Business of the House (Hansard, 15 February 1990)

§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)
May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (8th allotted day, 1st part). Until seven o'clock, there will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party entitled "The dispute in the ambulance service".

Motion on the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

TUESDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (9th allotted day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate described as "How Privatisation Has Pushed Up Electricity Prices And Set Back Environmental Improvements". I am considering the propriety of having such narrative descriptions of debates. I shall seek to do something about it.

Afterwards, there will be a debate on the more compactly described subject, "The Royal Shakespeare Company", both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

Motion on the Clergy (Ordination) Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "What time?"] After 10 o'clock, presumably.

WEDNESDAY 2I FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, debate on Procedure motions. Details will be given in the Offical Report.

Remaining stages of the Government Trading Bill.

Money and Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill.

Ways and Means resolution relating to the Social Security Bill.

THURSDAY 22 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on East-West relations on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Landlord and Tenant Bill.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

[Wednesday 21 February, Procedure motions: Public Petitions, New Writs, Private Members' Motions.]

§ Dr. Cunningham
May I, on behalf of the whole House, thank the Leader of the House for his prompt response to the requests last week for a debate on the changes taking place in Europe? I am sure that that debate will be widely welcomed, and I thank the Leader of the House for his prompt action in that regard.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that, when we debate the procedure motions next week, the Government will not begin by taking up the time, as they did on a previous occasion, thus preventing proper time for a full discussion of the issues? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that we shall reach a conclusion on these matters when they come before the House next week? If he can be positive in his response, that would also be welcomed.
394 Does the Leader of the House recall his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying on Tuesday during the debate on the Government's public expenditure plans that Government economic policy was creating a "virtuous circle"? Does he think that people today, receiving the news of their increased mortgage payments, will regard that as an accurate statement about the impact of Government economic policy?
As we understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the chairman of the Conservative party—in the face of this news and today's opinion polls, has had to be locked up in a darkened room at Tory central office, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to come to the House next week to make a statement on the mortgage rates and their implications for millions of families? I am sure that Conservative Members, too, would like an explanation for their constituents, so will he tell us how high mortgage rates will be allowed to go under the Government? Is it not clear that the damage that is being done to people by the worst record of a Government on mortgage rates this century ought to be brought to an end?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I will begin by dealing with the point on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated last. As to parliamentary discussion of the matter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary and other Treasury Ministers have been answering questions about that this very afternoon, following the full debate last Tuesday. If the Opposition wish to debate it in their own time, there will be other opportunities, apart from the opportunity presented by the Budget statement. On the substance of the matter, the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that if inflation is to be brought effectively under control, high interest rates are a necessary part of that policy and need to be sustained until success is secured.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
When is it going to happen, Geoff?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
That question will recur no doubt on subsequent occasions.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for his appreciation of the early debate on East-West relations.
I acknowledge the question that the hon. Gentleman put about the procedure motions. I cannot give an undertaking that there will be no other business taking up part of the time. Obviously I shall do my best to avoid it, but it is my intention to bring the matter to a conclusion in next week's debate.

§ Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)
Can my right hon. and learned Friend find an opportunity during the coming week to tell the House what steps will be taken to improve the performance of microphones in the Chamber so that disorderly remarks can be heard as well by you, Sir, as by anybody else?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Many aspects of the quality of the acoustic equipment of the Chamber are under almost continuous consideration by the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House under my chairmanship. The task is to provide a system of amplification that will ensure as effective hearing as possible of the hon. Member currently addressing the House without that system overamplifying such back-ground noise as may from time to time be heard. The 395 impact of any intervention depends on where that hon. Member happens to be in relation to the microphone currently under the command of the hon. Member who is addressing the House.

§ Mr. Ted Leadbitter (Hartlepool)
Will the Leader of the House consider once again the national shortage of teachers, the low morale of the profession and the increasing workload arising from the national curriculum? If we cannot have an early debate under that head, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement to the House on the restoration of the negotiating rights of teachers and to improve the financial offer this year for teachers to restore confidence in the profession and to attract qualified people into it?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government have recently announced their reaction to the report of the interim advisory committee, which provides for full implementation of that report in the course of the year. Following that announcement, there will have to be further consultation on the revised draft of the relevant document. Because the Government propose to stage the award, the order giving effect to the new document will be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. That will provide an opportunity for debate.

