Business of the House (Hansard, 5 February 1987)

§ Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn)
May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

§ The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Remaining stages of the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill.
Motions relating to the Dockyard Services (Devonport) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order and the Dockyard Services (Rosyth) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order.
TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY — Opposition Day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Housing Crisis and the Rise in Homelessness".
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Timetable motion on the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill. Remaining stages of the Petroleum Bill.
Motions on Scottish housing grant and revenue orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on a Government motion on the Government's employment and training initiatives, European Community document No. 10119/86 on an action programme for employment growth will be relevant to the debate.
FRIDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 16 FEBRUARY — Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill (Lords).
It is expected that the Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

§ Mr. Kinnock
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Government's decision to put a guillotine on the Abolition of Domestic Rates, etc. (Scotland) Bill is a disgrace. Every part of the legislative process of this Bill has been marked by the Government's disregard for the proper process of informed debate. This Bill is unfair and completely unwanted by the people of Scotland. Will the Government reconsider their decision and at least allow further time for the Scottish people to have their case put fully in the House?
On a further point about Scotland, is the Leader of the House aware that, in the matter of the decision to close the Caterpillar tractor plant at Uddingston, with a loss of over 1,200 jobs, the Secretary of State for Scotland has so far made several statements outside the House voicing his amazement and disappointment but has made no statement to the House since the last Scottish Question Time? Bearing in mind the enthusiastic and optimistic references to Caterpillar that the Secretary of State made in his new year message, does the Leader of the House not think it high time that his right hon. Friend came to the 1144 House to make a statement, preferably in a debate—in any case, very quickly — before he becomes a mere public mourner for private crimes committed by the Caterpillar company?
Yesterday, the Lord Advocate — this matter has already been referred to in the House today—made a statement in the other place about the raid that the special branch carried out on the BBC in Scotland. I understand that, in response to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Solicitor-General for Scotland said that he was willing to make a statement about the matter in the House of Commons. In view of that, and in view of the inconsistency between what the Secretary of State for Scotland told the House on Tuesday and what the Lord Advocate told the other place yesterday, does the Leader of the House agree that the Solicitor-General for Scotland's offer to make a statement here should be taken up immediately, and, at the very latest at the beginning of next week?
Has the Leader of the House seen the article in today's edition of The Guardian that suggests that the Zircon details were published in an industrial newsletter called "Interspace" in 1984? Will he ask the Home Secretary to investigate this report and get him to make a statement to the House next week? It is clear that such information could affect the context of the Government's present actions under the Official Secrets Act.
Once again, I ask the Leader of the House to give urgent consideration to having a debate on the great and growing crisis of the decline in Britain's Merchant Navy. I realise that the issue was referred to in the debates on the Navy earlier this week, particularly in excellent speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann). In the past seven years, the fleet has shrunk by over 50 per cent. to fewer than 500 vessels. Surely, as I have said before, that must be a matter of great national interest arid worthy of a debate in Government time. I urge the Leader of the House to make that time available.
Finally, in view of the confidence shown in market forces that led to the sale of Westland plc to Sikorsky a year ago, recent news of the company's financial crisis must come as a severe disappointment to the Government, as indeed it does to the Opposition and to Westland's workers. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government will bail out the company? Will he arrange for a statement to be made on the issue by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry early next week?

§ Mr. Biffen
I shall take up the six points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Already, up to 86 hours have been devoted to the Abolition of Domestic Rates, etc. (Scotland) Bill. So far, we have reached only clause 17 of a Bill that contains 34 clauses and six schedules. That is a reasonable background against which to understand the Government's proposals. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving us a trailer of the arguments that will be used by the Opposition in that item of business on Wednesday.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, has made clear his opposition to the closure of the Caterpillar factory. I shall draw his attention to the request that a statement be made on this topic.
1145 The Leader of the Opposition referred to matters that were the subject of exchanges earlier today about remarks by the Lord Advocate in another place. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland has never committed himself to making a statement, but I shall look into the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I make this observation in the context that, in any case, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will answer questions on Wednesday.
I assure the Leader of the Opposition that The Guardian newspaper is not my early morning reading. It has that engaging—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Sun."] I rightly have a different set of priorities, and I accept the guidance proffered by the right hon. Gentleman. That apart, I shall of course refer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the point that he raised.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Merchant Navy featured in powerful contributions by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), and I do not think that I can offer the early prospect of a further debate on the Merchant Navy, since it was debated only a few days ago. [Interruption.] I just wonder how many debates on the Merchant Navy the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) cheerfully fielded during his days in office. I suspect that he encountered many more local difficulties than I ever have to encounter.
As to Westland, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the point that the right hon. Gentleman raised.

