HC Deb 12 November 1987 vol 122 cc553-70 3.31 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

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

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

MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER — Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Second Reading of the Immigration Bill.

Motions on Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.

TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (3rd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Failure of the Government to Provide Adequately for the Transport Needs of the Nation."

Motion relating to the Education (Governing Bodies of Institutions of Further Education) Regulations.

WEDNESDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Debate on a Government motion to take note of the White Papers on Developments in the European Community July-December 1986 (CM.122) and January-June 1987 (CM.205) and EC documents relating to the future financing of the Community. Details of the EC documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.

Motion on the Family Credit (General) Regulations.

THURSDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Motion on the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations.

FRIDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 23 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (4th AllottedDay). The debate will arise on a motion in the name of the Leader of the Liberal party. Subject for debate to be announced.

[Debate on Monday 16 November 1987

Debate on Wednesday 18 November

Relevant European Documents:
(a) COM(87) 100 Future policies in light of Single European Act
(b) COM(87) 101 Future financing of the Community Budget
(c) 8248/87 Budgetary Discipline
(d) 8249/87 Own Resources
(e) 8251/87 Reform of structural funds
(f) 8087/87 Amendment to Financial Regulation
(g) 8940/87 Third Amendment to Financial Regulation

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

  1. (a) HC 22-xvii ( 1986–87), para 6
  2. HC 22-xx (1986–87), para 2
  3. (b) HC 22-xix ( 1986–87), para 1
  4. (c) HC 43-v (1987–88), para 3
  5. (d) HC 43-v (1987–88), para 3
  6. (e) HC 43-v ( 1987–88), para 15
  7. (f) HC 43-v (1987–88), para 15]

Mr. Hattersley

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to ask the Leader of the House three specific questions. First, he will recall that the Government have taken a decision to deny unemployment benefit for six months to employees who it is said have left their jobs unreasonably. Should not a statement on that subject have been made to the House? Will he arrange for a statement to be made to the House next week justifying that petty and vindictive act?

Secondly, when is the House likely to debate the Autumn Statement? Must we wait for the constitution of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and then for the Committee to consider the Autumn Statement? The Opposition believe that we should debate it more speedily than that.

Thirdly, with regard to the section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, the only thing that became clear during the Prime Minister's comments today concerned the prospects of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) ever receiving a knighthood. We need to know the Government's intentions on that Act. May we be assured that there will be no press leaks and that the Prime Minister, or whoever is lucky enough to have responsibility for the subject, will come to the House as soon as a decision is finally made and tell the House, rather than tell the newspapers as happened earlier this week?

Mr. Wakeham

The right hon. Gentleman asked me three specific questions. On the regulations concerning voluntary unemployment, the benefit sanctions are intended to discourage people from leaving jobs without good reason. The House will have ample opportunity to debate these changes, which require an affirmative order and regulations. Therefore, I see no need for a statement to be made next week.

With regard to the Autumn Statement, it would be obviously to the benefit of hon. Members if the House could have the advice of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee before it debates the matter, but I recognise the need to get on with it. I give a clear undertaking that the debate on the Autumn Statement will be before the Christmas recess.

With regard to Official Secrets Act 1911, I cannot say other than that work is going on. A statement will be made to the House as soon as a decision is made.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be great difficulties if the Select Committees are not set up by next week, not least in the context of the Autumn Statement that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned? Will he make sure that time is available to ensure that that occurs in the course of proceedings next week?

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. I note that the recommendations of the Committee on selection are on the Order Paper, but they were blocked. It will be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee to determine when he would like them brought before the House again.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

The Leader of the House will be aware that NIREX issued a discussion document today on the disposal of radioactive waste. Given the concern of many hon. Members about the issue and the fact that NIREX wants a wide discussion on it, will the Government provide time to discuss the matter in the House?

Secondly, does the Leader of the House agree that, given the support yesterday by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for the B-Cal-BA merger and the apparent opposition to it by the Leader of the Opposition, a debate would be useful to elucidate the Labour party's position?

Mr. Wakeham

The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question seems to be a subject that could well form part of next Tuesday's transport debate.