§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend request our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House next week to substantiate or deny the rumour that over 100 local authorities are to be capped for the purposes of the community charge? Will he accept that that will give much relief to many colleagues whose constituents labour under the rule of Socialist-controlled county councils? It will enable the councils to cut their cloth accordingly and will relieve the householders of the fear that they will have to pay very high community charges.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend will understand that, notwithstanding the press reports that have been published on the matter, decisions about capping cannot be made until authorities have set their budgets. The statutory deadline for that is 1 March for precepting authorities and 11 March for charging authorities. However, the Government have made it clear and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear earlier this afternoon that if authorities budget prudently and sensibly, they will have nothing to fear from capping. But if they insist on budgeting excessively, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will not hesitate to cap them and require them to reduce their excessive budgets.

§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)
The Police Complaints Authority report on the disturbances at Wapping is published today. In view of the serious matters that are described in that report, will the Leader of the House arrange for either the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General to make an early statement?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot undertake to do that, but I shall certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman's understandable interest in the report to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friends. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will answer questions in the House on the matter on Monday.

§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)
Has my right hon. and learned Friend had an opportunity to read the recent debate on the King's Cross Railways Bill or the proceedings of the Committee on that Bill? Has he noted the extraordinary statement by the Chairman of that Committee that its entire business has been dominated by the inability to provide a shorthand writer service at a tame that would suit the Committee? Does not that underline the inappropriateness of that procedure for handling matters of that scale? Could we please have an early debate on the matter?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I confess that I have not yet had the opportunity to study the passages to which my hon. Friend referred. I acknowledge that the burden of work placed on the House by the present volume of private business is a factor which we need to take into account in the course of the consideration that I am undertaking with colleagues about the right way to react to those problems.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
Will the Leader of the House provide for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the great gas robbery? By that I mean the proposal to take Scottish gas from the central North sea and pipe it to Tayside for processing and development, including the generation of 3,000 MW of cheap electricity which will undermine the competitive position of Scottish industry. We should like to know why the hydro-electric board, which is still a public corporation in Scotland, with a social responsibility, is engaged in a plan with British Steel which will destroy the Scottish steel industry. Why does the Secretary of State, not content with selling off and selling out Scottish industry, now intend to give it away?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Member has tried to deal with such a wide range of topics that it is impossible for me to answer all or any of them. I shall bring his fears to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to select one or other of the matters that he has raised as a topic for discussion in his party's time.

§ Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood)
Can my right hon. and learned Friend add anything to what he said last week about the prospect of an early debate to allow the Government to make a statement on Kashmir? Does he agree that it is a matter for the international community? Martial law has been imposed in Kashmir and there is a ban on the press. This week we have seen photographs of some ugly demonstrations in New Delhi. Is it not time that we had a Government statement on that important matter?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot, I am afraid, add to what I told the House last week on that topic. I shall draw the matter once again to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-upon-Trent, South)
Did the Leader of the House ever hear anything so silly as the suggestion of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment last week that the solution to the problem of Rottweiler dogs was to put name tags on them? Would anyone in his right mind suggest that name tags should be put on other dangerous animals such as lions and tigers 397 and that they should be allowed to roam loose? As Rottweilers are dangerous animals, can we debate next week the need to ban them completely?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I understand the increasing concern about the behaviour of certain dogs, as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which was passed only last summer, was intended to bring some remedy to bear on that matter. However, I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's concern to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

§ Mr. Robert B. Jones (Hertfordshire, West)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider the answer he gave a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, West (Mr. Hind)? Is there not already sufficient evidence that Labour and Conservative councils alike are hiding a massive increase in spending behind the community charge? Is it not right that hon. Members should have a chance to demonstrate their disapproval by having an early debate rather than waiting until it is too late?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot comment on the report or the matter raised by my hon. Friend, for the reasons that I have already explained to the House. The statutory deadlines for budget making are both in March—on 1 March and 11 March. Decisions on capping cannot be made until that time. However, I repeat that, as both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have already said, as that date approaches authorities should take into account the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will not hesitate to cap authorities to require them to reduce excessive budgets.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
Is the Leader of the House aware that Labour and Conservative Members from south-west Scotland have been campaigning for the retention of the Stranraer—London sleeper—

