Business of the House

HC Deb 24 March 1988 vol 130 cc511-29 3.31 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

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

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 28 MARCH—Completion of remaining stages of the Education Reform Bill (4th Allotted Day).

Motion relating to the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations.

TUESDAY 29 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

Motion on the terms of reference and membership of the Select Committee on televising of proceedings of the House.

WEDNESDAY 30 MARcH— Until about seven o'clock completion of remaining stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

Remaining stages of the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 31 MARCH—The House will meet at 9.30 am, take questions until 10.30 am and adjourn at 3.30 pm until Tuesday 12 April.

The House may also be asked to consider other business as necessary.

Mr. Dobson

Given that the Government's legislative programme is already in such disarray that we understand that the Palace has been warned that the next Queen's Speech may have to be deferred until December, will the Leader of the House cut his losses and withdraw and abandon altogether the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which, if passed, would harm the people of Scotland and his party's electoral chances in that country?

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is unacceptable for the Scottish poll tax regulations to be discussed for only one and a quarter hours, late at night, when they give snooping powers to the poll tax registrars that are not found in the original statute on which they are supposed to be based? Does he also accept that such slipshod drafting at the Scottish Office makes it all the more important that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should be set up and allowed to get on with its work? How much longer must the people of Scotland wait for the Tory Whips to put their side of the House in order?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords] is debated at some reasonable hour? We all understand that it is a pay-off for P and O's contribution to Tory party funds, but a fundamental attack on the employment rights of seafarers should not be debated in the dead of night.

Talking of the dead of night, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the orders setting up the Select Committee on televising the House are to be debated in the early hours of the morning? Is there any chance that the Committee will meet before Easter to start its important task?

I recognise all the problems about the timing of debates next week, but does the Leader of the House agree that a simple solution to all the problems would be to withdraw the Housing (Scotland) Bill and then abandon it?

Finally, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to announce an inquiry into the leak of the Prime Minister's letter on testing to the Secretary of State for Education?

Mr. Wakeham

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions about the business for next week and other general matters. He suggests that Government business is in disarray. I do not know whether he has seen the article in the New Statesman today, written by one of his runners, which seems to indicate that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Opposition are doing a good job. If he is under that illusion, he is happy with his thoughts.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to drop the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The answer is, no; it is an important Bill and we intend to proceed with it, as I announced a few minutes ago.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the community charge registration regulations. I have already made clear to the House that we regard the points at issue as minor and technical. Of course, it will be open to hon. Members to raise the matters in the debate. We propose that the debate should run for up to one and a half hours, which is more generous than if the prayer had been taken in the normal way.

As to the Scottish Select Committee, that is in the hands of the Committee of Selection. I have done what I can, and I hope that the deliberations of the Committee of Selection will be successful.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Merchant Shipping Bill. I believe that it is right that it should be taken next week. I think that the hour at which we shall proceed will be reasonable.

As to the debate on the television Select Committee, I regret that that will be late at night, but there is a lot of business to be got through and it is not unreasonable if it is to be dealt with as soon as possible. That is the most convenient time that I can find. As soon as the Committee is set up, I will be happy for it to meet.

Mr. Cranky Onslow (Woking)

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about getting on with the appointment of the television Select Committee. The blame for the delay does not attach to him. Has my right hon. Friend noticed the unhappy tendency on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to slide out of the Chamber on these occasions and to subcontract the job of asking the question on business to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who reads out a bad list clumsily? Would it not be better if the Leader of the Opposition showed a bit of leadership for a change?

Mr. Wakeham

I would welcome the Leader of the Opposition if he were able to be present for business questions, but he is always very courteous and explains to me why he cannot be here. I accept that he has competing claims on his time, particularly over the next few months. I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) does his best, and I am all for encouraging him.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)

In arranging the business of the House, will the Leader of the House take account of the interest of those of us who wish to ask oral questions on Scottish legal affairs? As the business is presently arranged, hon. Members with an interest in these matters have to choose between asking a general question on Scotland or a legal question. I understand that between 1974 and 1987 there was a separate and distinct opportunity to ask questions on Scottish legal affairs. Will the Leader of the House consider reinstituting that practice because of the large number of hon. Members who have an interest in these matters?

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise the difficulty for hon. Members on the Liberal Benches who have to make up their minds about the question which they will ask before they ask it. I will be happy to have discussions through the usual channels if the arrangements are not satisfactory. If there is any way of improving them, I shall do so.