Responsibility for identifying a suitable method of and location for a disposal facility rests with NIREX. Its consultation exercise began today with the publication of a discussion paper. Hon. Members are encouraged to read that paper and comment to NIREX. It would be better to await the outcome of the consultation exercise and see what proposals NIREX brings forward before considering a debate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

In view of the imminence of the Eurotunnel share offer, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes an early statement to assure us that the welcome and repeated assurances about Government finance for the tunnel will not be undermined by the Bank of England, which is an arm of Government, using cash in its control to invest in the project?

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise that at a late hour during Tuesday's sitting I did not give my hon. Friend a full answer to the question that he asked in slightly different terms. There is no intention to use either the issue department or the banking department of the Bank of England to buy equity share capital in Eurotunnel. I shall refer my hon. Friend's interest to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

Will the Leader of the House accept that all hon. Members greatly appreciate the courtesy shown to the House by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in making a statement today on the European Space Agency, despite the dislocation of business yesterday? Will he accept that that only highlights the discourtesy to the House of the lack of a statement on Scottish Homes by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Will he ask his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland to come forward next week and show some courtesy to the House?

Mr. Wakeham

I cannot accept that criticism. The Secretary of State was willing to make a statement to mark the publication of the White Paper. However, the date of publication having passed, there is no urgent need for discussion. Opportunities for full discussion will arise during the debates on the proposed legislation.

Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)

Bearing in mind the importance of the Housing Bill to the Government's housing policy, does my right hon. Friend expect it to he published next week?

Mr. Wakeham

I cannot give my hon. Friend a firm undertaking, but the Bill will be published shortly.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

With regard to next Wednesday's business will the Leader of the House consider providing separate debates for the retrospective consideration of White Papers and the prospective consideration of future financing? In that regard, is he aware that the proposals for Britain's rebate payments, which will replace the Fontainebleau formula negotiated by the Prime Minister, have been outlined in Commission document 101? I have it on good authority that the document was published yesterday in Brussels. Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that that document is before the House during the debate on Wednesday?

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of and interest in these matters, but I cannot give him the undertaking that he requires. If by chance he and I should have a discussion about these matters later today, we will be able to discuss the matter in more detail.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

For the third successive week may I raise the subject of haemophiliac AIDS victims? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sympathy and understanding that he showed last week was greatly appreciated and gave considerable encouragement to those outside as well as inside the House? May we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services next week? If the Government were to respond to the needs of these people and their reasonable requests, that would be warmly welcomed.

Mr. Wakeham

I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I hope that we will deal with the matter as soon as possible.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Ealing, Southall)

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in expressing horror at the events of a few hours ago in my constituency, with the death of one man, and possibly others? Does he agree that everything possible should he done to bring the culprits to book and that nothing should stand in the way of the efforts of the police to achieve that end? The local community and others should be cautioned against jumping the gun or leaping to premature conclusions.

Mr. Wakeham

I am sure that the House shares those sentiments. May I say how much we appreciate the leadership that the hon. Gentleman has shown for many years in trying to maintain understanding between the communities in his constituency.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

As it is absolutely clear that there is no point in the Chairman of the Selection Committee retabling the motion to set up the Select Committees unless and until the Government give time for that above the line on the Order Paper, to prevent automatic blocking, when is my right hon. Friend going to give time that will enable the Chairman of the Selection Committee to take effective rather than nominal action for the setting up of the Select Committees?

Mr. Wakeham

The Chairman of the Committee of Selection will not find me wanting. As soon as he feels that he has a reasonable chance of resolving these matters I shall act, because I am as anxious as he is to get on with setting up the Committees.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Does the Leader of the House recall that in August I wrote to him about the allocation of money to opposition parties, particularly the problem that he has in the allocation of that money to the SDP? Is he aware that the allocation is based on the number of Members of Parliament returned, together with a sum of money allocated on the basis of the number of people who cast votes at the general election preceding the allocation of the money? As we have not one, but possibly two SDP parties, how will he allocate the money? If a rump of SDP supporters form a mutation and choose a new leader in the House, as is likely, who will receive the £62,000? Will it go to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who supposedly leads the authentic section of the SDP, or will it go to the provisional wing, which is represented in Sainsbury's supermarkets?

Mr. Wakeham

I well remember the letter that the hon. Gentleman sent me, which was written in his own fair hand. I hope that he will allow me to keep it among my souvenirs for my later life. I must say that the hon. Gentleman's letter posed problems rather than gave me solutions to problems. I assure him that before too long there will be an opportunity for him to give the House an insight into his thinking on the matter.

Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down)

May we have a debate as soon as possible on the Anglo-Irish Agreement so that we may talk about extending it to the whole of the United Kingdom, as there are more nationals of the Irish Republic living in England than in the whole of Northern Ireland? We could discuss, too, all those who have fled from the Republic to benefit from the social services in England, as well as those who have come here to seek divorce, abortion or contraceptives. Finally, we should give the Opposition representatives of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland the opportunity to come out unequivocally in full support of the members of the security forces, the soldiers and the police, who daily face death to protect everyone in the community from the gunmen.

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise the feelings and the concern of many hon. Members on these matters. However, at the moment we should be very careful about having a debate that might exacerbate differences rather than heal them. I shall talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to get his views before I come forward with proposals.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to study early-day motion 214 on the environmental consequences of the Grande Carajas project in Brazil?

[That this House is concerned that the Grande Carajas project in Brazil is environmentally damaging and disastrous for the indigenous people of the area; welcomes the recent report from Survival International which describes the devastating effects of the scheme; calls on Her Majesty's Government to support the proposals outlined in the report; and demands that Her Majesty's Government use its influence to stop the use of EEC and World Bank profits to finance projects that are environmentally damaging to the eco-system of the Amazon rain forests.]

Will the Leader of the House ensure that in the near future the House has an opportunity to discuss the British Government's attitude to the world debt crisis, their funding through the World Bank and the EEC of environmentally damaging projects such as the Grande Carajas project, and the damage that is being done to the economies of many Latin American countries by the imposition of totally unsuitable economic models upon those countries?

Mr. Wakeham

My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is looking into the matters raised in Survival International's report and will write to that body in due course.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)

While Northern Ireland is without a devolved administration, has my right hon. Friend given any thought to a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs along the lines of the Scottish Affairs Committee? What would be the procedure for creating such a Select Committee, which would be a precedent?

Mr. Wakeham

It would be easier to deal with the procedure than to get everyone to agree that the move was worth while. I have given some thought to the matter, but I do not believe that it would be right to take such a step at present. However, these matters are constantly under review.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

Given that the NIR EX report makes Scotland the prime target to be used as a dumping-ground for nuclear waste, will the Leader of the House reconsider his previous answer and allow a debate so that urgent and proper consideration can be given to this very important matter?

Mr. Wakeham

I have to say that the report only confirms the wisdom of my original answer. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the report more carefully.

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)

Following an earlier question, will my right hon. Friend spare a thought for the people of Scotland, who have been unable to get their questions answered this week because of the incompetence and disunity of the Opposition? Might not that be rectified by an extra Supply day for a debate entitled failure of the Opposition to conduct its affairs in such a way as to give proper representation to the people of Scotland?

Mr. Wakeham

My hon. Friend tempts me, but today is not a day for raking over yesterday's business. Scottish Opposition Members should concentrate hard to decide whether three of them are prepared to serve on the Select Committee, because we lack them at the moment.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave last week about a debate on the future of the construction industry? The right hon. Gentleman said that we could discuss it during a debate on proposals for the housing industry. Housing is just one part of the construction industry. It is a large industry, the largest in the country. On that basis, and with all the growing problems, such as the growth of lump labour, the fact that more and more people are being killed and injured every year, the continuity of employment, and so on, is it not important that we should have a debate on the industry as a whole and not use other Bills and other issues within the industry to try to discuss the whole matter?

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise that the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman last week was not entirely satisfactory, for the reasons that he has just given. However, it was the best answer that I could offer him at the time. I am afraid that there are many calls on the time of the House, and although I shall bear the matter in mind, I cannot promise a debate immediately.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Will my right hon. Friend say that in the week after 1 December the Government will provide an opportunity for a full debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, so that the House may have the advantage of considering any debate in the Dail on the extradition proposals, and so that the Government may have an opportunity to explain, in the light of two years' experience, how they see the agreement?

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise the importance of the subject, but I do not think that I can add to the answer that I gave earlier.