§ Mr. Tony Banks
There are two on the Conservative Benches.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Not that kind of sleeper.
Is the Leader of the House further aware that in yesterday's debate on transport, the Secretary of State for Transport clearly knew absolutely nothing about the facts of that service? Indeed, he was dismissive of the questions raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and myself. In the light of that, will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an early meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee to debate Scottish transport, and especially the rail service and its deterioration in Scotland?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
What I can do, although it scarcely seems necessary, is to ensure that the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) are considered not only by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

§ Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South)
My right hon. and learned Friend is a distinguished former Member for a 398 Merseyside constituency and will therefore be well aware of the horror that is shared by all sections of society and all parties at the Department of Transport's refusal to try to deal with the capital debt of the Mersey tunnels while dealing, apparently, with the debt of that grotesque political structure, the Humber bridge. That is not right. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will find the time for a debate on this urgent issue, which has economic, social and political implications.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot comment on the topic raised by my hon. Friend, except to confirm from my own recollection that there is more enthusiasm on Merseyside for the Mersey tunnels than for the Humber bridge. I shall bring that fact and the point raised by my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the crisis facing many district health authorities as they face yet more cuts in their budgets? My district health authority, for example, is faced with the loss of another 80 beds and the closure of the occupational therapy department and the children's ward.
Referring to the treatment of children, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at early-day motion 539?
[That this House believes the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has crucial implications for the future of in vitro fertilisation techniques, diagnosis and treatment of serious congenital disease, advance in knowledge of the causes and treatment of serious congenital disease, advance in knowledge of the causes and treatments for infertility, miscarriage and contraception; further believes that this important Bill deserves serious and detailed consideration on its own merits; therefore declares its intention to resist efforts of anti-abortion hon. Members to introduce the separate and controversial issue of abortion into this Bill, in particular by the moving of amendments to lower the abortion time limit below 20 weeks as the medical and ethical arguments about late term abortions are quite different from those surrounding the treatment of embryos in the 14 days after fertilisation, and believes that this essential debate on embryo research must not be allowed to be distorted and overshadowed by the inevitably heightened emotion which would follow from the introduction of abortion amendments.]
There is a printing error, because the motion should read "below 28 weeks" and not "below 20 weeks", which has been printed.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I take note of the hon. Lady's point about early-day motion 539, which will no doubt be corrected if necessary. In answer to her first point, the fact is that, under this Government, there has been a massive increase—a threefold increase in money terms and a 40 per cent. increase in real terms—in the resources devoted to the National Health Service. The reforms under consideration in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which is now in Committee are designed to promote even more efficient use of those resources to tackle the distributional problems that she has in mind.

§ Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)
My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the work of the parliamentary commissioner and the Select Committee 399 covering the commissioner. The matter has been raised with him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). However, his knowledge is not always shared by all hon. Members. Therefore, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider an early debate on the parliamentary commissioner reports?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
As my hon. Friend knows, I have discussed this matter with the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner and was pressed on the matter by our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). The response that I gave then, and subsequently, is that, if a report focuses sufficiently closely on an issue, it can be debated in the House. So far, no need has been felt for a regular report on the work of that Select Committee.

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)
Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the serious position facing the work force of the clothing manufacturing company, James Seddon (UK) Ltd., which earlier this week went into receivership, thereby jeopardising about 2,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom, including about 250 in Denny and 400 in Falkirk? The two factories are both in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Scotland about taking urgent Government action to save those jobs?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Member is certainly entitled to raise that matter. However, I cannot do more at this stage than promise to bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)
When might we have an opportunity to debate the criminal justice system, and law and order? As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, an important Government White Paper on this matter was published last week. There is considerable interest in the report of the Home Affairs Committee into the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and about matters affecting our current inquiry into the Crown prosecution service and both matters should be discussed by the House. Contrary to some of the rumours circulating in the press about the state of the Crown prosecution service, those Committee members who visited Manchester and north Wales this week found the morale of its staff extremely buoyant and discovered that the service was working well.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House that information. There was a debate on a private Member's motion on legal services on Monday of this week, when matters affecting the Crown prosecution service were discussed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. As I have told the House, I also hope for a suitable opportunity for a debate on criminal justice.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Kennedy.