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)

Does my right hon. Friend recall that I asked him on 11 February whether he would reinstitute the limit on speeches that existed in the previous Parliament? He said that he recognised that there was need for that. Is he aware that if the limit was reinstituted there would be considerably more opportunities for Back Benchers to make speeches? He said that he was having discussions through the usual channels. How are those discussions progressing?

Mr. Wakeham

Slowly, but hopefully we are making some progress. I am in favour of bringing the proposals forward, but I want to ensure that I have as much agreement on the matter as possible.

Mr. Sam Galbraith (Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the Leader of the House please put off the business relating to the Housing (Scotland) Bill so that we can have a full debate on the poll tax regulations? Is he aware that the regulations are vital to the substance of the poll tax in Scotland? My constituency is one of only two in Scotland in which constituents will benefit from the poll tax—even so they voted for me at the general election. Does the Leader of the House realise that my constituents are worried about the regulations and want a longer debate than the one that the right hon. Gentleman is providing? My constituents and the people of Scotland believe that it is outrageous for the matter to be tacked on at the end of a day's business and dealt with in only one and a half hours.

Mr. Wakeham

I thought that I had been forthcoming in providing a debate that would be longer than the debate on a normal prayer. However, I have already been pressed on that point by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, I am unlikely to be more forthcoming to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) than to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.

Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark)

Has my right hon. Friend had time to note the campaign by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents for a change in the law regarding British summer time? Has he noted that the campaign calls for clocks not to be put back when they are put forward on the 27th? Has he also noted that the RSPA believes that putting the clocks back at the end of summer time has caused 60 child deaths and probably about 500 adult deaths? Whether we accept those statistics or not, is this not a serious matter which perhaps should be debated in the House at an early date?

Mr. Wakeham

The question of British summer time is under active consideration by the Government. For this year and next year the present situation will remain unchanged. That will allow the Government to consider and consult on what arrangements should be adopted subsequently.

Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn)

I know that the staff in the House of Commons are hard pressed at times, but could a couple of carpenters be made available to make these Benches longer? I find it most distressing when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) comes in to the Chamber and pushes hon. Members like me around. It also seems unfair that one third of the right hon. Gentleman's party had to stand throughout Prime Minister's Question Time. Can something be done to prevent the bullying and ruffian tactics of the right hon. Member for Devonport?

Mr. Wakeham

I am surprised that a big fellow like the hon. Gentleman should need my protection in these matters. As we approach the end of Lent, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might be more successful in losing a little weight and that might help him with his problem.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie (Cher tsey and Walton)

Has my right hon. Friend any plans for an early debate on the Griffiths report on community care?

Mr. Wakeham

I arranged last week for copies of the report to be placed in the Vote Office. At this stage I can give no firm undertaking about the timing of a possible debate. However, I will bear the point in mind.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to a debate on the Griffiths report at the earliest opportunity because it is causing concern?

I appreciate that there is tremendous demand and pressure on time in the House, but the Leader of the House and others are aware of the concern for more time to be made available to debate the general situation in Northern Ireland. Has consideration been given to that? Would it be possible to have a debate about the possibility of bringing our laws into line with the laws of the Republic of Ireland with regard to terrorist propaganda on the media?

Mr. Wakeham

I cannot say more about the Griffiths report than I have already said.

As for the second point, the hon. Gentleman knows that I have had a number of discussions with hon. Members from every party in the House about Northern Ireland legislation, over quite a long time. There are no proposals for change at present, but I am happy to continue discussions, and to and out whether there is a generally agreed way forward.

Sir John Farr (Harborough)

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, as part of his duties as Leader of the House, will take an opportunity to examine the proceedings of Standing Committee C. On Wednesday, it was decided by nine votes to eight to take the unusual step of sitting on Tuesday mornings and afternoons, Wednesday mornings and afternoons and Thursday mornings and afternoons.

I know that my right hon. Friend's immediate reply will be that he is rather glad not to be on that Committee— as, indeed, am I. What is most important, however, is that the decision to put the Question in regard to this unusual—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not think that the matter is the responsibility of the Leader of the House.

Sir John Farr

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the Question was put when a number of hon. Members were on their feet—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is just the point. I am afraid that it is not the responsibility of the Leader of the House.

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)

In planning future business, will the Leader of the House take account of the real concern throughout Northern Ireland, in all the area health boards, about the limited funds available for the services that they provide? Will he recognise the need for rationalisation of hospital services for the whole Province, thereby avoiding inter-board conflict as the boards chase funds to maintain existing services? If the right hon. Gentleman could provide time, I feel that it would be beneficial and cost-effective in the long term for all of us.