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)

I am somewhat dismayed by the right hon. Gentleman's response to the two questions that he has been asked on the NIREX document. He seems to be saying that the standards for the discussion in the House will be set by the contents of the document. Will the Leader of the House take it from me that the document is incomplete? It makes no reference to the most reasonable proposition, namely, engineered storage at the surface on the site at which it originates, where it can be managed, redeemed, monitored and repackaged if necessary. The Leader of the House, of all people, must know that that subject can have grievous consequences at election times. Will he give the House the assurance that the subject will be discussed at an early date, that it will be a full debate and that it will not be in any way decisive in imposing the decision upon the people of this country?

Mr. Wakeham

I do not think that I can add to the answer that I have given, except to suggest that perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends to see whether he can obtain assistance from them.

Mr. Michael Fallon (Darlington)

Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the important environmental and conservation issues raised during the passage of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, particularly the Labour party's concern for the over-protected species, the greater registered dockworker? May we have an early debate on the operation of the dock labour scheme in general, especially the desire of the other ports in this country to be free of the scheme and to recruit more workers?

Mr. Wakeham

I thought that my hon. Friend was going to ask whether we could have a debate on redshanks, waders and other matters. I would be able to tell him that I would welcome that, because I have been a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for 40 years. I have not been a member of the dock labour scheme, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Attorney-General to make a statement to the House on his deplorable decision not to initiate prosecution proceedings against the perpetrators of the offensive, racist and lying document entitled "Holocaust News", which has been circulated, not only widely in my constituency but, I believe, to every hon. Member? Will he at least seek to confirm that there must be some law in the land to prevent that sort of offence from being given by way of political pornography of the worst and most vile sort?

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern in these matters, and I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South)

My right hon. Friend may recall that in distant days we used to have debates on the English regions, usually in Government time. In years gone by I could never understand why the Government allowed that time, for obvious reasons. Now that times are better, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the north-west region so that we can say how well we have done and how much better we intend to do in the future?

Mr. Wakeham

That is a very good idea, but I cannot promise a debate at the moment. If my hon. Friend has the opportunity to take part, however, that would encourage me to look further at such a possibility.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Will the Leader of the House make a statement on commercial lobbying interests, particularly in view of the stench of financial inducement to vote in a particular way that we have observed over the past few days, which represents merely the tip of the iceberg of commercial lobbying in this place? Will he also make a statement on the timeshare developers' association involving Barratt, Costain and Wimpey, which have no doubt contributed to Tory party funds, using this place for the purposes of an exhibition and providing further drinks for Members on the Terrace? Is it not pretty appalling that the House of Commons seems to have been handed over to the financial supporters of the Tory party at the whim of the Government in office?

Mr. Wakeham

I do not accept many of the hon. Gentleman's allegations. However, I consider it right that we should get on and deal with the question of the Register of Members' Interests. It is for the Select Committee on Members' Interests to decide when to lay the Register before the House. I understand that the Committee has not yet done that, because some hon. Members on both sides of the House have not yet registered. The Committee feels that a delay of a week or two may enable a complete Register to be placed before the House.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

While it could be said to be a bit savage and uncharitable to kick a suicidal institution in a sensitive area, may we have a debate on the Church of England? In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he considers it right to sustain a Bench of Bishops in the other place for as long as the Church continues to fudge and funk fundamental biblical and moral issues?

Mr. Wakeham

My hon. Friend will no doubt continue to put his point of view in his own special way, but I must tell him that the Church of England and the Synod are an important element in the setting of moral standards in our society. I am sure that they will take that into account when reaching any decisions that they may make.

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)

Will the Leader of the House find time next week to discuss the newly established office in London of the South African coal industry, and will he allow the House time to discuss what involvement the director of that office, a Mr. Robert Swain, has with Government Departments, in view of his known links with the South African secret service and alleged links with the British secret service?

Mr. Wakeham

I shall not arrange for such a debate next week, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about the matter I shall find out whether there is any Government responsibility.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as my constituency is near both Heathrow and Gatwick airports, a substantial number of my constituents work for British Airways and British Caledonian? They welcome the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Government's response to it. However, many others work for small airlines and they have a sizeable and legitimate interest in obtaining access to routes and slots, as discussed in that report. May we have a proper, full debate on the report as soon as possible?