§ Sir George Young (Ealing, Acton)
In view of the widespread public debate about the sentences following the crimes committed at the Ealing vicarage, which is in my constituency, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could find time for a general debate on sentencing policy, in particular on the place of rape in the general tariff of sentences that is apparently available at the moment?

§ Mr. Biffen
The passage of the Criminal Justice Bill might conceivably enable my hon. Friend to make the speech that he has in mind. I realise that this recent event has caught the full mind and the full distaste of the public at large, and also that of this House. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request about the possibility of a debate on sentencing policy, but I have to say that there can be no early prospect of such a debate in Government time.

§ Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill)
In view of the growing and widespread public concern about the whereabouts of Mr. Terry Waite, will the Leader of the House find out whether there is anything useful that the Government can tell the House next week about his whereabouts and his present condition? Also, does he agree that the film "Keeping the Peace" ought to be shown in the precincts some time next week? Before films of this kind are made, does he not think that it would be useful if discussions were held with the other parties to ensure that a proper balance is maintained between propaganda and public information?

§ Mr. Biffen
Of course I shall refer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the point that the hon. Gentleman 1146 has made about Mr. Waite. As to his second point, he raises—perhaps deliberately and in a highly contentious fashion—a protest about what I believe is an estimable film, although I have not yet seen it.

§ Sir John Page (Harrow, West)
In view of the calm sunshine in which the Government are at present basking, will the Leader of the House be kind enough to try to find time for a very short debate on early-day motion 367 about the floodlighting of the statute of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square?
[That this House would welcome the permanent floodlighting of the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square as a reminder of his special place in British history and in order to create a new night-time landmark in London; and calls upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to make the necessary arrangements forthwith.]
That suggestion was put to me by one of the police officers in the House, remembering how very economical and effective is the lighting of the statue of George V in Abingdon place.

§ Mr. Biffen
If I am basking in political sunshine, there must be some redress under misleading merchandise marks. As to my hon. Friend's specific point about the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I am sure that it will have widespread support.

§ Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)
Will the Leader of the House take into consideration the widespread concern, particularly of south Yorkshire Members of Parliament, about the differences of opinion between Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate and the Secretary of State for the Environment regarding the viability of the manning of the south Yorkshire fire services, which is leading to inadequate fire cover for the people of south Yorkshire?

§ Mr. Biffen
I can best help the hon. Gentleman by referring that point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

§ Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole House will welcome the opportunity that is presented by next Tuesday's debate on the order to continue the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984? It must be particularly welcome to the Leader of the Opposition, with his new-found interest in and commitment to national security. It gives him the opportunity of whipping his right hon. and hon. Friends to support the government on this Bill. Has the right hon. Gentleman given any indication yet of what the policy of the Labour party will be on Tuesday?

§ Mr. Biffen
No, but I think that my hon. Friend should try to learn to be an optimist and to hope that the Labour party will be with us in the Lobby supporting their measure.

§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
Is the Leader of the House aware that people such as haemophiliacs who have AIDS as a result of blood transfusions from the National Health Service could eventually be considered victims of manslaughter by the NHS and could certainly be considered to be victims of medical accidents? Could we therefore have a debate on the case for paying them no-fault compensation?

§ Mr. Biffen
I see no prospect of time being available for a debate—on an admittedly important topic—over the next few weeks. but the right hon. Gentleman might try to use his skill and authority in an Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Michael Forsyth (Stirling)
In considering the Leader of the Opposition's synthetic outrage about the timetabling of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Labour party has made if perfectly clear in Committee that it is committed to retaining the rating system, wants regular revaluations and wishes to extend rating to cover agricultural land and buildings? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the strictures of the Glasgow Herald, which denounced the Opposition's performance on the basis that it is weak, flabby, ineffective and confused?

§ Mr. Biffen
I hope that the debate on Wednesday on timetable provisions will give the Labour party an opportunity to demonstrate that it will continue to retain these anachronistic forms of taxation, including the rating of agricultural land. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's other point.

§ Mr. Gregor MacKenzie (Glasgow, Rutherglen)
Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision to timetable the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, which is probably the most controversial, important and fundamental Bill of a Scottish character that has come before the House for many years? It deserves our consideration. There is no reason to rush the Bill through, because there is no business waiting to go into the Scottish Standing Committee. Therefore, there is no rush of other business for Scottish Members.