Mr. Wakeham

If the hon. Gentleman would like to be here tomorrow morning for the Easter Adjournment debate, and if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that he will be able to make his points then.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

When we debate the Merchant Shipping Bill next week, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Minister responsible makes a statement on the safety aspect of the industrial dispute that is now paralysing the Channel ports? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is of course inappropriate for the Government to become involved in arguments about manning levels, nevertheless no one has yet answered the fundamental point put forward by the officers and seafarers that certain aspects of the proposed rest and shift patterns may present serious dangers to the ferries? The Government need to make a clear statement to ensure that any proposals put forward by P and O are in accordance with the merchant shipping regulations of 1982.

Mr. Wakeham

I take my hon. Friend's point, and I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that he will say whatever is appropriate in next Wednesday's debate.

Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South)

Does the Leader of the House recall that, on a number of occasions before and after the general election, I asked him whether we could have a debate on the Select Committee report on the procedures and methods of the Boundary Commission? Does he consider that important — not least if there is a problem of seating with a House of 650?

The way in which the Boundary Commission now works is outside the control of the House, and it keeps increasing the number of Members of Parliament without any link to us. We ought to consider this matter; it is of great importance.

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise that it is an important matter, and I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about it.

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

Last night in my constituency there was a further attack on the members of the security forces, the Army and RUC patrol, in Pomeroy. The continual—indeed, continuous — attack by the Provisional IRA has caused great fear in the Province as a whole. Will the Leader of the House arrange business to allow a proper, full-scale debate on the security position in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Wakeham

I hope that I do not say anything that shows that I do not believe that the security situation is extremely serious, but I do not believe that it would be right to change the business next week to have a debate on that subject.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I wonder whether you can help me, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the Scottish Nationalists, who have expressed an interest in causing great trouble on these occasions, seem to be—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Questions should be directed to the Leader of the House, not to me.

Mr. Foulkes

I wondered whether you had named those hon. Members while I was out, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Leader of the House aware that the business to be considered late on Monday night is not technical and minor but vital? It is an outrage that a matter affecting the administration of the poll tax will be dealt with in one and a quarter hours, late at night, without adequate time for discussion. The 50 Scottish Labour Members will want to take part in the debate, but that will be impossible. Surely the Leader of the House can think again. There is all the time after Easter, when we shall be happy to spend a full day — two, if necessary — discussing this important matter.

Mr. Wakeham

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the measure was originally tabled as a prayer. Because of the way in which I have arranged the debate, the time is slightly extended rather than reduced.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

Some weeks ago I raised with my right hon. Friend the matter of the Short money allocations to minority parties. In view of the statement yesterday by the leader of the Liberal party that the BBC was right to stick to its principles over the film in Northern Ireland and the fact that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that this was a disgrace, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind this further split in the amoeba-like qualities of the SLD and arrange for Short money to be divided accordingly?

Mr. Wakeham

I hope that I shall come to the House shortly with proposals on financial assistance to Opposition parties. I have a fairly clear view as to how to proceed. We shall have to wait and see whether the Opposition parties agree.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)

The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there is growing realisation in the House as to how disastrous the introduction of television cameras may be to the proceedings of the House. The climate has certainly changed in the past few weeks—

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

My hon. Friend will get a star part.

Mr. Faulds

Will you be quiet for one moment, you loquacious, arrogant—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I said nothing.

Mr. Faulds

We all have our tribulations, and how I sympathise with you, Mr. Speaker. You have all of them; I have only one or two.

Mr. Tony Banks

But my hon. Friend would not need a wig.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should change places and move down the Gangway.

Mr. Faulds

I should welcome a move nearer you, Sir, by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but not, for God's sake, on to the Labour Front Bench. I am trying to make an extremely serious point.

As the House will recognise, there has been growing realisation of the damage that the ridiculous introduction of television cameras will do. Therefore, is it satisfactory that the only chance that the House has to debate the composition of the Committee is late at night?

There are at least three good reasons why the debate should be in prime time next season. First, there is increasing opposition to the proposal. Secondly, the composition of the Committee in terms of the parliamentary Labour party's contribution was based on the choice of one hon. Member opposing the introduction and five backing it. It is extraordinary that the one who was chosen to oppose the measure has been in the House for only a few months and will not be nearly as effective as some other hon. Members. Thirdly, it is unacceptable to debate late at night this major issue, which will affect the reputation and public perception of how the House conducts its business, because late at night most of us—the healthy ones—have much better things to do.

