her answer. I shall certainly look into the situation and be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

§ Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)
Will my right hon. Friend consider changing the allocation of time for debates on Friday for the simple reason that we now have what is known as the Eleven o'clock farce, whereby every Friday at 11 o'clock an Opposition Front Bench spokesman comes forward with a spurious point of order simply to continue that week's fictional debate for the media for Friday and Saturday morning. That disturbs those who are anxious to engage in serious debate on Fridays.

§ Mr. Biffen
I will take away the problem and think about it, but I cannot offer the prospect of an early resolution.

§ Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)
Has the Leader of the House noticed early-day motion 92 and 93, standing in my name?
[That this House condemns the Estate Management Company, Estate House, 332A Regents Park Road, London, for its practice of purchasing the leaseholds of 457 residential property for the express purpose of reselling such leases to home owners at a profit; further condemns the dubious methods used by this company towards unwilling purchasers which includes threats of the loss of their homes; and calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to investigate the possibility of introducing new legislation to better protect home owners from this and similar abuses.]
[That this House condemns the London and Aukland Estates Company Ltd, of 26 Hazelwood Road, Nottingham, for its practice of purchasing the leaseholds of residential property for the express purpose of reselling such leases to home owners at a profit; further condemns the dubious methods used by this company towards unwilling purchasers which includes threats of loss of their homes; and calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to investigate the possibility of introducing new legislation tobetter protect home owners from this and similar abuses.]
They refer to the growing practice in the north of England of unscrupulous firms buying and selling ground rent. Many people, particularly the elderly in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends are upset by the activities of the firms. Can we have an early debate, or will the right hon. Gentleman at least alert the appropriate Minister to the practice?

§ Mr. Biffen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the early-day motions. I will certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate, but the Government will shortly be introducing legislation in respect of leaseholders. I think that on that occasion the hon. Gentleman will find it appropriate to make his speech.

§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on the Short money for the payment of Opposition offices out of public funds, so that we can discover whether the head of the press office of the Leader of the Opposition is in Australia attending the infamous trial as part of her holiday, or whether she is on official business and paid out of public funds?

§ Mr. Biffen
I should make it clear that decisions on the so-called Short money have been made for the remainder of this Parliament. Therefore, in the natural course of events, there will not be an opportunity for such a debate. I am sure that the issue that was raised by my hon. Friend is a matter of public concern. I am certain that he will have his opportunity, one way or another, to see that the House knows more.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
With reference to next week's debate on the security services, is the Leader of the House asking us to accept that he does not know who will speak on behalf of the Government, or is he just unwilling to admit that, again, he has drawn the short straw?

§ Mr. Biffen
Whatever I know or do not know, successive generations of Leaders of the House have stood at the Dispatch Box and said that they were not responsible for naming those who are to take part in debates.

§ Mr. Peter Lilley (St. Albans)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the debate on the scandal of insider trading is intended to provide an opportunity for the House to 458 debate the dealing in the House by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and sundry others, on the basis of insider links with those opposing the Government and the courts of a foreign country?

§ Mr. Biffen
I am always intrigued by my hon. Friend's ingenuity. He will know that it is not for me to comment on what might be deemed to be in order.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)
When may we expect a ministerial statement on the progress of negotiations concerning the new EEC directive on shipbuilding? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the current directive expires on 31 December 1986. This matter is of crucial importance to my constituents in the light of yesterday's announcement by Scott Lithgow.

§ Mr. Biffen
I take account of what the hon. Gentleman said. I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate also that we have a procedure for examining Community documents and making recommendations for their parliamentary consideration. I am sure that that will also apply to these documents.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that there is a strong feeling that there is daily contact between those who are in opposition to the Crown in Australia and the Opposition Front Bench—people not far removed from the Leader of the Opposition, if not the Leader of the Opposition himself—and that it is impossible for Lord Rothschild to answer unfounded slurs against him. We know that it is Opposition business next week. Will my right hon. Friend, through the usual channels, ask the Leader of the Opposition if he wants to have the opportunity to clear his name?

§ Mr. Biffen
I am grateful for the point that my hon. Friend made in characteristically forceful fashion. I shall pass his remarks on to the Leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)
Following the resounding rejection by Scottish teachers yesterday of the Rifkind package—a package of pay and conditions which bore little resemblance to the recommendations of the independent report on teachers' pay and conditions—may we expect a statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland next week, or as soon as possible, to ensure that there is no more avoidable disruption of education in Scotland?