§ Mr. Biffen
I do not expect to become a folk hero for timetabling the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, but neither do I expect to be a victim of deeply held abuse and hatred from those who nominally have to oppose the measure.

§ Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)
Regarding the draft Police (Northern Ireland) Order, is my right hon. Friend aware that the present take-it-or-leave-it procedure, whereby we debate this type of order, causes considerable difficulties for hon. Members? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although that order applies to a Northern Ireland matter that has been debated in the United Kingdom, it departs from that matter in significant ways. Under the present procedure, there is no way in which those hon. Members who wish the order to go through as a whole can debate or amend particular parts of the order that are different in Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend put his inventive mind to work to see whether various resolutions can be put forward so that the House can discuss, and if necessary vote on, those matters that are essentially different from those that have been debated already in the case of England and Wales?

§ Mr. Biffen
There are sound reasons why the conventions have developed in the way that they have. None the less, my hon. Friend has made a legitimate point. Perhaps we can consider it further through the usual channels.

§ Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton)
I assume that the Prime Minister will be making a statement following her visit to the Soviet Union, but has the Leader of the House noticed that, more than seven weeks ahead of that visit, hon. Members are telling the right hon. Lady 1148 of matters that they would like her to raise while she is there? Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement before her visit to the Soviet Union, so that she can outline the matters with which she intends to deal, answer questions and take note of points that hon. Members might like her to raise?

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
She is electioneering.

§ Mr. Biffen
It is perfectly natural that a lively interest should be shown on both sides of the House about the impending visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Russia. No doubt that interest will intensify, much to the discomfort of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

§ Mr. Skinner
Fancy using the hustings in Moscow.

§ Mr. Biffen
Where would we be without the hon. Gentleman? I am not sure that there is a good case for the innovation sought by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Larnond), but I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it.

§ Mr. Tom Sackville (Bolton, West)
In view of the widespread condemnation of the Soviet Union's failure to observe the Helsinki Accord, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the case of Anatoly Koryagin, a distinguished psychiatrist, who was imprisoned following his protests at the abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, who has been systematically tortured by starvation, cold and lack of medical facilities and who, contrary to announcements in the press last week, has still not been released? In fact, his wife and family have heard nothing from him and fear that he may be close to death.

§ Mr. Biffen
I think that my hon. Friend will realise why it would be a little hazardous for me to undertake to find Government time for such a debate, but I am sure that he will concede the opportunities that exist for an Adjournment debate on the subject.

§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
I recognise that the Leader of the House has no ambition to be a folk hero in Scotland—an ambition that he will certainly not realise. But is there any reason why he should court the role of the pantomime demon king by introducing the absurd timetable motion on the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, in view of the fact that the Committee has sat for a mere five weeks and has already completed consideration of half the Bill — 17 clauses in 17 sittings? For what sort of productivity is the right hon. Gentleman looking? Why is he acting in a fashion that is close to unconstitutional?

§ Mr. Biffen
The hon. Gentleman makes up for the mildness of his manner with the absurd exaggeration of his speech and charges. I have portrayed a very reasonable case. As the hon. Gentleman said, 86 hours have been devoted to the Bill and the Committee is only half way through the clauses. It is perfectly reasonable, therefore, to have measured progress hereafter with the assistance of a timetable.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the procedures arid privileges of the House, especially since the film which you, Mr. Speaker, said should not be shown in the House is apparently being shown with impunity the length arid breadth of the land, encouraged by the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition has apparently made no attempt 1149 to stop the filming, despite his original statement that he believed that it was not in the national interest that the film should be shown. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity to review its position and that of the Opposition and the relationship between national security and your role, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Leader of the Opposition?

§ Mr. Biffen
I shall bear in mind the points so forcefully put by my hon. Friend. The House may prefer to await the report which will eventually be received from the Privileges Committee.

Mr. Bruce Milian (Glasgow, Govan)
Reverting to the special branch raid on BBC Glasgow, is the Leader of the House aware that we have seen not only the statement by the Lord Advocate in the other place yesterday but the terms of the warrant which the Lord Advocate was involved in drawing up and which he approved? It is clear from the warrant that it was directed not just at the one Zircon film but at all six films in the series "The Secret Society". In those circumstances, the matter cannot possibly be allowed to rest, since Ministers deliberately obscured the terms of the warrant in the debate in the House on Thursday. Another statement must be made in the House on this important matter.