Mr. Wakeham

I have already said that I am sorry that this business has to be taken late at night, but that is the best proposal for dealing with it next week. I shall certainly be here. I wonder whether the length of the hon. Gentleman's question reveals that he might have better things to do at that time. I hope that he will be here with us.

Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that some time ago I asked him what part Her Majesty's Government will play in the celebrations this summer to commemorate the 400 years since the Spanish Armada was defeated, a very great occasion in English history? Is he aware that beacons will be lit from Plymouth to Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I hope that there will be a parade of troops, at Tilbury. What will the Government be doing?

Mr. Wakeham

That is a very important question. The best I can do is to invite my hon. Friend to have a drink with me and discuss what he thinks the Government should do.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that there will be questions to the Department of Energy on Monday? We have heard quite a lot in the House about safeguarding jobs in Scotland and the desire of the Secretary of State to bring jobs to Scotland. We accept and acknowledge that. Will the Leader of the House remind both the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Scotland that they have a statutory responsibility for the electricity and coal industries in Scotland? May we have a statement on Monday on the progress of negotiations between the SSEB and British Coal in regard to safeguarding mining jobs as there is tantamount to one union operating in the mining industry?

Mr. Wakeham

My right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland know full well their statutory responsibilities and they will discharge them. However, I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's question to them.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a statement by the Government on the implications for the sovereignty of the House and for jobs in Britain of the instructions given yesterday in Brussels to a senior Government Minister that the Rover Group and British Aerospace merger should not go ahead unless the terms of the deal were approved in detail by the EEC and until there is a six-month review? As this is obviously a serious matter, and has been widely commented on in almost all this morning's papers, will the Government say what has happened, why it has happened and what are the implications?

Mr. Wakeham

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said something after his meeting yesterday. I shall refer my hon. Friend's point to him to find out whether it is necessary for him to say anything further next week.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Will there be a statement on whether other Cabinet Ministers will be spending their time picking up litter from parks when it has been specially put down for that purpose? Is the Leader of the House aware that, while the publicity-crazy Prime Minister was happy to do that, if other Cabinet Ministers were to engage in the same task they might cause less damage to the country than they do when they work in their own Departments?

Mr. Wakeham

The hon Gentleman has included rubbish in many of his questions in the House. However, this is the first time that I have heard him do it so directly. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to take the initiative and to try to help in the big task of clearing up litter throughout the country.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)

Will my right hon. Friend explain carefully to the House why he has not yet been able to set up a Select Committee on Procedure? There are matters such as the way in which we deal with European questions, including the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has just mentioned. European legislation is poorly dealt with in the House and there are great implications. There is also the issue of Members' behaviour. Many hon. Members believe that that should be reviewed and fines imposed on those who abuse the Chair. There is also the way in which the guillotine operates to prevent Back Benchers from taking part in, for example, the debate on the Education Reform Bill last night when most Back-Bench Members' amendments were not reached.

Mr. Wakeham

I recognise that my hon. Friend has a number of points which he would like to be discussed by a Select Committee on Procedure. I have said that I should like such a Committee to be set up, but I cannot add anything more to what I have said about the matter in previous weeks. We are doing the best we can.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mon)

I was disappointed by the reply that the Leader of the House gave on Monday when a question was put to him about the use of the Welsh language in the Welsh Grand Committee, because since I have been in this place I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a reasonable man. I ask him to look at early-day motion 768 on the use of the Welsh language in the Welsh Grand Committee.

[That this House mindful of the fact that the Welsh language is a native language of one of the nations of Britain, and is spoken by hundreds of thousands of people in Wales and many other people in other parts of the United Kingdom, calls for the use of the Welsh language to be permitted in the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee, using simultaneous translation facilities.]

It shows that this is not a party issue. The motion has been signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is not even a linguistic issue because the motion has been signed by English, Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament. This question is of great importance to the House. In his reply on Monday, the right hon. Member suggested that it was a matter for the House, not for him. Will he therefore reconsider the holding of a debate on this question?

Mr. Wakeham

In all charity, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that if he was disappointed by the reply that I gave on Monday he will have many disappointments in his career in the House of Commons, because I thought that I was as reasonable as I could be in the circumstances.