§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)
rose—

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
We have been getting up and down.

§ Mr. Speaker
They are both young.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
I am the good-looking one, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Leader of the House accept that there are a number of Scottish matters, such as the future of the steel industry, the fishing industry and sleepers to England, that are of concern north of the border? Is he aware that those subjects would be best scrutinised by the Select Committee procedure? Does he accept that the absence of a departmental Select Committee on Scottish Affairs prejudices the scrutiny of the conduct of matters in the Scottish Office? Will he arrange a statement next week to announce an early constitution of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
As I have already told the House, I cannot add anything to what I went out of my way to say in the debate on the Loyal Address. The matter was also the subject of discussion in the previous debate on 20 December 1989.

§ Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange an urgent statement on the consequences of the recent storms? The floods and gales that have swept southern England over the past couple of months have brought consequences which are far more severe for most people than those resulting from the great gales of 1987. There are right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House whose constituents, like mine, are still wading up to their waists in water, are without electricity, sewerage and other services. Even this afternoon the portals of the home of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) are being lapped by water, and after 40 years in this place not even he is able to turn the tide.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend raises a point of real concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I saw some of the damage when I visited the west country at the end of last week. I shall bring my hon. Friend's specific concern to the attention of the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)
Did the Leader of the House read the recent article in The Observer, which suggested that thousands of waste disposal tips in Britain, including many in my constituency, could be a threat to the health of people living in their vicinity? Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate in order to ascertain the truth of the report, in order to put our constituents' minds at rest?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I did indeed see the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, although it is probably already in his mind.

§ Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North-East)
I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said earlier about a community charge capping debate. I realise that he cannot single out particular authorities at this stage, but this is a burning topical issue. With three weeks still to go, my constituents hope that some councils may yet cut waste, mend their ways and revise their estimates. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will concede the request for such a debate.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend's question reinforces the point made by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. Her Majesty's Government hope that all councils that have not yet completed their deliberations on these matters will take into account what the Prime Minister and I have said.

§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)
Will the Leader of the House urgently consider a serious problem? Is he aware that some of the newly privatised water companies believe that they have no obligation to provide water supplies for fire-fighting services? Will the Leader of the House accept that that could be serious, and will he introduce, if necessary, amending legislation, since it is obvious that the Water Act 1989 must be defective in that respect? Will he also accept that this is a fine demonstration of the dominance that the commercial motive now has in British society?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am not aware of the validity of the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I emphasise the central point that the whole purpose and structure of the legislation providing for the privatisation of the water industry was to enhance the supervisory effectiveness of authorities acting in the public interest. That was the object of the exercise.

§ Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some private Bills are relatively uncontroversial but are of great importance to the localities they affect, and that a considerable backlog of those Bills is now building up? Can he say how quickly that backlog will be tackled and what procedures are to be introduced for streamlining the passage of such Bills through the House?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
There are two aspects to that question. One is the management of Bills currently before the House; in relation to that, my hon. Friend will have noticed that the Chairman of Ways and Means has been nominating time for the consideration of such measures quite frequently, and is continuing to do so. On the wider longer-term question, as I have already said, I am considering with colleagues how we can best reform private Bill procedures in the light of the report from the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, and I hope to be able to give the House some news about that before too long.

§ Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)
The Leader of the House will be aware that Mr. Stevens's inquiry into alleged collusion between police, Army and loyalist paramilitary groupings in the North of Ireland is very much a litmus test of the Government's commitment to a security service there that will act at all times within the law. Will the Leader of the House try to arrange a debate on that issue in the near future so that the relevant Minister can assure the House that this time there will be no conspiracies of silence, that there will be full co-operation, that no road blocks will be put in Mr. Stevens's way, and so that the House can express its wish that, for the first time in 20 years, an inquiry in the North of Ireland will establish the truth rather than evade it?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Obviously I cannot accept the implications or framework of the hon. Gentleman's observations, but I shall certainly bring his remarks to the 402 attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, emphasising the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the matter.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for an early debate on the Labour party's proposals for a roof tax, so that we can bring to the attention of the British public the problems that they will face not only with a tax based on the value of a person's house but with local income tax? Such a debate could draw attention also to what would happen if there was ever a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer at Westminster ripping off taxpayers, and another 400 "chancellors of the exchequer" in town halls ripping them off a second time.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point, and although he made it effectively enough, I shall see whether I can find an opportunity for him to amplify it.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
Is the Leader of the House aware that, in June, the International Whaling Commission will be reconsidering the ban on commercial whaling? Great pressure is building up from Japan, Norway and Iceland to lessen the moratorium on commercial whaling. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman carefully consider arranging an early debate, in which the views of the Government and of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House on the future of the commercial whaling ban could be expressed?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government take that matter very seriously and have adopted a robust attitude throughout. We shall continue to do so.