Mr. Wakeham

If that is a trailer for the speech for which my hon. Friend may seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in next Tuesday's transport debate, I for one shall try to come and listen to it.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

Is the Leader of the House aware that Councillor Neil Powrie, the leader of the Conservative opposition on Dundee district council, is at present on a visit to South Africa as the official guest of the South African Government? Is he also aware that Councillor Powrie will be having discussions with the National and Conservative parties in South Africa, thereby lending credibility to the perpetrators of an evil and inhuman system? Given the press report this morning that Foreign Office representatives are having discussions with the ANC later this week, does Councillor Powrie's visit represent a change of policy on the Government's part? Do the Government support Councillor Powrie's visit to South Africa?

Mr. Wakeham

There has been no change in Government policy. I cannot comment on the Councillor's visit.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at early-day motion 281?

[That this House expresses its grave concern at the allegations made in the Scottish Television programme dealing with the financial affairs of Dundee Labour clubs and the Dundee Labour Party and a number of individuals who were named in the programme and who were active in public affairs in Dundee during the period when substantial financial losses were incurred by the Dundee Labour clubs, and calls upon the Government and the law officers to report at an early date on the effect the financial losses have had on Dundee District Council's rent and rates collection.]

If so, may we have an early opportunity to debate its contents, which relate to a television programme that was shown in Scotland concerning the affairs of Dundee district council and the Labour party in Dundee ; allegations that large sums of money have disappeared, and that, indeed, there have been acts of homosexuality?

Four hon. Members were named in the programme —the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), and if—

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that that was an unacceptable slur on the hon. Members involved.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) wishes to reflect on the conduct of any hon. Member, he must do so on a motion.

Mr. Walker

rose—

Mr. Wakeham

rose—

Mr. Dobson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That was a most clear innuendo—if there is such a thing— against four of my hon. Friends. I put it to you that things have been said by Labour Members that have led to you demanding that they be withdrawn, and they have either been withdrawn or the hon. Member has been asked to leave the Chamber.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I agree. I think that it would be right for the hon. Member for Tayside, North to withdraw what he said.

Mr. Walker

I never completed my sentence, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Mr. Speaker

rose—

Mr. Walker

Please, Mr. Speaker, this is fundamental. I am trying to defend—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman complete his sentence by withdrawing any allegation about any hon. Member.

Mr. Walker

I am making no allegation, Mr. Speaker.I want to make that quite clear. I am not making an allegation. Two of those hon. Members are friends of mine. The remarks were made in a television programme that was seen throughout Scotland, and those hon. Members have two courses by which to clear their names —one is in this place, where we have an opportunity to raise such matters, and the other is through legal action. I am trying to help them.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr. Wakeham

Would it be in order for me to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), because these are important matters? The Government's view on the need to strengthen local government accountability for its financial behaviour is well known. By their actions they will continue to press for that accountability to be the subject of the voting judgment of those electors it affects.

Hon. Members

"Disgraceful."

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Please sit down.

Despite what the hon. Member for Tayside, North has said, I have not seen the programme, but I note that the thrust of his question was an allegation against hon. Members of the House. I ask him now, please, to withdraw that.

Mr. Walker

If I have made any allegations against the integrity of any Member of the House, I withdraw them without hesitation. However, I was not making any allegation. I was referring to them in the context of the programme.

Mr. Speaker

I asked the hon. Gentleman if he would withdraw any allegation without any qualification.

Mr. Dobson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. In the aftermath of yesterday, and with exchanges such as this today, let me say that the reputation of our House of Commons is in the mouths, actions and behaviour of hon. Members. What went on yesterday. and matters of this kind in the House, bring the House into grave disrepute. I hope that we will give a lead to the nation by our good behaviour in this place and by good standards. That was not a full withdrawal of his comments, so will the hon. Member for Tayside, North now withdraw them unreservedly?

Mr. Walker

I unhesitatingly—I mean unhesitatingly — withdraw. I said earlier that two of the Members named are friends of mine. They may be on the Opposition Benches, but they are friends.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Friendships span across the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has unreservedly withdrawn his comment, and I accept that.

Mr. Dobson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to go on. The hon. Gentleman has now apparently withdrawn the accusation that he was making against four of my hon. Friends, but what perturbs me just as much —it is related to my previous point of order—is that the Leader of the House came to the House prepared to answer that very question, which was out of order. It is outrageous that he should have come so prepared.

Mr. Wakeham

rose—

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall take any points of order that may arise on this after questions. Who was next?