§ Mr. Biffen
I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I am sorry that he uses language that implies deception by my right hon. Friends—[Interruption.]—and I am sorry that he chooses to repeat it from a sedentary position. I cannot add anything to the answer that I gave the leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)
May I appeal yet again to my right hon. Friend's rural —indeed rustic—sense of benevelence to find out whether he can provide time for a debate on agriculture? Is he aware that the Common Market's decisions before Christmas have not been unanimously received with enthusiasm by the farming community? Is it not high time that we had a debate on those decisions?

§ Mr. Biffen
I thank my hon. Friend. I shall bear his points very much in mind. I think that my hon. Friend understands that a great many agricultural affairs are now directed through the activities of the European Community and that gives us some opportunities from time to time. I shall, however, further consider my hon. Friend's point.

§ Mr. Hugh Brown (Glasgow, Provan)
Will the Leader of the House reconsider Wednesday's business on the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill? Is he aware that the Government got off to a bad start in Committee by moving an unprecedented and provocative sittings motion, the like of which I have never seen before? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a narrow distinction may be drawn on the part of many Scottish Members between filibustering and natural verbosity?

§ Mr. Biffen
I notice the delicate distinction which the hon. Gentleman throws out as a lifeline for Wednesday's debate.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)
When may we have a debate on Lord Chief Justice Lane's guidelines on sentencing in rape cases? Does my right hon. Friend accept 1150 that outrage is felt throughout the country at the fact that the average sentence for rape is only three and a half years and that only 20 months are served? May we have an opportunity to provide for stiffer sentences—a minimum of 25 years with no parole and a right of appeal against the absurdly lenient sentences which are being imposed, even by Mr. Justice Leonard in the Ealing vicarage case?

§ Mr. Biffen
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) raised this point and I gave as measured a reply as I could. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that answer as having anticipated his question.

§ Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge)
I draw the attenion of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 524 on Council Aid.
[That this House congratulates the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead Council and War on Want on the successful launch of Council aid; recognises the potential of this latest initiative to relieve poverty and suffering in the Third World; and calls upon local authorities throughout the United Kingdom to play their full part, collectively and individually, to support Council Aid during 1987.]
The motion has the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman join us in congratulating Gateshead metropolitan borough council and War on Want on their efforts to encourage local authorities to raise funds for the Third World during 1987? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate on the Third World's continuing problems, which have not gone away because the television cameras were withdrawn?

§ Mr. Biffen
I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is certainly powerfully true that the problems remain long after the passing fashion of the media. I shall look at the early-day motion and ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the relevant Minister.

§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)
I was rather disappointed by my right hon. Friend's answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Instead of saying that there would not be a debate on the narrow subject which was raised, my right hon. Friend should urge an early debate on the whole subject of AIDS so that the House has the opportunity to give a lead to the country on the dangerous nature of this disease and its effects and to clear up much of the ignorance and superstition that exists.

§ Mr. Biffen
I note what my hon. Friend says. I should have thought that the House had an extremely good, comprehensive and instructive debate just before Christmas. In some sense, we have moved on to the more specific issues mentioned by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and I shall not commend the expectation of Government time for another general debate.

§ Mr. James Hamilton (Motherwell, North)
Will the Leader of the House pay special attention to the request by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the Caterpillar tractor company? Will he bear in mind that that company acted ruthlessly and viciously from square one? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, because he was involved in discussions with the American company before and after it was closed? The right hon.
1151 and learned Gentleman did not have the courtesy to come to the House and declare himself. Will the Leader of the House make it clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland must tell us where he stands on this issue? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman align himself with the Opposition and the workers at the Caterpillar factory?

§ Mr. Biffen
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made his position very clear. I hope that he will he fully supported and have his position endorsed by Scottish Opposition Members. Of course, I shall add to the point that I shall be making because of the requests by the Leader of the Opposition by including the hon. Gentleman's request.

§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East)
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is immense concern in the country and the House following the incredible sentences imposed in the Ealing vicarage rape case? Bearing that in mind, would it not be wise, notwithstanding the fact that the Criminal Justice Bill is before the House, to have a full debate on sentencing and the judiciary so that the public can note where individual hon. Members stand?

§ Mr. Biffen
I note the interest evinced by my hon. Friend in two major topics. None the less, I am obliged to let my original answer stand. I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend's point.

§ Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Will the right lion. Gentleman explain why there is such unwarranted haste in cutting the parliamentary time available to debate the poll tax legislation in Scotland, which will not do away with revaluation for the non-domestic sector? If the poll tax is such a good idea, why was not a Bill introduced in the current session to institute such a tax in England and Wales?

§ Mr. Biffen
I am grateful for the felicitous concern that the hon. Gentleman shows for ratepayers in England and Wales. However, for the moment we should confine ourselves to the reality which is that there is a Bill for Scotland. I take note of the argument that will be deployed on Wednesday.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of page 154 of "Erskine May", which states—

§ Mr. Biffen
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Marlow
Well, can I remind my right hon. Friend that it says that any act which has the effect of bringing the House into ridicule is a contempt of the House? My right hon. Friend will be aware —[Laughter.] Shall I start again'? I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). My hon. Friend will be aware of Mr. Speaker's ruling and of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said that the Zircon affair is a matter of grave national security. He will also be aware of the fact that Front Bench spokesmen of the Labour party have been spraying the wretched film around Scotland with gay and uncontrolled abandon. Does my right hon. Friend feel that that brings the House into contempt? It certainly brings the Labour party into contempt. Would it be a proper issue to put before the Committee of Privileges?

§ Mr. Biffen
If I might show a supreme act of political cowardice, I would say that this behaviour of hon. Members is more a matter for Mr. Speaker than for myself.

§ Mr. Skinner
Does the Leader of the House recall that before Christmas I raised the issue of the need for a Government statement on the sale of coal hoard houses and the speculators who are involved? In view of the continuing controversy, as reported in several newspapers this week, could the Government make a statement on the matter now, as it appears that they have intervened?
I had to smile when the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the Prime Minister's trip to Moscow — I really could not help it—because I recall that in 1980 the Prime Minister said to British athletes "Don't go to Moscow". The Prime Minister's little bout of hypocrisy in gallivanting off to Moscow could only be improved by inviting Seb Coe and Steve Ovett to accompany her on the plane, so that they can show her the way around.

§ Mr. Biffen
I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to practically every suggestion that comes from the hon. Gentleman, including that one. I shall consider the first point that he raised and see whether a ministerial answer can be given.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and other hon. Members, and ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision not to hold an early debate on sentencing policy and on the wider issues relating to rape trials, bearing in mind the appallingly low sentences which were passed in the Ealing vicarage rape case, the fact that the police, who worked for 10 days arid nights to bring those culprits to book, must feel let down, and the huge disturbance that it has created in the whole community of Ealing and beyond?
Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision and allow a debate to enable hon. Members to consider the role of the judiciary in such matters, and not least the fact that the family in this case, like those in other cases, feels that the woman's point of view has not been properly understood by a male judge and that a male judge should be supported, or replaced, by a female judge in future rape trials?

§ Mr. Biffen
I gave a measured but, I thought, none the less reasonable reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) which took a realistic view of the demands made upon the time of the House. Of course, I take account of the point made by my hon. Friend, and by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, I should make it quite clear that the substantive answer is the one that I gave to the first question that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton.

§ Mr. Speaker
I call the other Member for Leicester—[Laughter] These things happen to us all. I am so sorry. Mr. Janner.

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)
Leaving on one side the unhappy mistakes of democracy in the east of the city of Leicester, the west of which I am pleased to represent, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will be good enough to inquire of the Prime Minister why, on 7 November 1986, when she promised an urgent reply to my letter about the whereabouts and the nature of the 17 1153 alleged war criminals in this country, she still has not replied? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on that subject, perhaps redefining the word "urgency", and, at the same time, will she refer to the previously secret documents that were revealed in the excellent Scottish television programme that was repeated on Channel 4 last night, which appeared to support the allegation that Britain has become a safe haven for some Nazi war criminals, including Antanas Gecas, who is living in comfort in Edinburgh and who, on television last night admitted to war crimes?

§ Mr. Biffen
As I have said repeatedly to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall not enter into the merits of his proposition but shall inquire why there have been difficulties in providing an answer for him.

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)
May I draw one other matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend, which might yet make him change his mind about a debate on sentencing policy? Can he confirm that, even under the welcome provision in clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill, those who receive grossly over-lenient sentences cannot be put in jeopardy of facing a correct sentence? If the prosecution, the defence and the country have a proper interest in ensuring that the right sentences are imposed, should we not grasp this nettle and give the prosecution a proper right of appeal and, if necessary, continue to put that proposition to their Lordships until they see the light of day?