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, ultimately, politics is about making choices and not simply registering a protest? Given that a large number of councils have announced community charge increases well above the rate of inflation, will he arrange for an early debate on local government finance? The House would then be able to compare what electors are being asked to pay in community charge this year with the amount that would have been demanded if certain councils had kept their spending down to the rate of inflation—and with what they would have to pay under the Opposition's iniquitous roof tax and local income tax proposals.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend draws attention to an important matter, which should now be under consideration in town and county halls throughout the country and by prospective electors in local elections. There is a choice to be made between higher and lower expenditure levels, just as there is a choice to be made between high-spending Labour authorities and prudent Conservative authorities.

§ Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)
Will the Leader of the House arrange as a matter of urgency for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on a report produced by the Ministry of Defence police about the dangers of withdrawing MOD police from Bishopton Royal Ordnance factory? The report concludes that such action would be dangerous and foolhardy, and could possibly prompt terrorist and criminal attacks on that factory. Will the right hon. and 403 learned Gentleman arrange such a debate to alleviate the fears of my constituents, who are terribly worried that the MOD police might be withdrawn?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I have already undertaken to draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and I do so again.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
Apparently, recently a report was issued about women going back to work. We are always having reports about women this, women that, and women the other. I do not know whether they do any good. If they do, I wonder whether we could have a debate on the problems faced by men—who do not live so long, get their pensions later, have specific medical problems, and are sometimes driven to drink by women. I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend would care to enhance his reputation still further by doing for men that which his wife has done for women—or would he not dare?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am always grateful for tributes to my wife or to myself from my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will note that the Equal Opportunities Commission, of which I know he is a fervent admirer, has produced a report making the very proposals that he has made for improving the lot of our sex.

§ Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorely tempted to reply to that last question, but I will not.
I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 538.
[That this House is alarmed at the proposals of HTV Production Services to make 112 redundancies as a result of the group's decision to apply for a publishing/contractor franchise in the next round of ITV franchise changes arising out of the Broadcasting Bill; notes that this decision puts all jobs in production in the industry at threat, damages the links between HTV and the local community in Bristol, damages the existence of local programme making and effectively establishes the profitable right to broadcast adverts; and therefore calls on the Government to take note of HTV's proposals and ensure that the new franchise is allocated on the basis of quality production of programmes]
I understand that consideration of the Bill has gone beyond that section where an amendment could have been moved, and I ask the Leader of the House to speak to his colleagues and to ensure that the necessary amendment is tabled in Committee or on Report so that no franchise is given under the new broadcasting arrangements on the basis of publishing alone, so as to protect the quality of programmes produced by companies.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I obviously cannot answer the hon. Lady in detail. HTV is an existing franchise holder. If it wishes to continue to contract under the new Broadcasting Bill, it will have to fulfil the programming requirements set out in the Bill. The staffing needed to achieve that level of service is a matter for the management, and the hon. Lady will have to find opportunities to raise her question when the matter comes to the floor of the House, as no doubt it will.

§ Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)
Could the House have an early opportunity to debate local authority housing in London? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that five Labour-controlled London authorities have collectively failed to collect £58 million of rent? That must have 404 serious implications for housing the homeless, and for the community charge for people who live in those local authorities.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I entirely share my hon. Friend's view about the grave impact of the matter to which he has drawn the House's attention. The House will be grateful to him for having done that. I cannot promise the prospect of an early debate on that subject.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
Has the Leader of the House seen the message of my late colleague, Mr. Harold McCusker, to his constituents, in which he apologised for having asked them to have hope that this House would grant them equal citizenship. Could the Leader of the House find time next week to manifest the will of the Ulster people and the House, that the people of Northern Ireland be treated as equal citizens with their fellows in the kingdom?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our distress at the recent death of his hon. Friend. I have not studied the particular text to which he referred. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said many times, he is always willing to discuss any proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman's party.