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

May we have a statement next week from any Minister with responsibility for health on why last weekend, at less than 24 hours' notice, half the beds in the cardiac unit of the children's hospital in Birmingham were closed, causing massive anguish to parents throughout the west midlands this week? Babies less than a week old had to queue up for operations, which were then suspended because the beds had been closed. Such action surely demands some kind of ministerial statement.

Mr. Wakeham

Obviously, anything of that sort is greatly distressing to everybody on both sides of the House. Operationally, it is a matter for those who are dealing with the services locally. It is not directly a matter for the Minister for Health. If there is any way in which he can help he will do so, and I shall refer the matter to him, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forget the substantial increase of funding of the Health Service that was announced recently — a £2.8 billion cash injection into the Health Service in the next four years, the biggest increase that has ever been announced.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the House should have a chance to debate the claims that Vanessa Redgrave and other CND members financed the operation to spring the Soviet spy George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs?

Mr. Wakeham

I cannot promise an early debate on that matter, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend can find a way of raising it.

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)

Further to the unsatisfactory answer that the Leader of the House gave me last night, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, (Mr. Douglas) a short while ago, does he accept that there is now every need for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the Government's proposals for Scottish Homes? Does he not realise that the proposals will mean substantial rent rises for many Scottish people? As Scottish business was squeezed out yesterday, mainly at the Government's behest, and as there appears to be an interest in Scotland on both sides of the House, even from unexpected quarters, will he now get the Secretary of State to make a statement on Scottish Homes next week?

Mr. Wakeham

Of course, prolonged filibusters, from wherever they come, cause difficulties for all of us. I was here through the night and I witnessed from where the filibustering came, but I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth)

May I ask—

Mr. Speaker

Let us have Mr. Holt first.

Mr. Dickens

I give way.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

Would my right hon. Friend care to note that there is great disappointment in the country that this Parliament has not debated capital punishment and it is time that we had a debate on that, particularly in the light of what happened last week?

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise the concern and, as I have said previously, I have no doubt that there will be a debate on capital punishment when the Criminal Justice Bill comes from another place.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)

Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 282 about the crisis in the NHS in Halifax?

[That this House condemns the Government's inadequate funding of the National Health Service, whkich has led to a financial crisis in Halifax resulting in the district health authority taking a decision to implement £½ million cuts; notes that these cuts will lead to: (a) the premature closure of Faldon Hospital for the Mentally Handicapped, (b) the closure of a gynaecology ward and (c) the closure of an acute psychiatric ward; and believes that these measures will lead, inevitably, to an increase in waiting lists and a serious deterioration in the service provided to the people of Halifax.]

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's previous remarks, will he allow time for a debate and explain to us why, if all that money has been spent on the NHS. we are facing yet another £500,000 worth of cuts, which will lead to the closure of a hospital for the mentally-handicapped, and a gynaecology and a mental illness ward? Why, when there is such a crisis in caring for the mentally ill in Halifax, and when the health advisory service has condemned the care of the mentally ill in Halifax, is another ward to be closed for purely budgetary reasons? May we have time for a debate?

Mr. Wakeham

The Chancellor's recent announcement on 3 November on the spending plans for the NHS in 1988–89 showed a 1.7 per cent. real increase over 1987–88 levels and a 32 per cent. real increase over 1978–79 levels. Health authorities, like other organisations, are required to work within their budgets. Measures recently announced by the Calderdale health authority will not affect the overall level of service provided to patients. Faldon hospital's case represents only the earlier implementation of the plans contained in its longer-term strategy.

Mr. Dickens

Following the debate in the Church of England Synod this week and the helpful advice that we have received in this honourable House on occasions from bishops, will my right hon. Friend make some time available for a debate on the future of the Church of England, so that we can call on the Church to purge its pulpits of homosexual vicars, many of whom have proved to be a danger to children?

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise the strong feelings of my hon. Friend and of other hon. Members. However, I am afraid that I cannot offer any Government time in the near future.

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

I have lost my voice, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook)? Does he recall that on the last occasion that NIREX made recommendations they failed, there was a row, and the Minister and, indeed, the Leader of the House, had to be rescued before the general election? We do not want that to happen again. May we have a debate on these matters prior to the recommendations being made?