The Government share the desire of hon. Members to safeguard the Welsh language, but I do not believe that it would be practical to conduct any aspect of the business of the House in a language other than English. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that there are other more practical means of supporting the Welsh language, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is now actively considering. If the hon. Gentleman were able to be present tomorrow for the Easter Adjournment debate, perhaps he could make a speech on the subject, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. May I allude to the question that was put by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). Today there is to be further discussion under the timetable motion of the Education Reform Bill. It would be very helpful if hon. Members could put brief questions to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

Before the Government were sidetracked into signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which enables Ministers of the Irish Republic to pressurise Ministers of this country in private, there was a proposal that a parliamentary tier should be added to the then Anglo-Irish Council. When it was suggested that such a parliamentary tier should be created, my right hon. Friend's predecessor used to say that this was a matter for the House of Commons, not for the Government. It looks as though we need a new initiative and, indeed, an opportunity for parliamentarians on both sides to argue in public about Anglo-Irish relations, so should not this proposal be resuscitated? Will my right hon. Friend say that it is a matter for the House and not the Government, because he is the Leader of the House?

Mr. Wakeham

I am quite happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that it is indeed a matter for the House. If there is a strong desire in all parts of the House, we shall see how we go from there.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 864?

[That this House notes with disbelief the hesitation of certain broadcasting authorities to make available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary film relevant for a murder investigation in Northern Ireland; and hopes that, even at this late stage, some sense of civic and moral responsibility will prevail.]

Does he not agree that it ill becomes Members of Parliament, speaking in the safety and security of the House of Commons, to pontificate on the civic and moral responsibility of men and women who often place themselves in great danger to report to the public what is happening throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and around the world? Will he go and see the Prime Minister, take with him the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), try to knock some sense into her and show her the statement by the National Union of Journalists, issued this week, that says that if journalists are perceived to be collectors of evidence to give to the authorities and that if their impartiality is called into question they will be placed in very great danger—in even more danger than they are now? If the Prime Minister's real motive is to deny to the public of this country information about the barbarity of terrorism, the only victors will be the men of violence who believe that political change can be brought about only by violence.

Mr. Wakeham

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's desire would be the same as the Prime Minister's — to bring to book the people who perpetrated those terrible murders in Belfast on Saturday and to speed it up in every possible way. The RUC called yesterday on the BBC and ITN and took possession of film of the events surrounding the murder of the two soldiers in west Belfast on 19 March. I hope that this material will be of considerable assistance to the RUC in the major murder inquiry that it has now instituted.

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford)

Will my right hon. Friend have a clear idea after Easter of when the Criminal Justice Bill will return to the Floor of the House so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to debate and vote on capital punishment?

Mr. Wakeham

I shall report to the House as soon as I am able to do so, but I cannot give my hon. Friend any news today.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

Could there be an early debate on the danger of solvent abuse to young people? Is the Minister aware that about three youngsters die each week from solvent abuse and that in recent weeks two have suffered this tragedy within the city of Leicester — one being the 14-year-old son of a most respected councillor? Will he please ask the Home Secretary what steps have been taken, what steps he is taking and what steps he proposes to take in order to meet a menace that is, alas, growing all the time?

Mr. Wakeham

I am sorry that I cannot promise the hon. and learned Gentleman a debate next week, but I certainly undertake to report to the Home Secretary on the point that he raised.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)

Given my right hon. Friend's wider responsibilities as Leader of the whole House, does he agree that if parliamentary democracy is to operate efficiently, and that if minority rights are to be respected, it is vital that the decisions of the Chair should be respected? Is it not a matter of concern to my right hon. Friend, therefore, that a senior Member of this House, a member of the Chairmen's Panel, voted against his motion to suspend an hon. Member who had been named by Mr. Deputy Speaker during the Budget statement?

Mr. Wakeham

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital for the proper running of this House that the decisions of Mr. Speaker are upheld. I hope that all hon. Members will support Mr. Speaker in his very difficult task.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on the seizure of the film from the BBC and ITV? The right hon. Gentleman must recognise the jeopardy in which every BBC and ITN reporter, camera man, crew man and sound recordist is placed. It is a very important issue that cannot be swept to one side.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for a debate on the Jarvis plc report that was published this week and sent to every hon. Member?

There have been leaked documents from the Secretary of State for Transport about the Settle to Carlisle railway. It is a long-standing issue. I have asked the Leader of the House on at least three occasions for a statement. The matter ought to be cleared up, since one Government Department has produced a useful report that advocates retention of the line while the Department of Transport is busy trying to sabotage it and get it closed.

Mr. Wakeham

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that the BBC and ITN handed over film taken at the event in order to assist the RUC in its major murder inquiry. I believe that that was the right and proper way to proceed.