§ Mr. John Bowis (Battersea)
Following the Adjournment debate last night on the subject of the campaign by Parents against Tobacco, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an opportunity for more of these supporters of that cause in the House to have their say, and to raise the question of the non-enforcement of the law which prohibits the sale of tobacco to young people? There is also the issue of inadequate fines—25p for smoking on London Underground. Will he drop a hint or two to the Chancellor about pricing policy?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I have not yet had the opportunity to study the text of last night's debate. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and our other colleagues in the Administration will be studying it carefully.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
Can we have a debate on this somewhat remarkable report, which seems to have been well hidden away—the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the House of Commons Refreshment Department? The report was published last July, and shows that the Refreshment Department has nearly £2 million in reserve, and that, in the year 1988–89, it made nearly £500,000 profit. At the same time, people are working in the Refreshment Department for little more than £100 per week. I raised this matter with the Leader of the House last week. What is going to be done to raise the wages of people working in the Refreshment Department? We do not want cheap labour, so can they be paid properly?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Member will understand that the terms and conditions of employment of people in the Refreshment Department are set in accordance with the ordinary prevailing rates. The level of money accumulated in that account is a consequence of the changes in arrangements for managing the Department. He will remember that some years ago there was a problem of chronic loss because of the proportion of expenditure borne by the Department and more widely by the 405 Exchequer. The matter will be considered in due course by the House of Commons Commission and the relevant Sub Committee.

§ Sir Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)
May I take up an earlier question? My constituency was probably the worst affected by the recent flooding. Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to speed up an inquiry into whether the Bellwin scheme is applicable, or whether new legislation will have to be introduced to help those whose houses and property have been badly damaged through no fault of their own?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The Bellwin scheme was activated in the first instance on 26 January this year. It was subsequently extended on the sixth of this month. Details of the arrangements were sent to all the local authorities affected by the scheme, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's specific concern to my right hon. Friend's attention in case there is anything further to be said.

§ Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton)
When those of us who are inerested in textiles attended a debate on 12 January—which was a Friday, by the way—to discuss the multi-fibre arrangement, all who spoke, regardless of party, emphasised the need to continue protecting the textile industry. What was the point? The Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box yesterday and made off-the-cuff remarks which appeared to dismiss any possibility of the MFA's continuing. Surely, if he wants to make such statements, he should come to the House—preferably next week—and allow us to point out the difficulties that will arise for hundreds of thousands of textile and clothing workers throughout the country.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot answer for any construction that the hon. Gentleman may or may not have placed on what my right hon. Friend said yesterday, but he will know from the fact that we arranged for that debate to take place that we are paying some attention to the matter.

§ Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to hold an early debate on eastern Europe. In view of the problems faced by the hosiery, knitwear and textiles industry—not least the difficulties about renewing the MFA, which I fervently hope will happen—will he consider arranging a debate specifically about trade with eastern Europe? Sooner or later we shall have to consider how to help those countries, if we are going to help them. We certainly do not want cheap hosiery, knitwear and textiles to flood into Britain, as that would cause further damage to an industry which is already suffering considerably.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that aspect of the position. Plainly, if the countries of eastern and central Europe are able to begin to improve their economic performance after years of being held back by Communist domination, problems will be posed for the rest of the world trading economy, including this country's economy. I believe, however, that those issues will fall within the scope of next Thursday's debate.

§ Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)
As I am sure the Leader of the House is aware, if the Social Security Bill completes its passage, it will not immediately apply to Northern Ireland. As it contains provisions for additional finance for carers, the extension of mobility allowance to the deaf and the blind and the extension of attendance allowance to the terminally ill, will he assure the House that immediately after its passage the Northern Ireland order on social security will be presented and debated so that the people of Northern Ireland can benefit from those provisions straight away?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)
May I support the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) for a debate on the losses on the Humber bridge, which have so far amounted to £342 million? As the defeated Conservative candidate in the Hull, North by-election of January 1966, when Mrs. Barbara Castle—then Transport Minister—promised a Humber bridge, I find it hard to believe that it was worth £342 million of public money to keep me out of this place, and that for only four years.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I think that the House would have done best to have both the presence of my hon. Friend and the retention of the money.