Mr. Wakeham

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has lost his voice, but I am not sure that my sympathy is shared by everybody in the House. However, he seems to have lost his memory also, because my recollection of events is different from the one that he has recounted to the House.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover)

Will my right hon. Friend please take note of the Eurotunnel share advertisements, which suggest that a number of free journeys across the English channel may be obtained by the buyers of certain numbers of shares? Will he draw that to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that an early statement can be made to the effect that such free offers on journeys would be a benefit received by shareholders and would be assessable to income tax? In consequence, the offer may seem less attractive, and investors should be fully informed of that when the prospectus is published.

Mr. Wakeham

The question of any prospectus and the terms in which it is couched are fully covered in our statute law. Eurotunnel is a private consortium that takes its own decisions. I do not believe that there is any responsibility on me to tell the House that it can get on with it.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

In view of your concern, Mr. Speaker, about standards in the House being in grave disrepute, and because standards start at the top, has the Leader of the House noticed the following early-day motions : No. 228.

[That this House notes in the hook, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself shakey enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Office's letter concerning the Westland Affair].

No. 253,

[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party, we did.' and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]

No. 272,

[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Brittan himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved. … He ( Mr. Brittan) might point the finger at her ( Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.

No. 273,

[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years— A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he ( Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]

No. 286,

[That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Britian and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an opportunity next week for the Prime Minister to explain to the House why she told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 27 January that she did not know about the role of her then Trade Secretary until the inquiry had reported'? Will she confirm that Mr. Charles Powell did, indeed, keep her fully informed? Will she explain why, for the protection of her position as Prime Minister, and in order to remain in Downing street, she told the House a necessary and indispensable lie?

Mr. Wakeham

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that last comment.

Mr. Dalyell

It is not a question of being economical with the truth. It is a question of—

Mr. Speaker

No. The hon. Gentleman started his speech with a perfectly correct preamble on his and my concern about standards in this House. Will he please withdraw that statement?

Mr. Dalyell

Good standards start at the top.

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not the point. Will the hon. Gentleman please unreservedly withdraw that statement?

Mr. Dalyell

I must make my position quite clear. I believe that the real affront has been to the House.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have some memory of this matter. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw his comment about the Prime Minister?

Mr. Dalyell

Having been here for 25 years, I believe that the real affront is to the House of Commons and that it will damage its standing with the public.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I give the hon. Gentleman one more chance. I have some memory of this matter and I am sorry that this has surfaced again today. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw the comment about the Prime Minister?

Mr. Dalyell

I must make it clear that if I had been going to withdraw it I would not have said it in the first place. I really mean it.

Mr. Speaker

Well, in that case the hon. Gentleman puts me in an extremely difficult position. I shall be forced to name him unless he will withdraw that comment.

Mr. Dalyell

I do not withdraw it. I believe that it is quite clear that I set out in the debate on the Defence Committee reports on Wednesday of the week before last—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I name Mr. Tam Dalyell for persistent disobedience of the Chair.

Mr. Heffer

rose—

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Watley, East)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Motion made, and Question put, That Mr. Tam Dalyell be suspended from the service of the House.—[Mr. Wakeham]

Several Hon. Members

rose—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Heffer (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that when a Member has been named in the House and the Government have moved the motion, we are allowed to debate it.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The Question must be put forthwith, as I have done.

The House having divided: Ayes 220, Noes 102.