§ Mr. Biffen
I am not clear from what my hon. Friend has said whether that is impossible with the passage of the current Criminal Justice Bill. Of course, I shall take into account what he has said about the desire in the House for these matters to be more widely debated, but I have already said that my initial reaction is not to allow a wider debate.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
Reverting to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland cannot all be right. Why can we not go back to the old days when a personal statement would be made that would be acceptable to the House to clarify such difficult matters?
Reverting to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the Zircon affair, my Adjournment debate tomorrow at 2.30 pm is highly relevant to prosecution policy in relation to the Official Secrets Act. Will he suggest that the Solicitor-General, who is to reply to that debate, makes an authoritative statement on "Interspace" issues 46 and 61, which seem to give the impression that the Zircon project was known to those who subscribe to that magazine, such as the technical experts at GCHQ and doubtless also those in the Kremlin.
Finally, as one who has always received great personal courtesy from him, I should like to say that we very much regret the illness of the Attorney-General and hope that he will recover soon.

§ Mr. Biffen
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his kind words about my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's second point was a hint of some of the lines that he will take in the 1154 Adjournment debate tomorrow, and I shall see that they are conveyed to the Minister who is to reply. On this first point, he will understand that I have tried to set out the position, as it is seen from the Treasury Bench, to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Michael Meadowcroft (Leeds, West)
Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing concern about the complex but important question of extra-territoriality, and especially the efforts of the United States to enforce its law in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that in the House last week a Defence Minister said that a committee within the MOD is considering extra-territoriality, which takes it beyond the normal DTI responsibility. Therefore, is there not a case for an urgent debate on the whole question, rather than trying to confine it to interdepartmental conferences and actions, which are clearly having no effect.

§ Mr. Biffen
The hon. Gentleman raises a matter of great, and I suspect growing, significance which now covers more than just one Government Department. I cannot offer the prospect of a debate in Government time in the near future, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to try his chances in an Adjournment debate.

§ Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport)
While discussing the possibility of a debate on sentencing policy with the Home Secretary, will my right hon. Friend applaud both the decision of the Court of Appeal this week not to interfere with two five-year imprisonment sentences imposed on two young men for mugging a bus conductor, and the statement that those who indulge in mugging, especially of women at night, can expect long custodial sentences?

§ Mr. Biffen
I note what my hon. Friend says. As far as possible, I have always made it my practice not to comment on court sentencing and I hope that he will understand if I prefer to keep to that policy today.

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)
Does the Leader of the House not see that the Government have no mandate whatever to seek to impose on the people of Scotland a mediaeval poll tax which will discriminate against those on low incomes? Since he will have the embarrassing misfortune of moving the timetable motion of Wednesday, may I recommend that he looks at the Official Report of the Committee proceedings? That reveals the Government's extraordinarily lackadaisical attitude in Committee, which made it abundantly clear from the start that they want hours, not clauses, and that they are seeking to conceal the effects of the Bill on the Scottish people?

§ Mr. Biffen
If the Government wanted hours, I have the impression that they have some good allies on the Opposition Benches.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)
Is the Leader of the House aware of the overwhelming evidence to the Education Select Committee about the hardship being suffered by students on the present level of grants and its strong recommendation to the Government that they should increase grants for next year by more than the rate of inflation to alleviate that hardship? As the Government took absolutely no notice of that Select Committee report, presumably because they want to impose loans on students, could we at least have the opportunity to debate the report and the Government's response to it?

§ Mr. Biffen
I shall look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I must tell him that in the immediate future I see no possibility of Government time being available. However, I would be at one with him in stressing the importance of the issue.

§ Mr. Stuart Holland (Vauxhall)
Will the Leader of the House urge the Home Secretary to find time next week to make a statement on why he broke a commitment to the Lambeth police consultative group to publish the inquiry of the Police Complaints Authority into the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Mrs. Cherry Groce, not least since there are many open questions on the matter—for example the issue that the Home Secretary raised today, of how much Inspector Lovelock had been drinking the night before the shooting and why his request that he should not be assigned to that raid was not met? Will the Leader of the House also urge the Home Secretary to make a statement on the massive police raid on the Vauxhall tavern in my constituency on 24 January, which appears to have been unwarranted as no complaints have been received from any member of the public about alleged drunkenness in that public house?

§ Mr. Biffen
The hon. Gentleman makes several serious allegations on which I cannot comment. I shall certainly raise with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the hon. Gentleman's request for consideration and a statement.