As for the Carlisle to Settle railway, the recent Jarvis report is a helpful contribution to the debate, and the Secretary of State will take it fully into account before reaching his decision.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)

If my right hon. Friend decides to disburse taxpayers' funds to minority political parties, will he take into account the fact that the Scottish National party Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had no sooner been allowed to return to the House after his expulsion from it than he stated that he intends to increase parliamentary disruption and guerrilla tactics and to destroy democracy? He is supported in that view by his two colleagues. If those who wish to disrupt Parliament do not want to take part in the democratic process, I suggest that they should not be funded to do so.

Mr. Wakeham

The question of the Short money will be a matter for the House, not for me, to decide. My hon. and learned Friend referred to press reports about threatened disruption of the proceedings of the House. I cannot believe that any Members who have been elected by the democratic process would seek to rely on unparliamentary means to achieve their objective.

Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Would the Leader of the House make a progress report —if that is the proper term—on the fate of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? I understand that in response to the letter that he received from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, he wrote to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. Would it be possible to divulge the contents of that letter so that we might have some hope?

Mr. Wakeham

The letter that I wrote was to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. It is up to him to decide how to proceed, having received that letter. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull)

In considering shorter speeches, will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to shorter questions, and perhaps give the House some guidance?

Mr. Wakeham

The short answer is yes.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

In view of the concern about parliamentary behaviour, would not next week be a good time to discuss early-day motions 228, 253, 272, 273, 286, 622 and 627?

[That this House notes in the book, 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.]

[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.]

[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 'Britian 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.]

[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.]

[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.]

[That this House notes that in an article by Mr. Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror, dated 28th January, a Ministry of Defence official, Mr. Paul Newbegin, is quoted as having admitted witnessing the shredding and incinerating of the log book of HMS 'Conqueror'; is concerned that if this statement is true, the Ministry of Defence is guilty of having established an entirely bogus investigation into the disappearance of the log book when the facts of its deliberate destruction were already known; further notes the parallel between this case and that of the leaked Solicitor General's letter in the Westland Affair, when a similar investigation was launched despite the availability in advance of all the salient facts; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Defence to set up an immediate inquiry with the genuine purpose of furnishing Parliament with a full explanation of this bizarre series of events.]

[That this House calls for a debate on the conduct of honourable and right honourable Members of the House, considering the position of back bench members who resort to unparliamentary language and Heads of Government who misuse Law Officer's letters and then display lack of candour about what they have done.]

Would the Leader of the House expand on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about the letter from the Prime Minister's private secretary, Mr. Gray, to Mr. Jeffrey of the Department of Education and Science? When I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science about that letter in the debate on the Education Reform Bill, as reported in column 233 of Hansard, he replied—at his most charming and with that famous smile of his—that I should address such questions to the Prime Minister. When I went to the Table Office, the learned Clerks told me that the Prime Minister has blocked every question on this issue.

The Leader of the House says that he has nothing to add, but he has said nothing, so I do not know what he has nothing to add to. There is an easy solution to all this: go and ask Mr. Ingham what he did.

Mr. Wakeham

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

If I or any of my right hon. or hon. Friends were to put up for the leadership of the Conservative party against the Prime Minister, it would certainly be futile, it might well be selfish, and it would certainly be self-defeating. If we were to have a debate on the subject, would the leadership of the Government have the arrogance and the antidemocratic gracelessness to say so?

Mr. Wakeham

I have to say to my hon. Friend that there is a certain hypothetical ring about his question.

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

Does the Leader of the House have a view on why Privy Councillors should be given priority in being called in debates?

Mr. Wakeham

By and large, I think the traditions of the House have stood the process of time and provide us with the best way to proceed. I am always open to suggestions, however, and I consider them carefully—especially those made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see early-day motion 864 on the tapes of the funerals at Andersonstown last week?

[That this House notes with disbelief the hesitation of certain broadcasting authorities to make available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary film relevant for a murder investigation in Northern Ireland; and hopes that, even at this late stage, some sense of civic' and moral responsibility will prevail.]

Has he also had an opportunity to look at the article in The Independent, in which it is pointed out that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is the Liberal party spokesman for Northern Ireland, agreed that the tapes should be handed over but that an hour or so later he was contradicted by his leader, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel)? In the light of the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland, may we have a debate on this matter —particularly so that the Liberal party can explain its new-found unity on the position in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Wakeham

I find it inconceivable that any responsible person should think that the BBC and ITN should not hand over the films, given the seriousness of the situation in west Belfast. But I have no ministerial responsibility for the views of the Liberal party.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I again remind the House that we have a timetable motion on the subsequent business and I therefore ask for brief questions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

In view of what the Prime Minister has said about single unions at Dundee, will the Leader of the House ask her whether she would now be in favour of a single union at GCHQ?