Division No. 68] [4.15 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Aitken, Jonathan Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Foster, Derek
Allason, Rupert Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Amos, Alan Fox, Sir Marcus
Arbuthnot, James French, Douglas
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Gardiner, George
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) Garel-Jones, Tristan
Ashby, David Gill, Christopher
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Baldry, Tony Glyn, Dr Alan
Batiste, Spencer Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Beith, A. J. Gorst, John
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Benyon, W. Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Biffen, Rt Hon John Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Boswell, Tim Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bottomley, Peter Hampson, Dr Keith
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Hannam, John
Bowis, John Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard Harris, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Hayes, Jerry
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Hayward, Robert
Buck, Sir Antony Heathcoat-Amory, David
Budgen, Nicholas Heddle, John
Butcher, John Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Chris Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Hind, Kenneth
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Holt, Richard
Carrington, Matthew Howard, Michael
Carttiss, Michael Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Cartwright, John Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Chapman, Sydney Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Chope, Christopher Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Churchill, Mr Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Irvine, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Janman, Timothy
Cormack, Patrick Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Couchman, James Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Cran, James Key, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina Kilfedder, James
Curry, David King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Day, Stephen King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Devlin, Tim Kirkhope, Timothy
Dickens, Geoffrey Knapman, Roger
Dicks, Terry Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Dobson, Frank Knowles, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen Knox, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Latham, Michael
Durant, Tony Lawrence, Ivan
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Fallon, Michael Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Farr, Sir John Lightbown, David
Fearn, Ronald Lilley, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Livsey, Richard
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lord, Michael Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
McCrindle, Robert Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) Sims, Roger
Maclean, David Skeet, Sir Trevor
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Soames, Hon Nicholas
Madel, David Speed, Keith
Mans, Keith Speller, Tony
Marlow, Tony Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Squire, Robin
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Stanbrook, Ivor
Maude, Hon Francis Steel, Rt Hon David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Stern, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stevens, Lewis
Meyer, Sir Anthony Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mills, lain Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Sumberg, David
Moore, Rt Hon John Summerson, Hugo
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) Tapsell, Sir Peter
Moss, Malcolm Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Moynihan, Hon C. Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Needham, Richard Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Nelson, Anthony Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Neubert, Michael Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Newton, Tony Thorne, Neil
Nicholls, Patrick Thornton, Malcolm
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Thurnham, Peter
Onslow, Cranley Townend, John (Bridlington)
Oppenheim, Phillip Twinn, Dr Ian
Page, Richard Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Paice, James Waddington, Rt Hon David
Patnick, Irvine Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Wallace, James
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Walters, Dennis
Portillo, Michael Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Price, Sir David Warren, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith Watts, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Wells, Bowen
Redwood, John Wheeler, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Wiggin, Jerry
Riddick, Graham Wilshire, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm Winterton, Nicholas
Rossi, Sir Hugh Wood, Timothy
Rost, Peter Woodcock, Mike
Rowe, Andrew Yeo, Tim
Ryder, Richard Young, Sir George (Acton)
Sackville, Hon Tom
Scott, Nicholas Tellers for the Ayes:
Shaw, David (Dover) Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. Alan Howarth.
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Callaghan, Jim
Allen, Graham Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Armstrong, Ms Hilary Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Clay, Bob
Barron, Kevin Clelland, David
Battle, John Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Corbyn, Jeremy
Boateng, Paul Cousins, Jim
Bradley, Keith Cummings, J.
Caborn, Richard Cunliffe, Lawrence
Dalyell, Tam McKay, Allen (Pemstone)
Darling, Alastair McLeish, Henry
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Madden, Max
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) Mahon, Mrs Alice
Doran, Frank Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Duffy, A. E. P. Martlew, Eric
Dunnachie, James Meale, Alan
Eastham, Ken Michael, Alun
Evans, John (St Helens N) Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Faulds, Andrew Moonie, Dr Lewis
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) Morgan, Rhodri
Fisher, Mark Morley, Elliott
Flannery, Martin Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Flynn, Paul Nellist, Dave
Fyfe, Mrs Maria O'Brien, William
Galloway, George Patchett, Terry
Garrett, John (Norwich South) Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Golding, Mrs Llin Quin, Ms Joyce
Graham, Thomas Reid, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) Richardson, Ms Jo
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Hardy, Peter Ruddock, Ms Joan
Heffer, Eric S. Sedgemore, Brian
Hinchliffe, David Sheerman, Barry
Holland, Stuart Steinberg, Gerald
Home Robertson, John Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Hood, James Turner, Dennis
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Vaz, Keith
Hoyle, Doug Wall, Pat
Illsley, Eric Walley, Ms Joan
Ingram, Adam Wareing, Robert N.
Janner, Greville Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) Wilson, Brian
Litherland, Robert Winnick, David
Livingstone, Ken Wise, Mrs Audrey
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Worthington, Anthony
Loyden, Eddie Wray, James
McAllion, John
McAvoy, Tom Tellers for the Noes:
McCartney, Ian Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner
Macdonald, Calum

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to that vote.

Mr. Speaker

There can be no point of order.

Ordered, That Mr. Tam Dalyell be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr. Speaker

I think that it would be wise to get on with the statement.

Mr. Frank Cook

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I sense that the mood of the House is that we should get on with the statement.

Mr. Cook

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I will take it after the statement.