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)
Following the tragedy at Donnington Park race course and at Hillsborough, and last week's semi-disaster at the Astoria concert hall, may we please have a debate on crowd safety before there are any more tragedies, so that we can discuss why the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive are not in charge and able to impose some discipline on gatherings of young people, which are inviting tragedy again?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot promise a debate on such a wide-ranging topic as that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He could, of course, always seek an opportunity by way of a debate on the adjournment of the House.

§ Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North)
Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 349—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sure that a copy of it would be handed to him if we were to wait—about Curry's and Dixon's repair policy?
[That this House deplores the policy of Dixons and Curry's of charging £10 call-out fees to repair goods still under guarantee; congratulates the Consumers Association and others who have condemned this policy; and calls upon the Government to introduce legislation along the lines of the National Consumer Council's Consumer Guarantee.]
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman join the Consumers' Association in condemning that practice? Will he ask the Minister for consumer affairs to make a statement in the House and to support the Consumer Guarantees Bill?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot promise a debate on that matter. Nor am I sufficiently well informed to comment on it—nor would it be wise to do so—but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend who is responsible for consumer affairs.

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his role as deputy Prime Minister, arrange for Government time to be provided for the Bill sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to repeal the law of blasphemy? Does he recognise that such a debate would enable the Government to invite the Law Commission to recommend whether any new public order laws should be introduced to replace the law of blasphemy? It would also enable the Government to call on Salman Rushdie to stop the paperback version of "The Satanic Verses" being published, which would bring an end to all protests against the book and isolate the tiny minority of men of violence who support violence and odious death threats against Mr. Rushdie.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I obviously support the general denunciation by the hon. Gentleman of threats of death in those or any other circumstances. I cannot venture to comment on the other complicated but important matters he raised, which I shall bring to the attention of the Home Secretary.

§ Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that yesterday, in the Oslo commission, Britain was isolated 13–1 on the issue of North sea dumping? He will be aware that Denmark is considering taking Britain to the International Court of Justice for failing to stop dumping, as agreed, in the North sea.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that we need an urgent debate in the House to stop Britain dumping in the North sea and, indeed, to initiate action to clear up the effects of dumping, about which fishermen have protested this week, having found their nets full of condoms, sanitary towels, syringes and all kinds of rubbish that is dumped into the North sea by the countries surrounding it? We need an urgent debate to discuss how Britain can clean up its act and work with others to clean up the North sea.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
That was a prolonged intervention by the hon. Gentleman, in which he failed to remind the House that the Oslo commission countries welcomed the restatement of the United Kingdom's commitment to ending the sea disposal of industrial wastes. Our attitude was there fully explained and showed the Government's recognition of the importance of the subject. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's particular concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North)
When the Leader of the House is discussing with the Secretary of State for Transport the recent decision over the Mersey tunnels' finances, will he draw to his attention the fact that the people of Merseyside are outraged at the prospect of having to pay £8 a head additional poll tax to bear those costs? Will he also point out that they are equally outraged over the fact that refinancing arrangements have been agreed for the Humber bridge but not for Merseyside?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Obviously I cannot comment on detailed questions, but I shall bring the particular point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)
Following the Government's refusal to refer the GEC takeover of Ferranti to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and 408 bearing in mind the implications of that decision for some Ferranti workers who may now have to face the dole, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement to the House so that those of us with Ferranti factories in or near our constituencies will have a chance to question him on that decision?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I do not think that it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to make a statement about that matter now, although I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to his attention.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about a debate or a statement on the high interest rates and the way in which they are affecting mortgages? Will he also bear in mind the fact that such a debate will enable us to ask the Chancellor whether he will allow banks additional tax relief to cover Third-world debts, which will mean that 8 million mortgage payers will have to pay more while the four top clearing banks will be making money hand over fist? Money for the Third world should not go to the top four banks in Britain; it should be used for relief for Third-world countries.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Gentleman has linked a number of matters together in a very artificial fashion. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take account of all the relevant matters when formulating his economic policy.

§ Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)
Will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the secret decision taken by the Government to station the new American nuclear bomber, the F15E, in Bentwaters in Suffolk? Will he ensure that the hon. Member for Epson and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, attends that debate, because on 6 February he misled the House when he gave an answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) that no decision had been taken, but gave me a reply stating that construction would be taking place at Bentwaters, meaning that the F15E will go there? Not only did the Minister mislead the House, but he broke American security, because that is classified information according to the American security budget. Will the Leader of the House consider prosecuting the Minister under the Official Secrets Act 1989?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
It is no part of my function to comment on a contribution that borders on a speech rather than a request or question relating to the business of the House next week. No doubt in due course there will be an opportunity to debate such matters when the House debates the Royal Air Force. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will then expound the Government's policy clearly and convincingly.

§ Mr. John P. Smith (Vale of Glamorgan)
Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement to the House on yesterday's anouncement that the Barry island resort will not be opening this season because of extensive storm damage? That will result in the loss of 120,000 visitors to the town of Barry and will be a devastating blow to the local 409 economy. Will he impress upon his right hon. Friend the need for urgent Government action, because that disaster falls outwith the Bellwin arrangements?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Obviously the House is concerned about any particular example of severe damage as a result of recent storms. However, the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about it on Monday afternoon.

§ Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)
The Leader of the House is aware that more than 100,000 people in Britain suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis. He will also be aware that a private Bill on that illness was brought to the House some 18 months ago. As enormous amounts of money are being found for research and compensation to farmers because of mad cow disease, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House an opportunity to debate ME so that we might get proper levels of research on it?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I cannot promise to find a special opportunity, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)
The Leader of the House will be aware that the present severe weather has resulted in a great many vessels of the inshore fleet being confined to port. He will be aware also that, with the allocation of quotas for white fish, the price of white fish at the quayside has rocketed. Will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about arranging as soon as possible a debate on the crisis in the fishing industry and about ensuring that there are adequate supplies for processors? If something is not done to allocate quotas properly and efficiently, it will be cheaper to buy salmon and chips than to buy cod and chips.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
There was a debate on that general topic not many days before the Christmas recess. However, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
Should not we abandon the debate on student loans—the debate that is about to take place—until we have had a chance to discuss the quite disgraceful leaflet on top-up loans that has been produced by the Department of Education and Science? The leaflet is clearly party political propaganda and should have been produced by Conservative central office. It is not something which should involve the expenditure of public funds and the use of civil servants' time. It tells us what we will decide later today in the debate. Does a Russian-type constitution now apply to this country, in that the state and the governing party are considered to be synonymous?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I hope that the leaflet will enable the hon. Gentleman to make a better informed contribution than usual to today's debate.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
Is it really right that on Tuesday evening, on the Church of England Measure, the most delicate matters, which have been considered deeply by the Synod of the Church of England, should be decided by such people as Scots Presbyterians married to Roman Catholics and by other assorted Members of Parliament? Without wishing to open 150 years of contentious history on the disestablishment of the Church, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government have any reckoning as to how many hon. Members are practising bona fide members of the Church of England? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is a very serious matter. In all this, what exactly is the role of the Minister of Agriculture in purporting to make statements, which have given great offence to some senior deans and to others who are senior in the Church of England, about policy on which his Ministry does not speak officially? May we have some reflection on that?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Member's ingenuity can be relied upon to tax my resources more than can that of most hon. Members. My response must be that that debate will take place in accordance with the established procedures of this House in relation to the established Church. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise these matters then. He knows as well as I do that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture takes part in such ecclesiastical debates in a non-agricultural capacity.

§ Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton)
After the traumatic two hours that I have just spent, I wonder whether the Leader of the House is aware of the significant problem that faces many people who want rented accommodation. Not just in the south of England, but particularly north of Westminster, there is an acute shortage of affordable accommodation. In view of the recent statement on mortgage interest increases and of the fact that more people will face homelessness, will the Leader of the House agree to an early debate on the situation?
As a result of the increased mortgage interest rate and the lack of accommodation, many thousands of people throughout the length and breadth of this country face a very difficult situation. There will be more homelessness. This is an important issue, which the Leader of the House ought to put on the agenda. I am asking for an early debate on it.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is more than open to the Opposition to place that item on the Order Paper for an Opposition day debate. He will understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is giving the closest possible attention to the general question of homelessness, as he should be doing.