In view of the creative litter-placing that took place last Wednesday, will the right hon Gentleman also ask her whether the Secretary of State for the Evironment will come to the Dispatch Box to explain who will pay for the placing of that litter? Will the councillors be surcharged for wasting ratepayers' money? Will the BBC be asked to deliver all its untransmitted film, including the shot in which, unfortunately for her, the Prime Minister missed one of the pieces of carefully placed litter and picked up some genuine rubbish?

Mr. Wakeham

I do not think that anything in the hon. Gentleman's diatribe requires me to say anything other than no.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Is the Leader of the House aware how insulting it is both to Scottish Members of Parliament and to the people of Scotland that we will have only an hour and a half to debate the regulations dealing with the whole procedure of implementing the unwanted and unfair poll tax? Is not that a reflection of the fact that the Minister is incapable of putting a proper case and that the Government have no arguments in favour of the tax worthy to put to the House?

Mr. Wakeham

The reason why an hour and a half is adequate is that the points at issue are minor and technical —[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I know that Opposition Members do not accept that, but I am not prepared to shift from that ground.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

Does the Leader of the House realise that his dismissal of the regulations as minor and technical will be deeply resented in Scotland where people are only too well aware of the serious civil liberties implications of the regulations? Does he not realise that the Scots will see him as acting like a thief in the night, trying to slip through highly controversial regulations without proper debate or analysis of their impact on the Scottish people?

Mr. Wakeham

I am not sure that the points that the hon. Gentleman made about me were exactly flattering. Clearly he did not listen to the answer that I gave a moment ago. I said, not that the community charge registration regulations were minor and trivial, but that the points at issue were minor and trivial.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Is the Leader of the House aware that only this morning Standing Committee E, dealing with the poll tax legislation for England and Wales, was debating clauses that affect Scotland? One clause added a new exempted category—visiting forces. The Minister was pressed about the category of severely mentally handicapped people as early in the Committee's proceedings as February, but he has still not found time to discuss the matter with his Scottish colleagues. The regulations, which are described as minor and technical, are to go before the House at 10 pm on Monday, yet the matter is still being discussed in Committee.

Mr. Wakeham

I am not sure that I would be in order if I were to discuss the proceedings of a Standing Committee, but I shall certainly refer the hon. Lady's point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)

Will not the Leader of the House accept that the Scottish poll tax regulations are virtually incomprehensible to lay people, and about as readable as a Russian novel? Does he not accept that most people will not understand what is required of them, and will he join me in advising everyone in Scotland who receives a form to go to the registration officer or send the form back without further question?

Mr. Wakeham

No; and I think that the hon. Gentleman's points are more appropriate to the debate than to business questions.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)

May I caution the Leader of the House against spending too much time bothering about the proposed consistent disruption of the House by certain Members of the Scottish National party? In order to disrupt, they would have to be here and, judging by the SNP's past record, there will be precious little attendance or disruption.

Would the Leader of the House therefore spend more time addressing himself to the question that has been raised about the poll tax regulations? He may recall that I raised this matter last Thursday. On that occasion the Leader of the House described as "minor and technical" the fact that the regulations were unlawful. How can a Government who place so much stress on the necessity to act within the law then decide to allow one minute for each Scottish Member to discuss the imposition of unlawful regulations in Scotland so that they can push through what is already widely regarded as an unfair poll tax?

Mr. Wakeham

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not treat these things lightly. I know that he raised the matter with me previously. I have given the matter long thought and decided to do what I have announced to the House this afternoon. I do not think that I made a mistake in doing so.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

Will the Leader of the House accept that, if by any chance he believes that what is being put through on Monday night is minor and technical, he is suffering from a severe delusion? What is being put through in an hour and a half on Monday night is the whole business of registration and the designation of a responsible person within a household. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this thing is to be bludgeoned through without explanation or debate and in the midst of total confusion, it will be no surprise when literally millions of people in Scotland follow the advice of Opposition Members and send the forms back? Indeed, the Government have invited them to send the forms back if they do not understand them. They will be sent back and the Leader of the House will bear responsibility for that. Seventy five per cent. of Scottish opinion is totally opposed to the poll tax. It can command 15 per cent. support. In fact, 15 per cent. of Scottish Tories are demanding a campaign of non-payment. Yet, in an hour and half on Monday night, this gobbledegook is to be shuffled through. The forms will be sent back, and the Government will be responsible.

Mr. Wakeham

The hon. Gentleman is under a bit of a misapprehension as to exactly what is happening on Monday night. If he is at the debate, he may find out.