§ Mr. Biffen
I do not entirely accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I shall be in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Clearly, this is a matter of great concern in Scotland.

§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)
I reinforce the point made. by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) about the Channel Tunnel Bill. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Kent in particular, district councils and many individual petitioners—quite apart from Members of Parliament—would feel a sense of outrage if the Select Committee's report could not be read or commented on by them prior to the Bill being considered in Committee on Tuesday? Yet again, it would 459 besmirch the Government's already tattered reputation for fair play in this matter if the Select Committee's report were not available for proper consideration in Committee.

§ Mr. Biffen
The Government have a rather good reputation in this matter. I was asked a plain, straight and serious question by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford). I promised that I would look into it. The report will be available tomorrow. I shall also bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)
Will my right hon. Friend examine the business for Tuesday and confirm that a number of subjects such as insider trading and fuel poverty, do not attract nearly as much support from Opposition Members as the early-day motions tabled by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) calling for debate on the Security Commission? Does my right hon. Friend not find it extremely surprising, as Opposition Members are concerned about fuel poverty and insider dealing, that they have never tabled any early-day motions about them? Perhaps the hon. Member for Workington is advising the alliance about what is to come on Wednesday.
I reassure my right hon. Friend that, as Leicester is a nuclear-fee zone, we do not expect that there will be any convoys carrying nuclear material through the city.

§ Mr. Biffen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his second point. Alas, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has fled the Chamber. It would have been a most magnificent put-down if I had been equipped with that information.
Over the years in this House, one learns to distinguish froth from substance. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is a practitioner of froth. But, even so, froth can be poisonous. My hon. Friends are right to take account of the way in which the Order Paper has been used and the subject for which it has been used. They realise that there are matters of real substance here.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
I refer to the serious case of my constituent, Miss Maureen McGoldrick, who is being pursued by the Brent Labour council—[Interruption]—no doubt to the delight of the hon. Member for, Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). First, she was pursued on an anti-racist basis. She now seems to be pursued by the Brent Labour council carrying out some sort of vicious personal, vendetta. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to come to the House and make a statement so that we can secure this woman's freedom from the clutches of the council and ensure proper education for the children in her school?

§ Mr. Biffen
I understand only too well the points that my hon. Friend has made and the very real sense of 460 commitment with which he made them. I know that he has supporters ranging beyond the Government Benches. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I cannot hold out to optimistic a hope that he will be able to make a statement, since the matter is substantially outside his control.

§ Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glanford and Scunthorpe)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Mr. Peter Wright is a self-confessed traitor. He will be aware also that the British Government have brought an action against Mr. Wright to prevent publication of a book in Australia that will seriously undermine Britain's security interests. Will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to come to the House tonight to make a statement about the daily contacts that are taking place between the office of the Leader of the Opposition and lawyers acting for Mr. Wright? In particular, will he make a statement about whether it is desirable that the Crown's interest in this case should be undermined in the House by the Leader of the Opposition and those on the Opposition Benches?

§ Mr. Biffen
My hon. Friend has made a sombre and serious point. He has asked me to refer it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, with a view to having a statement made this evening. I shall do that.

§ Mr. Richard Holt (Laugbaurgh)
Following that lighthearted question, will my right hon. Friend use all his powers of persuasion to bring the appropriate Minister to the Dispatch Box to congratulate British Rail on its decision to reintroduce on its menus as from next Monday, the excellent northern dish, black pudding?

§ Mr. Biffen
We have discussed a range of issues this afternoon. I am glad that we are touching some more traditional aspects of our national life. I shall certainly look into the matter. Like my hon. Friend, I am a little uncertain as to who would wish to claim ministerial responsibility for this matter.

§ Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), in tabling vast numbers of early-day motions, is converting the Order Paper into something that is little better than junk mail? The effect is also to make this piece of paper thicker and thicker, day by day. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might suggest that the Order Paper be divided into separable sections—just like the Sunday newspapers. We might have a colour supplement, the editor of which could be the hon. Member for Workington. It would have the advantage of being a detachable piece of paper that we could throw away without having to bother to read it in the morning and suffer indigestion after breakfast. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Biffen
That is porridge.
I take note of what my hon. Friend says. Again, that is a matter that could be considered by the Procedure Committee.