Mr. Dennis Turner (Wolverhampton, South-East)

I wonder when the Leader of the House will find time for another debate on rising crime. In the west midlands and my constituency many thousands of people live in fear and frustration. In the west midlands, despite an appeal by the committee of the west midlands police authority and the police chief, we are still awaiting fulfilment of the promises that have been made with regard to improving our community policing. We are short of resources. From the Autumn Statement we learned that the Home Secretary and the Government are committed to investing more funds in the police. May we have an early debate so that we may know, certainly in the west midlands, whether we will be able to offer something tangible and concrete to the people of our conurbation?

Mr. Wakeham

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. He will recognise that the Government have allocated an extra £500 million in the coming financial year for the fight against crime and for the upholding of law and order. However, I cannot promise an early debate on the subject because we have a lot of other matters with which to deal. However, he might like to try his luck tomorrow in the Easter Adjournment debate.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 738, which has been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

[That this House calls for the return of British Standard Time in order to provide an extra hour of daylight that will reduce the number of road accidents, probably by 600 fatal and serious accidents every year according to research findings, reduce crime and energy consumption and increase opportunities for tourist and leisure activities.]

Yesterday, the motion was supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents because it says that the restoration of British standard time will reduce fatal and serious accidents by 600 per year. The evidence from the Policy Studies Institute shows that British standard time or a combination of British standard time and double British summer time would produce prodigious savings in fuel and lighting, ease trade communication with the continent, and expand the availability of leisure facilities, especially for the very young and elderly. In view of the savings to be made in resources and human life, and in view of the long period that would be necessary to make the change, does not the Leader of the House consider that to be a prime and urgent priority?

Mr. Wakeham

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I answered a question on that subject earlier. In case he was not, I will repeat what I said. The question of British summer time is under active consideration by the Government. For this year and next year the present situation will remain unchanged. That will allow the Government to consider and consult on what arrangements should be adopted subsequently. I know that the hon. Gentleman will find a way of making sure that his views are expressed to the Government at the appropriate time.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 868 concerning the problems facing the Kurdish people in Iraq?

[That this House is alarmed at the continuing persecution of Kurdish people in Iraq; records its horror at the way all Kurdish people have been treated in their struggle for a Kurdish nation; demands that Her Majesty's Government request the United Nations to send an independent mission to Iraq to seek safeguards for the Kurdish people and that the International Red Cross be requested to send essential supplies to save the lives of Kurdish people in Iraq.]

Can he find time for a debate on foreign affairs when such matters can be raised, but, in the meantime, will he communicate urgently to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the need to put pressure on the United Nations to send a team of observers to Iraq to see what has happened there and on the International Red Cross to send urgent medical supplies?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that today the Committee of Kurdish Organisations in Britain has delivered a letter to the Prime Minister pointing out that already 21,000 have died in Halabja following cyanide and other chemical weapon attacks on the town by the Government of Iraq? The very least that the British Government should, indeed must, do is to demand an end to all chemical warfare and an end to the attacks on the Kurdish people and put pressure on all international agencies to bring urgent humanitarian relief to end the tragic loss of life.

Mr. Wakeham

I understand the feelings expressed in the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred and that was made clear by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in answer to a written question on 11 March. We deplore the denial of human rights wherever that may occur. The International Red Cross cannot enter or act within a country without the permission or invitation of that country's Government. However, I shall certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 874 relating to the impending execution of Michael Lucas tomorrow in South Africa?

[That this House deplores the execution of Tsepo Letsoara in South Africa on 18th March and the impending execution of Michael Lucas on 25th March; expresses its grave concern that the apartheid regime is resorting increasingly to the use of the death penalty against opponents of apartheid; recalls the interventions made by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the Sharpeville Six; and appeals to the Foreign Secretary to intervene immediately with the South African authorities to ensure the commuting of the death sentence on Michael Lucas and all others on death row for their alleged involvement in activities relating to the opposition to apartheid.]

May we please have a debate immediately after Easter on the situation in South Africa so that we can make sure that the views of the House with regard to the possible judicial murder of the Sharpeville six is communicated in a direct way to the South African Government in view of the failure of the Prime Minister to intervene directly with P.W. Botha?

Mr. Wakeham

I do not accept for one minute what the hon. Gentleman said about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, nor do I accept the terms of early-day motion 874. We are prepared to make appeals for clemency on humanitarian grounds only in exceptional cases, and the case of Mr. Lucas does not meet our criteria for representations. We will, of course, be having a foreign affairs debate in the not too distant future, but I cannot promise a date for that debate now.